If a UAV kills civilians or commits a war crime who is to blame?

[theflyingpig]

or we can stop being such pussies and get over the fact that civilians will die during war.... it is fucking war for fucks sake.

This understanding was lost after WWII. That is why we have failed to win, and will continue to fail to win any future wars. This nation has become a mere shadow of its former self. Everyone knows this.

 

[theflyingpig]

or we can stop being such pussies and get over the fact that civilians will die during war.... it is fucking war for fucks sake.

This understanding was lost after WWII. That is why we have failed to win, and will continue to fail to win any future wars. This nation has become a mere shadow of its former self. Everyone knows this.

 

[theflyingpig]

or we can stop being such pussies and get over the fact that civilians will die during war.... it is fucking war for fucks sake.

This understanding was lost after WWII. That is why we have failed to win, and will continue to fail to win any future wars. This nation has become a mere shadow of its former self. Everyone knows this.

 

[theflyingpig]

or we can stop being such pussies and get over the fact that civilians will die during war.... it is fucking war for fucks sake.

This understanding was lost after WWII. That is why we have failed to win, and will continue to fail to win any future wars. This nation has become a mere shadow of its former self. Everyone knows this.

 

[theflyingpig]

or we can stop being such pussies and get over the fact that civilians will die during war.... it is fucking war for fucks sake.

This understanding was lost after WWII. That is why we have failed to win, and will continue to fail to win any future wars. This nation has become a mere shadow of its former self. Everyone knows this.

 

[0marTheZealot]

You just got to hit the submit button once buddy.

 

[Red Irish]

This understanding was lost after WWII. That is why we have failed to win, and will continue to fail to win any future wars. This nation has become a mere shadow of its former self. Everyone knows this.

Is it possible to win a war?

 

[Craig234]

Why would you think someone needs to be charged with anything? Civilians die in war. That is why we should never rush to it.

We took out more people in the conventional firebomb raids on Tokyo than we did with the atomic bomb, and those pilots were considered heroes.

Robert McNamara, who worked for Curtis LeMay, who was in charge of the firebombing:

[q]LeMay said if we’d lost the war, we’d all have been prosecuted as war criminals. And I think he’s right. He, and I’d say I, were behaving as war criminals.[/q]

You presett firebombing as evidence of it NOT being unacceptable, when in fact you prove the opposite of how what is wrong is all too easily apologized for by people like you.

I'd bet many Japanese who did war crimes against China were 'heroes' in Japan too.

 

[CitizenKain]

or we can stop being such pussies and get over the fact that civilians will die during war.... it is fucking war for fucks sake.

So then why did this country get so upset when a couple thousand people die when some planes crash into a building? Its war, causalities happen.

 

[Modelworks]

If the operator or anyone in war bombs a target that they are told to bomb by their commander, the commander is responsible. Even if the commander was given bad intel, it doesn't matter. It is their responsibility to make sure intel is correct.

 

[bfdd]

So then why did this country get so upset when a couple thousand people die when some planes crash into a building? Its war, causalities happen.

i didn't say war was a good thing or you should be happy about killing civilians, but it happens. also 9/11 is drastically different because generally when you war you aren't targeting civilians, they are what is known as collateral damage.

 

[CitizenKain]

i didn't say war was a good thing or you should be happy about killing civilians, but it happens. also 9/11 is drastically different because generally when you war you aren't targeting civilians, they are what is known as collateral damage.

We drop bombs on weddings, how are we not purposefully targeting civilians.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

We drop bombs on weddings, how are we not purposefully targeting civilians.

There have certainly been a few instances of bad intelligence, other times when disproportionate force may have been used, and still other instances when there was too much collateral damage in proximity to the legitimate bad guys. However, in each of those situations, the wedding guests -- innocent civilians -- were not the ones being "targeted."

In warfare, the difference between outright murder and collateral damage comes down to the intentions of those who pull the triggers.

Which is why you need to decide if you are for the war, or completely against the war -- there is no middle-ground or in-between. Should you decide that you are for the war, then the innocents who may die as a result of the war are to be expected.

So, are you completely against the war in Afghanistan specifically? If not, then you need to understand that accepting the loss of innocent lives is part of that decision and therefore part of the conscious burden you take on when you pledge your support.

