War criminals should have terrorists status.

@diamantis,

What is a war criminal in your definition?

@diamantis,

Terrorists are people or organizations - regardless of how they got their ideals - who do terrible things, namely inflicting terror (hence terrorist) to achieve a goal. These are namely "noble" causes, as expressed by themselves, like the terrorist groups like FARC and ETA, Hezbollah, Hamas and many others who fight for freedom or other important issues, regardless of it's price.

All of Europe approved of these sorts of terrorists during the second world war against the oppressing German forces ruling Europe. We however do not now for some reason.

The term terrorism has been quite perverted and misused by the American and also extensively by European government (Dutch and British one's are big spenders on anti-terrorism campaigns) and allied media to display Muslim terrorists as the main threat. These Al Queda terrorists are however the terrorists whom i suppose you are talking about. The Al Qaeda allied terrorist groups who fight for different reasons, that according to our western knowledge, culture and thinking seem retared.

Terrorists like Al Qaeda might fall under war criminals, but only because their ideals are not compatlible with our ideals. Still remember that many terrorist groups like the Al Qaeda ones do not exist of only war criminals. There are people of my age, and your age who have been brainwashed in believing they are doing the right thing. Only their leaders are often the war criminals who really fight in a war.

War criminals, like the one's from Bosnia (Srebrenica, 1992-2995) to name an example did it for different reasons. It was extermination, genocide, infanticide and maybe even etnocide. They do not seek the freedom that FARC, ETA or any other group wanted, they did it because they wanted to, the wanted to kill these people, they enjoyed these tings.

War criminals are the people who run the war, like the Nazi's. They have the status war criminals because they even for their own laws were doing criminal things in the war.

The inflicting of which you speak is true, a terrorist group can inflict as much damage as an army, but the reasons are different. Also the types of terrorism are different.

@Vasska,

Terrorism is a tactic that is only one of many ways in which someone can be a war criminal. I'm not sure I would count forced resettlements, mass rape, and genocide as "terrorism", even though they clearly fall under the rubric of war crimes.

Furthermore, terrorism need not have any association with war. Look at the sarin gas attack in the Tokyo subway, or the Oklahoma City bombing.

Terrorism is a tactic mainly characterized by unpredictable acts of violence against civilian targets, particularly in order to deliver a political message or further a political movement.

War crimes are exceptionally important to have on the books as such, to codify that the conduct of war must ensure certain protections for non-combatants.

@diamantis,

diamantis wrote:

To my opinion , war criminals should be regarded as common terrorists in order to minimize their status, since organized armies can deliver the same amount of unspeacable terror as terrorists groups.

:detective:So can the daily new's...

@No0ne,

No0ne wrote:

:detective:So can the daily new's...

Sure, if your daily news source happens to be RTLM Radio or Der Sturmer.

@Aedes,

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.

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.

According to Aedes," Terrorism is a tactic mainly characterized by unpredictable acts of violence against civilian targets, particularly in order to deliver a political message or further a political movement".

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.

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.

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401 wrote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401 wrote:

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.

Yes, it is an act of terror, because it is meant to subdue and intimidate people. Although it is almost certainly NOT mandated by commanding officers let alone the administration of the military -- it's patently NOT in America's interest to be responsible for civilian casualties except where entirely unavoidable.

Probably the classic example of where terrorism and war crimes were more or less synonymous were the actions of the Einsatzgruppen and more generally the SS on the Eastern Front of WWII.

@Aedes,

Thank you, Aedes, you are on the path to the reason why I asked what war, uuh, criminals are according to diamantis. The fact that war-crimes are commited by people following orders seems a reason for governments never to presecute war-criminals like terrorists.

The difference betwee war-crimes and terrist acts consists of the origin of the orders. War-crimes are being committed by following orders of 'the government'(or the chain of command in its place), while acts of terrorism are commited by 'shadow-governments', who wish to influence the acting governments into stopping their (war-)crimes, or become the acting government.

An acting government will never prosecute he committers of war-crimes in the same way as the committers of acts of terror in the same manner because the people following the orders of the state must have the illusion that they are on the side of 'good'; that following orders is 'good'. When prosecuted in the same way that illusion will become more transparent and a denial of the authority of the acting government becomes more likely.

So, it is in the interest of the state to uphold the lie that that state is the 'good'.

Dr. Joseph M. Goebbels, Nazi minister of propaganda said, "It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth becomes the greatest enemy of the State."

