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 7)
9 PagesFirst 5 6 7 8 9 
on Feb 19, 2010

They crucified thousands of religious leaders.
like whom? and to which century do you refer to? The romans did crucify thousands of people but around 33ad  not mainly because they were religious leaders. The persecution and relentless hunting of christians came much later as christianity was nothing but a small jewish sect at the time of Jesus's death. Christians as such didn't exist yet. Otherwise, they didn't really mind other polytheistic pagan cults, they were sort of adopted into their pantheon, and as long as the conquered people paid tribute to their  gods they didn't care much. Lateron, christians refused to bow to the roman gods which, in roman belief, pissed those gods off. A po'd god was a very bad thing because then the gods didn't protect the people anymore and you'd have foul crops, children will die, storms etc. as a result. Paying tribute in the form of sacrifices was essential to survival in the roman mind - keep the gods happy and content. The refusal to pay tribute put the whole society in jeopardy and the state at risk and that's why they were hunted down relentlessly until the 4th century.

The period jews fought the romans and lost - 40 years later. Around 70 ad they razed jerusalem to the ground and expelled the jews from their lands as a punitive measure for the uprising.

The way you use it, the fault of the holocaust lies with the poles, the french, and all other nationals whom hitler conquered.
Research colaboration with the Nazis. Not taking away the blame from Germany here, but it seems that many were very eager to join the germans in killing and hunting Jews and Gypsies. They weren't forced to do so, either.  I listed a few essays and books above - I  am sure your college library has them, so check them out before telling me that I am a revisionist again. You seem interested in history at the very least. Bottom line is that without the huge colaboration the nazis could have never done what they did.

on Feb 19, 2010

Let me use your logic, "period Jews" sealed the fate of Christ, I guess while they don't deserve their fate, it is their fault for whatever happens to them as a result.

Those Jews are long dead.

And it is pure belief that they "sealed the fate of Christ". For an objective bystander who believes neither the Christian nor the Jewish faith, all they did was execute a criminal. (And in fact it was the Romans who did and all the Jews did was not care.)

That a man named Jesus was executed by the Romans in Roman Israel is fact, for all I care. That the Jews didn't stage a revolt to save him is also fact.

But that the man was "Christ" is pure faith.

So please, if you want to use my logic, use my logic, don't just make up something.

But if you like we can agree that what happened to the Jews alive at the time was their fault. (Obviously it wouldn't cover later generations just like bombing Dresden now wouldn't be covered by "they started it" either.)

So what exactly happened to those Jews that you would want covered?

 

on Feb 19, 2010

1. It was the romans who killed him, not jews. They crucified thousands of religious leaders. It was revisionist history (and a blood libel) that later attributed it to "the jews".

Well-known point. The Romans came and killed a Jew (many Jews, to be precise), and while most civilised people these day would say that Jews shouldn't be punished for that crime (any more), many people still attribute the death to Jews and Jews alone.

 

2. If jews "wanted him dead", then christians "betrayed" him (judas was a baptized christian, converted by jesus himself).

I am thinking a Christian Jew is a Jew when he does something bad and a Christian when he does something good.

 

3. The "period jews" fought the romans, and lost. The romans were foreign invaders who conquered the jewish nation and then proceeded to expel the jews from within its borders. This is very VERY different then voting in a bad leader and then silently supporting his atrocities. The way you use it, the fault of the holocaust lies with the poles, the french, and all other nationals whom hitler conquered.

The Jews-killed-Jesus story is too embedded in western civilisation. It's regarded as a fact obviously comparable to the fact that Germany started World War II. There is no doubt about it and hence if blame falls on Germans for World War II then blame must fall on the Jews for the death of Jesus.

Of course, the man "Jesus" becomes the "Christ" or even a god because what's the point of being angry with the Jews for executing a man? Ancient Israel had a death penalty but executed far fewer people than other states at the time.

 

4. You have any proof that bombing dresden had no value? are you a master strategist now?

I don't have any proof either, but I still know why the bombing happened.

 

 

on Feb 19, 2010

like whom? and to which century do you refer to? The romans did crucify thousands of people but around 33ad  not mainly because they were religious leaders. The persecution and relentless hunting of christians came much later as christianity was nothing but a small jewish sect at the time of Jesus's death. Christians as such didn't exist yet.

