What is a War Crime?

[Bro. Curtis]

Hardly. You gave an opinion that said all is fair in war ... that is you want to do anything you can to defeat your enemy. Then you say Germany broke a treaty implying this made them war criminals. So, clarify please. You cannot say in one reply that there are no war crimes .. and imply in another there are war crimes.

In your opinion what constitutes a war crime?

I sdaid there was no such thing, and the crimes were committed before the war. A quick review of the thread will show you that. Learn to read & discern.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

The important thing to remember is that Chamberlain did not slack when Germany actually violated another country and he quickly declared a state of war.


Cheers, and thanks for asking,

B179755 (One never forgets his number)

Jim

Thank you. I'm going to read up on that. You've given me the desire for more knowledge, and that is always good.

 

[LadyEagle]

In answer to the OP, here is a web site with some examples of war crimes.

http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/index.html

You can google unit 731 and be horrified.

 

[carpro]

In answer to the OP, here is a web site with some examples of war crimes.

http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/index.html

You can google unit 731 and be horrified.

They left out Bush in Iraq.

Isn't that where our chief resident Bush hater was headed?

 

[Crabtownboy]

They left out Bush in Iraq.

Isn't that where our chief resident Bush hater was headed?

You are much too suspicious. I just wanted a rational discussion on the topic. But that seems impossible, at least wit some.

You cut and ran Carpo, I asked you a question and you have not answered.

 

[carpro]

You are much too suspicious. I just wanted a rational discussion on the topic.

Uh huh.

Now that you've been flushed out.

You source considers Nagasaki and Hiroshima as war crimes.

No bias there either, right?:laugh:

 

[Bro. Curtis]

And David.

 

[Crabtownboy]

In answer to the OP, here is a web site with some examples of war crimes.

http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/index.html

You can google unit 731 and be horrified.

Glad to see the Rape of Nanjing is on the top ten list. I have a friend who was a child in Nanjing when this massacre happened. I was a big surpirsed in their bibliography they did not include the book, "Hungry Ghosts" by Jasper Becker.

I noticed they did not list "The Three Bad Years," in China when up to 50 million people starved, 1960-62, from a very stupid government program, the Great Leap Forward, plus government officials lieing about crop yields to keep Mao happy.

 

[Bible-boy]

Thank you. I'm going to read up on that. You've given me the desire for more knowledge, and that is always good.

Hey Curtis,

If you can find it, read Winston Churchill's History of the Second World War: The Gathering Storm, vol. 1 (of a five vol. set), for all the inside story of what was happening on the world stage prior to the outbreak of WWII.:thumbsup:

 

[Bible-boy]

Here is a definition of war crimes. What is your thought about what constitutes a war crime?


http://209.85.129.132/search?q=cach...crime+war+criminal+defined&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1

A Wiki article is a good place to start one's research so that you can get an idea of the material and what further research is needed. However, a Wiki article should never be one's sole reference source especially with respect to modern political issues. Likewise, the specific article you linked has the following note attached:

This article or section has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality.
Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page. (November 2008)

This should have been a major clue that perhaps the information in that article needed much more additional research on your part before using it as your sole source here.

War crimes, as I understand them, are determined based upon whether or not those engaged in fighting a war violate the principles of Jus in Bello.

Jus in bello, by contrast, is the set of laws that come into effect once a war has begun. Its purpose is to regulate how wars are fought, without prejudice to the reasons of how or why they had begun. So a party engaged in a war that could easily be defined as unjust (for example, Iraq’s aggressive invasion of Kuwait in 1990) would still have to adhere to certain rules during the prosecution of the war, as would the side committed to righting the initial injustice. This branch of law relies on customary law, based on recognized practices of war, as well as treaty laws (such as the Hague Regulations of 1899 and 1907), which set out the rules for conduct of hostilities. Other principal documents include the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, which protect war victims—the sick and wounded (First); the shipwrecked (Second); prisoners of war (Third); and civilians in the hands of an adverse party and, to a limited extent, all civilians in the territories of the countries in conflict (Fourth)—and the Additional Protocols of 1977, which define key terms such as combatants, contain detailed provisions to protect noncombatants, medical transports, and civil defense, and prohibit practices such as indiscriminate attack.
Source: http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/jus-ad-bellum.html

These also may help answer your questions about Jus in bello (and what constitutes a war crime):
http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/jus_in_bello/
http://www.iep.utm.edu/j/justwar.htm

 

[OldRegular]

I just wanted a rational discussion on the topic.

You asked a question but I doubt if you wanted a rational discussion. I believe you just wanted a devious way to smear President Bush.

What is a War Crime. In reality it depends on who wins the war. Does anyone doubt that if Germany and Japan had won WWII there would have been mass slaughter of dissenters throughout any occupied country. Remember the Holocaust and the Rape of Nanking? Remember the Bataan Death March? The mortality rate in Japanese prison camps was 50%, that in German prosin camps was ~10 %.

