The Dangerous Idea of a Well-Behaved War.

[Donald H]

The Dangerous Idea of a Well-Behaved War

There is dominant propaganda that seems to suggest war can be conducted in a clean and orderly way and that civilian deaths are always exceptional, writes Antonio De Lauri. By Antonio De Lauri Common Dreams The war in Ukraine resuscitated a certain dangerous fascination for war. Notions suc

consortiumnews.com

By now there should be nobody unaware of the fact that rules on behaviour have been mutually agreed upon by both sides.

But after Zelensky advised civilians to pick up arms to fight the Russians, how can there be any limitations on Russians killing Ukrainian civilians?

Women and children?

Zelensky has made a huge tactical mistake that will tie the hands of any future investigation. As unlikely that obviously is that there could be a war crimes investigation?

America's 40 wars of aggression is a huge backlog the ICC will never be able to handle to begin with.

The story makes some relevant points of interest.

Some exceptions to the rules for the home team only:

Whatever deviates from this idea of a proper and noble war is considered an exception. U.S. soldiers torturing prisoners in Abu Ghraib: an exception. German soldiers playing with a human skull in Afghanistan: an exception.

The U.S. soldier who went on a house-to-house rampage in an Afghan village, killing 16 civilians including several children with no reason: an exception. War crimes committed by Australian troops in Afghanistan: an exception. Iraqi prisoners tortured by British troops: an exception.

 

[Mushroom]

But after Zelensky advised civilians to pick up arms to fight the Russians, how can there be any limitations on Russians killing Ukrainian civilians?

Women and children?

Actually, civilians that pick up arms are covered in a great many of the "Laws of Land Warfare".

The population of a territory which has not been occupied who, on the enemy’s approach, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having time to organize themselves in accordance with Article 1, shall be regarded as belligerents, if they respect the laws and customs of war.

Article 2 of the Hague Regulations, 1899

The inhabitants of a territory which has not been occupied, who, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having had time to organize themselves in accordance with Article 1, shall be regarded as belligerents if they carry arms openly and if they respect the laws and customs of war.

Article 2 of the Hague Regulations, 1907

This is again repeated in the Third Geneva Convention of 1949.

And interestingly enough, the Regulations of Warfare of the Russian Federation, dated 2001 state the exact same thing.

In addition [to captured combatants], the following persons captured by the enemy are also prisoners of war:, inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the rules of international humanitarian law.

In short, there is no excuse for the unlimited attacks upon civilians. It is completely against International Law, and against the laws of the Russian Federation.

And by the same token, would it then be legal for fighters from Ukraine to go into Russian cities and start slaughtering civilians? Or would you call that a war crime?

 

[Donald H]

Actually, civilians that pick up arms are covered in a great many of the "Laws of Land Warfare".


Article 2 of the Hague Regulations, 1899


Article 2 of the Hague Regulations, 1907

This is again repeated in the Third Geneva Convention of 1949.

And interestingly enough, the Regulations of Warfare of the Russian Federation, dated 2001 state the exact same thing.



In short, there is no excuse for the unlimited attacks upon civilians. It is completely against International Law, and against the laws of the Russian Federation.

And by the same token, would it then be legal for fighters from Ukraine to go into Russian cities and start slaughtering civilians? Or would you call that a war crime?

What's your point? If Ukrainian civilians take up arms, Russian soldiers will be justified in shooting them. Same for Russian civilians or any other.

If a young girl has a weapon and it appears that she is going to try to kill a soldier of the other side, she can be shot dead and no crime will have been committed.

Are we discussing a legal war? All wars are legal to one side at least.

If charges are brought against one side, they will be against the losing side's army.

Which side is on the side of right in this war in your opinion?

 

[whitehall]

Propaganda was the basis of any and all information available to the American people going back to Iwo Jima, the Bomb and the Tet offensive. All we used to know about the 6,000 Marines who were wasted on Iwo Jima and the nuclear attack on a defenseless country and even the Tet Offensive in Vietnam was based on government propaganda filtered through the media. It's not so easy in the "age of information" for the media to support government based propaganda and avoid logical arguments but the fix is still in and anyone who disagrees with the Biden (shadow government) opinion of the situation in Ukraine is quickly labeled a "traitor". That's how the desperate system works.

 

[LuckyDuck]

Propaganda was the basis of any and all information available to the American people going back to Iwo Jima, the Bomb and the Tet offensive. All we used to know about the 6,000 Marines who were wasted on Iwo Jima and the nuclear attack on a defenseless country and even the Tet Offensive in Vietnam was based on government propaganda filtered through the media. It's not so easy in the "age of information" for the media to support government based propaganda and avoid logical arguments but the fix is still in and anyone who disagrees with the Biden (shadow government) opinion of the situation in Ukraine is quickly labeled a "traitor". That's how the desperate system works.

Up until the two nukes were dropped on Japan in WWII, the Japanese military was still viable and able to fight. Slogging through the entire Japanese mainland, would have cost thousands more US troops. So, it wasn't a "defenseless" country. What the US military did do wrong was to target cities rather than strictly military targets. The women, children and elderly in those cities were no threat and shouldn't have been targeted.

 

[Dayton3]

Up until the two nukes were dropped on Japan in WWII, the Japanese military was still viable and able to fight. Slogging through the entire Japanese mainland, would have cost thousands more US troops. So, it wasn't a "defenseless" country. What the US military did do wrong was to target cities rather than strictly military targets. The women, children and elderly in those cities were no threat and shouldn't have been targeted.

Those cities and their inhabitant were legitimate military targets by any possible standard.

 

[Mushroom]

What the US military did do wrong was to target cities rather than strictly military targets.

They targeted the main logistics base and command headquarters for the entire Southern Homeland Army, and the largest Naval Base, as well as the base where most of the submarines were built and based out of.

Those both sound like pretty solid military targets to me.