@Arjen,

Yes, I agree. I mean the difference may be semantic given that the actual tactics on the ground may be identical. But there's a reason why the US and the UN have always spoken of "state-sponsored terrorism". It's because the terrorist activities are never overtly the executors of government policy. It's only below the radar screen. And this pertains to the whole spectrum -- from the Libyan government sponsoring the destruction of the PanAm flight through the US funding Central American paramilitary organizations in the 1980s.

But a lot of this has to do with 1) terminology and 2) ultimate responsibility. Not so easy to pin down outside of war. The US can easily claim to have been unaware of the terror tactics of, say, the Sandanistas. The US can easily disavow any terrorization of local people committed by its own troops. Sometimes it's more credible than others.

But the US really needs to be better about prosecuting human rights violations by its own troops if it wants any kind of credibility when something inevitably happens.

@Aedes,

Although I appreciate the aesthetical ideal that I think Aedes is still clining to I would like to point out that it is not just the US needs to be better about prosecuting human rights violations by its own troops, but all governments. None of them ever will though, even though the appearance may be upheld for some time, only to require a new president, general or senate now and again because the orders for the altrocities were actually part of the standing orders the soldiers had recieved from their superiors.

The aesthetical ideal I am referring to is the thought that 'the state' exists for the benefit of the people and is the 'good' people refer to when saying that one has done the 'right' thing. I am very skeptical when it come to that because of the fact that the weapons that are supposedly used to keep back the enemies of the state (and by that ideal of the people) are also pointed towards the people living under the reign of any state and they are used to enforce unpopular decisions, or charge at unwelcome demonstrations.

I do not think that any people, living under any government are free. I think that people may think so because of the indoctrination of said aesthetical ideal though. This brings up the question to what extent government actions are terrorist acts, intent on influencing the decision making process to the side of giving up a little freedom to gain a little security.

Perhaps this quote will be superfluous:

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
~Benjamin Franklin

@Arjen,

Arjen wrote:

Although I appreciate the aesthetical ideal that I think Aedes is still clining to...

What "aesthetical" ideal?

There are two aspects to this argument. The first is terminology. We have not done a good job in this thread about defining terms. So let's consider what terrorism means, what war criminal means, and perhaps some related terms and scenarios that might come up.

The second aspect is the human ethics element. In this we are probably all in loose agreement that insofar as there are political conflicts that at times result in war, it is unacceptable to inflict harm or death on noncombatants or deprive them of their basic needs, and it is expected of all combatants that noncombatant casualties be tactically and strategically minimized. This loose definition avoids some of the lumping and splitting.

So inasmuch as we all think war crimes are very bad and terrorism is very bad, and inasmuch as we're not out to turn this thread into a worn out good-USA versus bad-USA debate, then the key is to debate whether terrorism should always be reclassified as war crimes or if war crimes should always be reclassified as terrorism.

This is not really a moral argument, let alone an "aesthetical" one. It's a matter of getting down to the semantics.

Quote:

I would like to point out that it is not just the US needs to be better about prosecuting human rights violations by its own troops, but all governments.

Agreed. But what's more insidious is the complicity of various governments in crimes they don't commit themselves. The behavior of France during the Rwandan genocide was, frankly, of historically criminal proportions, and yet it rarely comes up unless you read the history closely. The behavior of China in the current crisis in southern Sudan (incl. but not limited to Darfur) is similarly criminal. Very difficult to prosecute this when the best we can do is get the president of Sudan indicted after roughly 20 years of war and 2-3 million dead.

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

What "aesthetical" ideal?

There are two aspects to this argument. The first is terminology. We have not done a good job in this thread about defining terms. So let's consider what terrorism means, what war criminal means, and perhaps some related terms and scenarios that might come up.

The second aspect is the human ethics element. In this we are probably all in loose agreement that insofar as there are political conflicts that at times result in war, it is unacceptable to inflict harm or death on noncombatants or deprive them of their basic needs, and it is expected of all combatants that noncombatant casualties be tactically and strategically minimized. This loose definition avoids some of the lumping and splitting.

So inasmuch as we all think war crimes are very bad and terrorism is very bad, and inasmuch as we're not out to turn this thread into a worn out good-USA versus bad-USA debate, then the key is to debate whether terrorism should always be reclassified as war crimes or if war crimes should always be reclassified as terrorism.

This is not really a moral argument, let alone an "aesthetical" one. It's a matter of getting down to the semantics.

