This blog explores the contemporary political and cultural trends from a distinct perspective
VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Published on February 12, 2010 By Bahu Virupaksha In Current Events

Each war faught during the course of this century of "extremes" as one prominent historian put is has had its own unique features. The horrendous bloodletting in the trenches during World War I, captured so evocatively by Remarque in All Quiet on the Western Front, the large scale destruction of cities and civillian life and property at Dresseden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not to forget the Japanese atrocities at Shanghai and Nanking, the Nazi genocide planned and executed by the state, are all unique features of twentieth century history.  The Black Book of Communism published recently by Harvard University Press has documented in some detail the civillian cost of ideologically inspired mass killing. So we are not being overly sensitive to the fact that the War on Terror unleashed by President Bush and carried out with great alacrity by President Obama seems to carry on the glorious traditions of the last century.

Warfare is ugly and more so when the enemy real or imagined is unseen and undetected. In all the rules of warfare in place until now the civillians could not be the direct target. Even when the US atom bombed Japan it was done on the pretext that the Japanese war machinery utilised the industries located in and around the two cities and the fire bombing of Dressden was sold to an unsuspecting public as an attack on the war machine of the Germans. All international conventions to which USA and its NATO allies are party to prohibit the intentional targetting of civillians.

In Afghanistan and in Pakistan the USA has been using unmanned drones carrying leathal bombs to target al-qaeda and taliban leaders. No one will be concerned if the drones kill their purported targets. Often the targets are chosen on the basis of rumours and gossip, malicious rumours that are spread by tribal rivalries and are picked up by US plants and relayed to the CIA headquarters and the order to strike given. In this process a large number of innocent men and women and children are being killed everyday and the drone attacks have become the single most important factor in fuelling anti US propaganda.

In each drone attack at least 20 to 30 people are being killed and in certain instances not a single militant was on the spot. It appears that the US is relying on motivated information in order to launch drone attacks. Apart from the sheer scale of the drone attacks and tney are becoming more and more frequent by the week, the widespread use of drone raises questions about US commitment to the conventions it has signed. I am not calling for a moratorium on the use of drones, as I do realise that such attacks are useful and to an extent necessary. I am simply saying that proper and judicious care must be taken to whet what is touted as "actionable intelligence".


Comments (Page 5)
9 PagesFirst 3 4 5 6 7  Last
on Feb 17, 2010

You know, you're right with the claim that maybe I complicate the issue. But Bahu has a valid point in mentioning the problematics surrounding "historic" facts. What is a fact.. there is a whole section of historiographic science dedicated to this issue. History and its facts are never not complicated.

Dreseden on its own seems easy enough, I suppose. The ctiy was bombed in war that the country where the city is in started - the end. But that fact doesn't really do much to further understand the circumstances and context, and without understanding this it is impossible to come to a neutral/objective judgement of what occurred. (I don't mean to say that you're not able to judge it or that you don't know the context, this argument is about the importance of the context of the facts not your personal knowledge)

You don't have to be a historian to be able to judge history,  but everybody who seriously claims to be an expert on certain historic periods knows the surrounding context and circumstances, and that isn't by accident. If you just had to look at the facts by themselves to derive any knowledge that wouldn't be the case.

 

on Feb 17, 2010

You know, you're right with the claim that maybe I complicate the issue. But Bahu has a valid point in mentioning the problematics surrounding "historic" facts. What is a fact.. there is a whole section of historiographic science dedicated to this issue. History and its facts are never not complicated.

The facts on the ground are almost never complicated.

Take civilian victims in a war, for example.

For me, and I have seen war with my own eyes and was shot at, civilian victims are easily explained. Some parties fire directly at civilians. They are usually excused by world opinion as "resistance" or "freedom fighters". Other parties actively try not to hurt civilians. They also built field hospitals for enemy victims and are constantly demonised by the media.

I understand that soldiers who are risking their lives can shoot human shields rather than the terrorists behind them and I am not arrogant enough to expect them to care more about the terrorists' human shields than about their own lives. (Heck, the human shields often didn't care enough to run away when the terrorists hid behind them.)

Although many solders still do care more about other people's lives than their own. This is why most human shields tend to survive these days.

There is a famous video from the 2006 Lebanon war that shows how Hizbullah fired rockets from behind an apartment building which was later hit by Isralis returning fire. Any idea how it got hit? It's not difficult. Somebody fired from its vicinity (a war crime), the people didn't leave the building for whatever reason (also a war crime), the building was hit by returned fire (not a war crime). As soon as world opinion screams I know what happened because the media and the idiots on the street ALWAYS get it wrong by ignoring plain, simple facts and instead relying on the more complicated bigger story that makes war criminals into heroic freedom fighters and careful soldiers into baby killers despite the evidence.