You are looking at this from a Christian perspective which is why you think that he was referring to _Chrisian_ religious leaders and the persecution of Christians. Wikipedia has a nice description of the politics of crucifiction (which was NOT a Jewish type of death penalty):

Crucifixion was used for slaves, pirates, and enemies of the state. Therefore crucifixion was considered a most shameful and disgraceful way to die. Condemned Roman citizens were usually exempt from crucifixion (like feudal nobles from hanging, dying more honorably by decapitation) except for major crimes against the state, such as high treason.

Notorious mass crucifixions followed the Third Servile War in 73-71 BC (the slave rebellion under Spartacus), other Roman civil wars in the 2nd and 1st centuries BC, and the Destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. To frighten other slaves from revolting, Crassus crucified 6,000 of Spartacus' men along the Appian Way from Capua to Rome.[43] Josephus tells a story of the Romans crucifying people along the walls of Jerusalem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifiction#Roman_Empire

So who do you think was an "enemy of the state" in Roman Israel? Who do you think were the ring leaders of the war that was won by the Romans and ended with the destruction of Jerusalem?

According to Josephus, the revolt, which began at Caesarea in 66, was provoked by Greeks sacrificing birds in front of a local synagogue. The Roman garrison did not intercede and the long-standing Greek and Jewish religious tensions took a downward spiral. In reaction, the son of Kohen Gadol (High priest) Eliezar ben Hanania ceased prayers and sacrifices for the Roman Emperor at the Temple. Protests over taxation joined the list of grievances and random attacks on Roman citizens and perceived 'traitors' occurred in Jerusalem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Jewish-Roman_War

Those "enemies of the state" the Romans executed were religious leaders and, obviously, in Israel they were Jewish religious leaders, like Jesus and later the son of the high priest.

There was constant tension between Rome and Israel because of the Jewish refusal to accept polytheism. Roman hatred for Christians was an extension of Roman hatred for Jews. It was NOT in any way an extension of some Zionist plot against Christians that first killed Jesus and then persecuted Christians.

The idea that Jews and Christians are somehow sworn enemies came up much later when the Romans tried to reconcile their new-found Christian faith with the fact that they used to kill Christians whenever they could in the past.

But the legend of Jews killing Jesus (presumably by cowardly manipulating the Roman war machine) stuck. Hence even people who obviously do not believe that Jews should be punished for the death of "Christ" still think that the Jews' murder of Jesus is an undeniable fact.

So yes, the Romans did crucificy thousands of people around 33 "ad" and yes, the victims were often religious leaders.

 

on Feb 19, 2010

Research colaboration with the Nazis. Not taking away the blame from Germany here, but it seems that many were very eager to join the germans in killing and hunting Jews and Gypsies. They weren't forced to do so, either.

A Pole who refused to cooperate had a lot more to fear than a pure-blooded German who just didn't care. For Poles collaboration with the Nazis was a way to regain some of what they lost and a career move towards where they were before the German invasion, for Germans it was a career move upwards.

That doesn't absolve Polish collaborators, but I woudn't say that cooperating with a violent enemy is the same as being that violent enemy.

You are not taking away the blame from Germany, but you are adding blame to others as if what they did was the same. It wasn't. A slave who betrays his fellow slaves to gain favour with the master is not as bad as a master.

 

on Feb 19, 2010

Concerning colaborateurs, the answer isn't straightforward because many did both, helped where they could do so safely and also colaborated with the germans. The trial of John Demjanjuk falls into a different category that is related - those that worked with the germans to save their own lives. That would fall into the slave example that you gave.

Antisemitism in Poland (and elsewhere) is a topic that is seldom spoken publicly about because it broadens the perspective away from the "we were all victims of Nazi Germany" stance towards a more pluralized picture. It is sensitive because nobody wants to admit to having been part of the nazi regime.  Regular citicens were not coerced to collaborate they did out of their own accord. I didn't mean to directly compare responsibility of what happened. Obviously, nazi germans were the instigators. But those poles, french, ukrainians etc who killed out of their volition to curry a favour with germans or just because they had waited for such an opportunity and needed something to set them off are still murderers. I find it difficult to distinguish exactly how that is any less worse or better. Admitting that they took part doesn't relativize german responsibility, it relativizes the claim of many to just have been victims of german agression or that they had been forced to do whatever they did to save their own lives.