The loss of many innocent lives is a large part of warfare, period.

 

[Pens1566]

If the operator or anyone in war bombs a target that they are told to bomb by their commander, the commander is responsible. Even if the commander was given bad intel, it doesn't matter. It is their responsibility to make sure intel is correct.

So, just following orders ... didn't someone try that defense once?

 

[TheSkinsFan]

So, just following orders ... didn't someone try that defense once?

If it's bad intelligence, then following it is not an unlawful order, unless that fact is known before the trigger is pulled. For the action to be unlawful, the soldier piloting the UAV and pulling the trigger would have to know ahead of time that the target is an innocent civilian rather than a legitimate target.

Every soldier has the right and duty to disobey what he/she deems an "unlawful order." However, it's very unlikely that any commander would willfully target innocent civilians for the hell of it, so it is equally unlikely that any soldier piloting the drone would have to worry about the order to fire being an unlawful one.

 

[shira]

God is responsible, and had a purpose. For example, that dead civilian dared to think lovingly about his gay sister.

 

[Nebor]

We drop bombs on weddings, how are we not purposefully targeting civilians.

Weddings tend to gather people together, including groups of high value targets. Civilians are collateral damage in that case.

 

[0marTheZealot]

So, just following orders ... didn't someone try that defense once?

Please, that's a perfectly acceptable reason. There is a chain of command for a reason. If Grunt A won't carry out an order, he gets court martialed and Grunt B executes the order. It's as simple as that. It was an excuse needed by the Nuremburg lawyers to justify the sentences handed out.

Like the other person posted, the soldiers who fire-bombed the residential districts of Tokyo or the pilots who nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki also were just following orders. Again, these are war crimes, pure and simple. The wholescale slaughter of civilians is a war crime. The difference is that the US won the war while Japan lost. That's what war crimes boil down to. Winners never get prosecuted for war crimes.

 

[JS80]

Why would you think someone needs to be charged with anything? Civilians die in war. That is why we should never rush to it.

We took out more people in the conventional firebomb raids on Tokyo than we did with the atomic bomb, and those pilots were considered heroes.

Considered heroes? They WERE heroes!

 

[JS80]

War crimes only exist for the militarily weak nations. Look at what the Soviets did to German POWs after WW2. Not a single member of the 1st SS division Liebstandarte made it back to Germany after being deposed in Moscow. Several thousand Heer soldiers never made it back to Germany after capture by the Soviets.

How about the US actions in Vietnam and Cambodia? We literally killed millions of civilians. Entire villages would be bombed if they were suspected of harboring Vietcong. Or how about Iraq I when we deliberately targeted water plants, power plants, sewage plants, and other civilian infrastructure? Or Iran-Iraq where there is documented evidence that we funneled chemical and biological weapons to Iraq and greenlighted their use against the Iranian army? Or in Soviet Afghanistan when the Soviets would literally raze an entire village for killing a Soviet officer?

The bottom line is that war crimes only exist to punish the losers of wars. And even then, only if the loser is weak enough and the prosecutors strong enough. If Nazi Germany had won (or drew) WWII, there would have been no Nuremburg. Hell, Allied officers would have been on trial instead of German officers for violations against the German peoples. Look at what Israel can do because it has a powerful ally in the UN. Israel can basically ignore any allegations of war crimes against it. This is because the US is a powerful backer and because Israel has not lost any wars. What Israel does, on a daily basis, far outstrips what Milosevic and his cohorts did in Serbia. What's the difference? Serbia incurred the wrath of NATO and lost it's powerful backer in Russia. It's really as simple as that. If the ethnic cleansing happened during the '70s or '80s, Slobodan would be hailed as a hero in the East. Sure, the West may condemn him but he would never serve any time. He could effectively ignore any condemnation brought onto him by the Hague and UN because he has an 800-lb gorilla on his side.

LOL only in AT one would figure out a way to bash the Jews.

And I disagree with your post.

 

[CitizenKain]

Considered heroes? They WERE heroes!

Truly the greatest heroes are people who fly over in planes and then drop bombs on civilians. Except when someone else does it apparently.