Hence I tend to stick to simple solutions that require less interpreting.

 

Dreseden on its own seems easy enough, I suppose. The ctiy was bombed in war that the country where the city is in started - the end. But that fact doesn't really do much to further understand the circumstances and context, and without understanding this it is impossible to come to a neutral/objective judgement of what occurred. (I don't mean to say that you're not able to judge it or that you don't know the context, this argument is about the importance of the context of the facts not your personal knowledge)

Often-times the reported "facts" contradict what I have seen with my own eyes. Facts plus research doesn't add up to "more facts" it merely adds up to better-known facts. And better-known facts tend to displace other facts, even if those other facts are more important.

The reason we even learn about civilian victims in Afghanistan is because lots of people are doing research there. And the reason lots of people are doing research there is that there are comparatively few civilian victims in that war (otherwise the researchers would likely be among the victims).

Whenever I see a television report from a certain region I know the region is safe enough to support television crews. So I am not too worried about civilian deaths because I know at least our side (the side that allows journalists who are criticial of our military in) is already doing what it can to prevent civilian deaths. Accusing them of not doing enough is arrogant. I don't know how to protect civilians better than the military does. And neither do the journalists.

I am worried about civilian deaths in conflicts that are not covered 24/7 by journalists sitting in luxury hotels.

If you are worried about innocent deaths you can really save a lot more lives if you spend money on building hospitals in Africa rather than send journalists to war zones.

 

You don't have to be a historian to be able to judge history,  but everybody who seriously claims to be an expert on certain historic periods knows the surrounding context and circumstances, and that isn't by accident. If you just had to look at the facts by themselves to derive any knowledge that wouldn't be the case.

I'm not an expert in German history but I know about the circumstances.

Start a war against England and you get your cities blown up. Lesson learned.

 

 

 

on Feb 17, 2010

Please don't mix respectable historians together with sensational media.

The media presents the facts according to the story they want to tell. After all, a jourmalist wants to make a profit from his/her work.

A serious historian looks at a fact or source of information (like the videoclip) and the first thing he would do is to analyze who filmed it, what the circumstances of the war in Lebanon were and who might have had an interest in presenting the video the way it had been in the media. This is called "Quellenkritik" and it is an essential part of a historians work. Things are never taken at a face value, especially not in the age of multimedia that we live in. It makes the work of historians decidedly difficult as a matter of fact because it is easy to "produce" evidence aka propaganda and facts as you see fit. There are forged documents even from mideval times, so that is nothing new per se, either, but I think that the new media age makes it alot easier to accomplish.

To historically judge the 2006 year in Lebanon a historian would need access towritten documents from both sides, multimedia clips, blogs (if it were possible to secure them somehow) and maybe do some oral history as well, consider the history of Isreal and Lebanon - then analyze what he got and put everything in context. It's alot of tedious work.

on Feb 17, 2010

Why it was necessary you would have to ask Allied Command, not me. I trust their decisions.

Hum, much the same response I would expect from many period Germans concerning the bombing of London, "...ask the Luftwaffe, not me. I trust their decision." Very interesting.  

And I think it did shorten the war because Germany suddenly learned the reality of the war and what it was they had done to all those other countries.

I'm willing to bet they knew the meaning of war by Feb 13, 1945.

on Feb 17, 2010

Hum, much the same response I would expect from many period Germans concerning the bombing of London, "...ask the Luftwaffe, not me. I trust their decision." Very interesting. 

That's just me. I trust anyone who liberates my country and feeds my family and then protects us against the Soviet-Union for 60 years.

And I am sure the bombing of London was also necessary to achieve Germany's goals.  But were those goals as noble as self-defence and trying to end the war?

I don't appreciate your attempt to compare me with a Nazi.

Let me give you an easier example:

If a fire man destroys a door to save a house, the door is broken and the fire man will claim that breaking it was necessary to save the house. I would believe him and I wouldn't blame him for breaking the door.

If a robber destroys a door to steal stuff from a house, the door is also broken and the robber will claim that breaking it was necessary in order to steal things. And I am sure his robber friends would agree with him about the necessity of breaking the door.

But a comparison between the gang of robbers and people who trust fire men still doesn't make a lot of sense now, or does it?

 

I'm willing to bet they knew the meaning of war by Feb 13, 1945.

Not to the degree that they would try to end it.

 

 

on Feb 17, 2010



Please don't mix respectable historians together with sensational media.



I find it more worrying that historians might not see the difference themselves.




The media presents the facts according to the story they want to tell. After all, a jourmalist wants to make a profit from his/her work.



Exactly. I wish more people would remember that. A journalist's point of view is also his point of sale.




A serious historian looks at a fact or source of information (like the videoclip) and the first thing he would do is to analyze who filmed it, what the circumstances of the war in Lebanon were and who might have had an interest in presenting the video the way it had been in the media. This is called "Quellenkritik" and it is an essential part of a historians work.



And that's what I have a problem with.

It DOESN'T MATTER who filmed it. What the video shows is either true or false regardless of the nationality, religion, or profession of the cameraman.

And it also doesn't matter why it was presented to the media (obviously so it be made known to the public, duh).

Your "serious historian" does the same as the sensational media would: he looks at the who and the why but not the what.

He would analyse everything and everyone except the simple fact that explains why the civilians were hit.




Things are never taken at a face value, especially not in the age of multimedia that we live in. It makes the work of historians decidedly difficult as a matter of fact because it is easy to "produce" evidence aka propaganda and facts as you see fit. There are forged documents even from mideval times, so that is nothing new per se, either, but I think that the new media age makes it alot easier to accomplish.



Fake video evidence is not easy to produce. Even single photographs are difficult to forge.

If the "serious historian" looks at the "who" and the "why" before he looks at the "what" he is making a mistake because he opens the door to allowing his prejudices to dictate whether or not to believe that the evidence is fake.

Here's an excellent example of what happens when one looks at the "who" and "why" rather than the "what":

http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/




To historically judge the 2006 year in Lebanon a historian would need access towritten documents from both sides, multimedia clips, blogs (if it were possible to secure them somehow) and maybe do some oral history as well, consider the history of Isreal and Lebanon - then analyze what he got and put everything in context. It's alot of tedious work.



I would think that a single video released by Hizbullah where Nasrallah announced that he wants to kill all Jews does plenty to explain why the war happened and how it likely proceeded.

But then the answer would be too simple again, wouldn't it?

on Feb 17, 2010

You assume that the population couldd have ended the war if they had only wanted it enough. You completely disregard the dynamics that evolve in the course of a war - any war - and insist instead that the people didn't WANT to do anything. I think the majority were just trying to survive, especially the refugees and bombed out populace all over germany. The majority didn't do anything to actively prolong the war and surrendered as soon as they could.

Those that did actively or surreptously resist lead a very very dangerous existance and risked death, but they did exist.

You paint with a too rough brush.

on Feb 17, 2010

.

on Feb 17, 2010

my internet connection sucks sometimes - sorry for this

on Feb 17, 2010

Double post

on Feb 17, 2010

It DOESN'T MATTER who filmed it. What the video shows is either true or false regardless of the nationality, religion, or profession of the cameraman.

And it also doesn't matter why it was presented to the media (obviously so it be made known to the public, duh).

Your "serious historian" does the same as the sensational media would: he looks at the who and the why but not the what.

He would analyse everything and everyone except the simple fact that explains why the civilians were hit.
The statistical numbers of victims that died are so obvious I didn't thinkto list them. And no - what I said is pertinent to any true analysis. One quick look at a "fact" to see "what" it was is never enough to be able to tell the whole story, as you seem to think. You often oversimplify issues or use sensational examples yourself to "simplify" complicated structural connections that exist in every society, culture and conflict. I wish the world was as easy to see through as you make it out to be, with villains and heroes easily labeled and evil and good clearly distinguishable in all instances. Sometimes that is the case - but that is the exception. Usually the facts are more ambigous than you could imagine - which is proven in the number of different interpretations that are possible whith referencing the same facts. But then you seem to believe that ambiguity shouldn't exist or is an excuse of somesort to not point out the obvious.

on Feb 17, 2010



You assume that the population couldd have ended the war if they had only wanted it enough. You completely disregard the dynamics that evolve in the course of a war - any war - and insist instead that the people didn't WANT to do anything. I think the majority were just trying to survive, especially the refugees and bombed out populace all over germany. The majority didn't do anything to actively prolong the war and surrendered as soon as they could.

Those that did actively or surreptously resist lead a very very dangerous existance and risked death, but they did exist.

You paint with a too rough brush.



I don't doubt that they simply tried to survive. And I don't insist that the people didn't WANT to do anything.

Nevertheless, the violence is going to hit someone.

When the first synagogue was burned down, the people of Dresden could have acted. The fact that they didn't meant that more buildings burned down.

Many countries lived through the 1930s without setting out to murder a few million people and starting a world war so it was obviously possible.

I think we should spend more time researching what we (Germans) did wrong back then rather than explain how difficult it was to do right when apparently almost everybody else has already figured out the latter.