Does anyone doubt that if the Soviet Union had won the cold war there would have been mass starvation of dissenters. Remember the millions of "White Russians" slaughtered and starved after the Russian Revolution? Remember the Siberian Gulags to which all dissenters were banned forever?

But there is something much worse going on in this country right now. It is a War Crime against the Unborn. Since 1973 50 million unborn babies have been murdered: some by dismemberment; some by scalding with a salt solution; some by yanking them from their mothers womb feet first, piercing their head with scissors, and suctioning out their brains. That is about 4000 per day, more than American Soldiers killed in Iraq. Now MR. Crabtownboy you want to talk about War Crimes. There is a War Crime to talk about. If I am not mistaken you are a supporter of a man and political party that wants to continue this War Crime, forever. Now explain that to the people on this Forum you have disingenuously attempted to drag into a smear of President Bush.

 

[JustChristian]

Mr

No, you did not answer Curtis' question. By the definition you gave in your Original Post, do you consider King David a war criminal? you also asked I think and Curtis might agree that according to the definition given David might be convicted in a 21st century court. However, I think and Curtis might agree with me that such a finding is irrelevant, immaterial, and bogus.

The original question was never answered in good faith. To say that it's ridiculous to ask whether Hitler committed war crimes doesn't agree with reality. If Hitler wasn't a war criminal who was?

 

[JustChristian]

Like I said in a previous post, Germany violated an international peace treaty, simply by building up their military. Germany committed many crimes before the war started.

In my view, breaking a treaty is not a war crime. War crimes are committed against individuals not countries although I guess you could call genocide a war crime.

 

[JustChristian]

Jim, I know you must have held the hands of young men who were dieing, and if I can jump into your head a bit, I imagine at the time you were very young yourself. God bless you for doing that. Nobody here can imagine what you went thru.


Getting back to Chamberlan for a minute, if you can offer some historical perspective, is it true that he kind of gave half of Poland, or the future Czech republic to Germany, to appease them, during the military buildup. If I understand that correctly, it sure does shoot a hole in the "talk to them" mentality, I feel.

I agree that that's true in that one situation. In general, I think it's better to talk first. During the Cuban missile crisis and I'm sure during several other times we didn't know about not talking first would have meant the extermination of the human race.

 

[Bible-boy]

Rather than continue arguing over who didn't answer who's question first let's return to the subject of the OP:

Here is a definition of war crimes. What is your thought about what constitutes a war crime?


http://209.85.129.132/search?q=cache...n&ct=clnk&cd=1

A Wiki article is a good place to start one's research so that you can get an idea of the material and what further research is needed. However, a Wiki article should never be one's sole reference source especially with respect to modern political issues. Likewise, the specific article you linked has the following note attached:

This article or section has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality.
Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page. (November 2008)

This should have been a major clue that perhaps the information in that article needed much more additional research on your part before using it as your sole source here.

War crimes, as I understand them, are determined based upon whether or not those engaged in fighting a war violate the principles of Jus in Bello (i.e. right or just action in war).

Jus in bello, by contrast, is the set of laws that come into effect once a war has begun. Its purpose is to regulate how wars are fought, without prejudice to the reasons of how or why they had begun. So a party engaged in a war that could easily be defined as unjust (for example, Iraq’s aggressive invasion of Kuwait in 1990) would still have to adhere to certain rules during the prosecution of the war, as would the side committed to righting the initial injustice. This branch of law relies on customary law, based on recognized practices of war, as well as treaty laws (such as the Hague Regulations of 1899 and 1907), which set out the rules for conduct of hostilities. Other principal documents include the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, which protect war victims—the sick and wounded (First); the shipwrecked (Second); prisoners of war (Third); and civilians in the hands of an adverse party and, to a limited extent, all civilians in the territories of the countries in conflict (Fourth)—and the Additional Protocols of 1977, which define key terms such as combatants, contain detailed provisions to protect noncombatants, medical transports, and civil defense, and prohibit practices such as indiscriminate attack.
Source: http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/jus-ad-bellum.html

These also may help answer your questions about Jus in bello (and what constitutes a war crime):
http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/jus_in_bello/
http://www.iep.utm.edu/j/justwar.htm

 

[Bro. Curtis]

The original question was never answered in good faith. To say that it's ridiculous to ask whether Hitler committed war crimes doesn't agree with reality. If Hitler wasn't a war criminal who was?

The question was not asked in good faith. A definition was given, and we were asked who fit it. If David fits it, then most certainly Hitler would fit. It's a ridiculous premise.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

In my view, breaking a treaty is not a war crime. War crimes are committed against individuals not countries although I guess you could call genocide a war crime.

Well, in my view, breaking a treaty is the beginning and end of war crimes. The rest is war.

 

[Bible-boy]

I noticed that a certain poster visited the BB today and made 17 posts, but none in this thread. I guess he did not really want to talk about Jus in Bello. Hmmm...

Well, it's time for me to cut and run for dinner and to ring in the New Year with friends and family. Happy New Year Y'all!:wavey: