War criminals like Bush had begun with the support of the public though. Regardless of whether there was propoganda involved or not, the people still allowed a blind eye to influence the power's movements. So we are in a way, as much war criminals as the government are.
Many war criminals have had support of the public because they lied. Hitler led many people to believe he would fix Germany, instead he had a secret agenda, which he showed during Kristallnacht. Many people did not support this. Hitler after that backed up, and only in 1942 when he was losing the war he started his secret agenda again, because he could not care about the German people, for this Aryan race had disgraced him and deserved no destiny other than the Jews. In the last year of the war he deliberately let hundreds of thousands of German (Aryan!)people die, needlessly.
Bush got support because of 9/11 to invade Afghanistan, and later on Iraq. Now 8 years later people do not support him anymore, because they felt betrayed by him. His arguments were that Iraq possessed WMDs. None were ever found, what was found was huge profits for companies and control in the middle east.
You idea of war criminal is wrong. A war criminal is someone who inflicts criminal acts on people or animals that are against the rules of engagement or common human morality. For example the bombing of red cross vehicles.
Now though, I would say the public wants to get out of Iraq, I think anyways, hopefully; we are no longer war criminals, and it justifies never being war criminals to begin with. This is because the public evokes terror on another nation for a justifies cause, being that of getting rid of weapons of mass destruction, but the government obviously sees the war as something else.
The public does not inflict terror on other nations. War criminals do, the public is often lied to, as I said before. The war criminals have a choice in what they do. If i had been a Nazi official I had a choice, and some might the right choice to not be a war criminal. Others however did choose so.
I have seen some of the news, where US troops have actually attacked civilians for no reason (as it appeared to be anyways), perhaps due to stress?, but nevertheless, an act of terrorism. Some of the civilians in the Middle East would probably argue that the US has not brought any attributes to democracy, only the increasing threats of insurgents
Armies are like products. quantity of quality. One soldier can be worth more than 10 soldiers. Many soldiers are 19 year old kids who come from broken homes, or only enlisted for the money. These people get confronted with the reality of war and see now that war is not as fun as it seems in the movies, for people actually die and suffer. I, like everyone else, will go crazy at a time.
In Israel, when the French president visited they had to get on the plain in a hurry because of a gunshot. It turned out to be a guard who killed himself due to all the stress inflicted on him. Humans are still no robots.
And well, America with its democracy... shamefully little people know its a ******* republic and the patriot act destroyed all "democratic" rights these American people stand for.
I think a war criminal is someone who causes a war, knowing that the outcome will not be for the betterment of both sides. (Better for lifstyle)
I can see the two (terrorism, and war criminal) being used interchangeably.
War criminals will never have terrorist status though, because wouldn't war criminals always hold too much power to be swayed against like terrorists are.
A war criminal is not someone who causes war, it is someone who does awful things in a war, that are not needed and go against all human dignity and morality.