Much to the contrary I think this is your version of voicing your own aesthetical ideal; in two ways even. The first and most obvious is your aesthetical ideal of what should take place in this topic, and on the forum in general. The second and I think most destructive is your aesthetical ideal on governments in general.

As I showed in my previous post war-crimes are a result of following orders from a government, while terrorism are a result of following orders from a none-governmental group. To expand on that when one investigates the matter further it turns out that both groups have the same goal: to influence the public opinion to an end of personal or ethnical gain (which lead to the same: personal gain): they are two sides of the same coin.

Now, when I said that any government behaves in such a manner and that no government will ever prosecute war criminals like terrorists. The illusion of the aesthetical ideal that the state is the 'good' must continue to exist. If that picture is lost people might wake up to see what exactly has been happening and who they have been taking orders from. So when any government in the world stands to loose that stature of being 'the good' is become of great importance to governments to denounce these governments, out of fear of losing the same ideal; even though behind the curtains the dealings go on as usual.

All this points to something else entirely, namely that it is in the nature of any state to decieve its populace because the state exists to dominate its populace, but in doing so violates every piece of the social contract; you know, the social contract in which the populace pledges to work together for mutual beneficial reasons.

Although I agree that we have not set out our terminology quite correctly I think we see pretty much eye to eye and understand eachother perfectly. If there are any questions, feel free to ask them. Getting to the first clarification needed I'll quote your previous post, Aedes:

Quote:

But the US really needs to be better about prosecuting human rights violations by its own troops if it wants any kind of credibility when something inevitably happens.

This is why I said that you are still clinging to an aesthetical ideal: the ideal that the state (in this example the usa) is 'the good'. As if you have been led to believe that if you do not support your state you are a traitor. It is here that the aesthetical ideal named 'nationalism' rears its ugly head. I hope you realise that al wars are fought by nationalists and 'patriots'. Without itpeople would not be deluded into suddenly marching to their neighbours (often brothers or cousins even!) and taking guns to their doors. But perhaps the ideal is rooted even deeper in the ideal that states exist to benefit its populace, instead of to prey upon them.

I hope this gets my point across.

Arjen

A government creates its own revolution, there can be no revolt without it.
~Lenin

@Arjen,

Arjen wrote:

This is why I said that you are still clinging to an aesthetical ideal: the ideal that the state (in this example the usa) is 'the good'. As if you have been led to believe that if you do not support your state you are a traitor.

I do not believe that at all, and even the vaguest attention to my posts on this site would demonstrate that. I'm also about the last person you could call a nationalist. You are misusing the word "aesthetical" in this post anyway, and I'm not really sure which word you're searching for.

Your on-topic points are valuable, but they're lost in your interpersonal commentaries which serve only to create acrimony. Leave them out please.

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

I do not believe that at all, and even the vaguest attention to my posts on this site would demonstrate that. I'm also about the last person you could call a nationalist. You are misusing the word "aesthetical" in this post anyway, and I'm not really sure which word you're searching for.

Quote:

Your on-topic points are valuable, but they're lost in your interpersonal commentaries which serve only to create acrimony. Leave them out please.

I am sorry you view things that way. I was after two things:
1) To prevent inquisitive minds from reading your words and being misled into thinking that some governments might be 'the good' and that 'those other governments' simply lost their way or anything.
2) To help you see the thought-objects you are using so you can free yourself from the workings thereof.

Being the carefull reader that I am I notice that you are not willing to investigate your own workings. That is fine with me, offcourse. I hope you, and any other will find some usefull information in this topic and leave it at that.

@Arjen,

If anyone would like to return this thread onto the topic, feel free, and I apologize for the little extracurricular interlude here.

@Aedes,

@Arjen,

:dots:.......

Anyways, I was wondering what is so bad in putting the USA over other countries, when it comes to rights, and government. Democracy to me is a lot better than fanaticism, dictatorship, and communism. Even though some think communism is just better in certain countries, it is ironically, only for stability.

Arjen, I appreciate the new use of the term aesthetical ideal.

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401 wrote:

Anyways, I was wondering what is so bad in putting the USA over other countries, when it comes to rights, and government. Democracy to me is a lot better than fanaticism, dictatorship, and communism.

Yes, but I'd hardly hold up the USA as the model of how democracy should work. We're more of an oligarchy than is immediately obvious. It's probably impossible for a country to be both rich/powerful and fair at the same time.

Quote:

Arjen, I appreciate the new use of the term aesthetical ideal.

:nonooo:

Philosophy Forum

War criminals should have terrorists status.

Quick Links

My Account

able2know