So what's the point in putting rules and war crimes in war?

[Drydess]

can you be here all day too

no im busy being a dayhooker sorry

[Ad Bot]

[cblock360]

Rules and war crimes are stupid and the gas we release on civilians should be considered "acceptable loss".

[Darth C3P0²]

most likely to limit the number of civilian and bystander casualties, plus there is some human aspects to war

[Foxscotch]

bitch........................ the forget

[Khorde]

What are the rules of war and why do they matter?
Article19 OCTOBER 2016
 

The rules of war, or international humanitarian law (as it is known formally) are a set of international rules that set out what can and cannot be done during an armed conflict.

The main purpose of international humanitarian law (IHL) is to maintain some humanity in armed conflicts, saving lives and reducing suffering.

To do that, IHL regulates how wars are fought, balancing two aspects: weakening the enemy and limiting suffering.

The rules of war are universal. The Geneva Conventions (which are the core element of IHL) have been ratified by all 196 states. Very few international treaties have this level of support.

Everyone fighting a war needs to respect IHL, both governmental forces and non-State armed groups.

If the rules of war are broken, there are consequences. War crimes are documented and investigated by States and international courts. Individuals can be prosecuted for war crimes.

quoted bc nobody seems to have read it and keeps replying

[King Tøny]

• You can't harm or imprison civilians.

Can't imprison civilians?

You don't know if any of them could be spies or not.

[King Tøny]

quoted bc nobody seems to have read it and keeps replying

Ironically the big ass text makes it harder to read because of how the sentences are broken up.

[Ceist]

Can't imprison civilians?

You don't know if any of them could be spies or not.

thats how you make spies and insurgents though, and besides, what is a civilian going to get from the military in terms of information?

[SWAT One]

Can't imprison civilians?

You don't know if any of them could be spies or not.

Right, if you can prove it. But once they become a spy, they're an enemy. Once they pick up a weapon, they're an enemy. Once they assault a soldier, they're an enemy.

It's based on the premise that said civilians are neutral.

[Drydess]

Can't imprison civilians?

You don't know if any of them could be spies or not.

relevant:

No person of Japanese ancestry living in the United States was ever convicted of any serious act of espionage or sabotage during the war. Yet these innocent people were removed from their homes and placed in relocation centers, many for the duration of the war. In contrast, between 1942 and 1944, 18 Caucasians were tried for spying for Japan; at least ten were convicted in court.

in contrast, when vietnam recruited many civilians to attack americans as spies, it ended up with an insurmountable amount of vietnamese civilians dead, regardless of whether or not they were spies---just out of suspicion

[King Tøny]

thats how you make spies and insurgents though, and besides, what is a civilian going to get from the military in terms of information?

For all you know one of the civilians could have just been Riddler in disguise.

[Maxwell.]

you get banned in real life if you break them

[King Tøny]

relevant:in contrast, when vietnam recruited many civilians to attack americans as spies, it ended up with an insurmountable amount of vietnamese civilians dead, regardless of whether or not they were spies---just out of suspicion

That's why it's handicapped to not be able to imprison civilians.

You don't know if they are being told to attack soldiers or not.

[King Tøny]

in the middle east they strap civilians with bombs.

Many soldiers get blown up because they are too trusting of civilians.

[cblock360]

in the middle east they strap civilians with bombs.

Many soldiers get blown up because they are too trusting of civilians.

This is why we should kill civilians regardless.