The statistical numbers of victims that died are so obvious I didn't thinkto list them. And no - what I said is pertinent to any true analysis. One quick look at a "fact" to see "what" it was is never enough to be able to tell the whole story, as you seem to think. You often oversimplify issues or use sensational examples yourself to "simplify" complicated structural connections that exist in every society, culture and conflict. I wish the world was as easy to see through as you make it out to be, with villains and heroes easily labeled and evil and good clearly distinguishable in all instances. Sometimes that is the case - but that is the exception. Usually the facts are more ambigous than you could imagine - which is proven in the number of different interpretations that are possible whith referencing the same facts. But then you seem to believe that ambiguity shouldn't exist or is an excuse of somesort to not point out the obvious.



Who speaks of a quick look?

Look as long as you want, just make sure you look at the "what" rather than the "who". If the video is not fake (and as I said this can be determined by an expert), we would ideally not even know who made it. The video cannot become more true just because the cameraman is or isn't Jewish, Arab, Muslim, Christian or chocolate-covered.

And yes, I do believe that claims of ambiguity are very often just an excuse not to point out the obvious.

There was no ambiguity in World War 2. Dresden was bombed because of what Germany did and for no other reason. Dresden has Germany to thank for being bombed.

There is no reason to assume that all conflicts are necessarily complicated. If a man sets out to murder millions of people and finds millions of supporters, it is indeed easy to see why he would murder millions of people. It's not complicated.

And if the assumption that it must be complicated steers us away from the simple facts the there is something wrong with making that assumption.

If you think of all the violent crimes that happen in Germany, can you imagine how many of those crimes have a complicated background and how many do not? My guess is that 99% of violent crime is not complicated at all.

 

on Feb 17, 2010

The statistical numbers of victims that died are so obvious

Statistics of "innocent" victims (i.e. absolute numbers) are not very useful either.

My guess is that I could have died in 2006 if my university (like the entire north of Israel) had not been evacuated. If Lebanon had done the same, I am sure their number of victims would have been very low too.

So the statistics simply showed that a country with lots of (necessary) bunkers and an evacuation plan has fewer civilian victims than a country that doesn't care that much about civilians.

But that's not how people see those numbers.

Many many people have analysed the statistics but failed to arrive at the most simple conclusion.

When I arrived in Jerusalem, I knew why I probably wouldn't die in that conflict. And suddenly, without much analysis, it was clear to me what the statistics would look like at the end and why.

 

on Feb 17, 2010

I don't appreciate your attempt to compare me with a Nazi.

Wow, thin skin where no such comparison was made. Didn't realize you equate "period Germans" as Nazis. If I mean "Nazis" in my words I would have said"Nazi". Sorry for having an adult conversation when you are obviously not up to it.

on Feb 17, 2010

That is too simplistic. My father didn't chose, had he potentially had deserved to die in an airraid? (He was born 1940)

You think nobody would have the courage to counter you? you think an appeal to emotion would solidify your case? (what a cheap trick to use it as a preamble for revisionist history, more on that later) complicated my rear end!

To be perfectly blunt, YES. To be more specific, while he individually as a child did not deserve it, his life was less important than the lives saved by stopping hitler.

He might have been an innocent child, but when the choice is "agressors and their children" vs the "innocent and their children" then yes, the children of the innocent deserve life more than the children of the agressors; or those who put the aggressors in power, or those who followed them out of fear. Even the children of innocents caught in the same region by chance (although those are a completely separate issue). If the choice is between killing a human shield to stop a violent maniac and letting a violent maniac kill innocents, then you kill the human shield along with the violent maniac.

If hitler sat in a bunker full of newborn jew babies whom he had there for the sole reason of stopping an air raid, then said air raid should still have commenced.

There are two separate aspects here, both are true:

1. An innocent human shield may have to be killed to stop a murderous madman. The fault for that lies on the person who uses the human shield.

2. An innocent on the side of good, deserves life more than an innocent on the side of evil.

2a. Children have their side decided by their parents. Choosing between a child on the side of evil and a child on the side of good, the child on the side of good deserves life more. (of course, if you can save both then you do)

In ideal "fairy tale land" you NEVER have to make this choice. Some people PRETEND that the choice doesn't need to be made and in so doing choose the life of the children [whose parents are] on the side of evil. In the real world this is a choice that comes up often.

Who really chose the war - was it the people, or maybe it was big industry and their interests, was Hitler really in power or rather a weak dictator

So, making excuses for hitler now? oh poor hitler, he didn't REALLY mean to wage his war (mein kaumpf), he didn't MEAN to have a final solution, he didn't MEAN to kill all dissenters... he was actually just a puppet for the EVIL BIG BUSINESS! (/sarcasm)

Why the sympathy for hitler? why the excuses? why the revisionist history?

You are an evil, evil person utemia. Unimaginably stupid and gullible isn't enough, because even if you were just parroting someone's claim, you have chosen to believe them over an honest source.

You just MIGHT not be a nazi (which isn't certain considering you are making excuses for hitler), but if so, you are just one step short of one.

9 PagesFirst 3 4 5 6 7  Last