The Vichy Regime in France cooperated on the administrative level more than the nazis demanded, out of their own accord as well. That is something that was never spoken in France about while Francois Mitterand was still alive. He himself had been a lowlevel bureaucrat in the vichy regime. That changed after his death and since then there has been alot of research from french historians into the vichy german relationship. Even though it had been a truth that everybody knew about it hadn't been accepted as a fact for a long time. It's funny how that sometimes goes.

on Feb 19, 2010

It was the romans who killed him, not jews.

Sure was the Romans (did I say "kill"). Who turned him over to the Romans? Who chose Barabbas (a criminal) over Christ when clemency was offered? This is all irrelevant to me, I'm not very religious...and especially don't wear it on my sleeve, I was just making a point about "holding grudges". If one wishes to interject their personal feelings into what occurred in history, that's their choice. Half the worlds problems is because of past hatreds. I choose to get over it. I believe the Dresden bombing was of little to no significant military effect on the war, that is my opinion compiled from what I've read, others believe kill them all, they are evil Nazis. That's a personal choice, and really outside the scope of my argument. But since it reared it head here, I commented on it. We could easily apply the "kill the bastards logic" today in many areas. Why not bomb the Sunni's to oblivion in Iraq? They tormented the Kurds and Shiite's for decades. How about the Tamil's in Sri Lanka, a thirty year insurrection?  

You have any proof that bombing dresden had no value? are you a master strategist now?

No, but then again I'm looking at the bombing in strictly military terms without the emotional baggage some here may have. A master strategist... hardly, but I'd gladly put my military background and understanding of tactics up against anyone I've run into on JU to date. Are you asserting that you have "proof of value" of the bombing or you are a master strategist? Please share if the former, and congratulations if the later.

on Feb 19, 2010

Antisemitism in Poland (and elsewhere) is a topic that is seldom spoken publicly about because it broadens the perspective away from the "we were all victims of Nazi Germany" stance towards a more pluralized picture.

That explains why the Nazis lost the war, they had to have a gun to every non-German person in the occupied areas, there were no soldiers left to fight on the front(s).

As I've said...not so black and white. One thing is for sure, the winners write the history books.

on Feb 19, 2010

Who turned him over to the Romans? Who chose Barabbas (a criminal) over Christ when clemency was offered? This is all irrelevant to me, I'm not very religious...and especially don't wear it on my sleeve,

Jesus was a criminal too, according to both Roman and Jewish law. Who turned him over to the Romans? A Christian did, Judas. Who chose one criminal and not the other? The Jews of Jerusalem.

What's the big deal?

 

I was just making a point about "holding grudges".

Why? Nobody here said anything about grudges.

 

on Feb 19, 2010

War on Terror unleashed by President Bush

Once I saw that, I quit reading.  With that level of 'insight', anything that followed wasn't going to be worth the time.

on Feb 19, 2010

Once I saw that, I quit reading.  With that level of 'insight', anything that followed wasn't going to be worth the time.

I must have overlooked that or I got so used to "unleashing" being done by the defending side that I didn't notice.

More correct would be "War of Terror unleashed by Muslim extremists".

 

on Feb 20, 2010

 

Who turned him over to the Romans? A Christian did, Judas.[/quote]

My understanding, he was turned over to local jewish authorities, who then turned him over to the Romans. Judas hung himself, and the jewish temple was destroyed. Never heard of any of Gods wrath against the Romans in this case. Anyone that witnessed the event, feel free to jump in with the right answers on a new thread. I'm not a religious historian, even casually, and do not profess to be. It was just a comparison example to illustrate how personal beliefs can influence decisions, militarily or otherwise. I apparently stuck a nerve, which is exactly what I wanted to do to make a point. I have no desire to engage in a theological debate, just show how easy it is to hold all accountable for a few.

Why? Nobody here said anything about grudges.

You're right, but apparently that is what lies below the surface of most all conflicts, and indirectly injected into this discussion. I'm not casting judgment on whether that is right or wrong, I don't really care. I'm assessing the military value of what happened in Dresden in relation to what is occurring in Afghanistan/Pakistan. I'm not bothered if someone doesn't care for my opinion, this is still the US last I looked, and I will write accordingly.

[quote who="Daiwa" reply="100" id="2543786"]
War on Terror unleashed by President Bush


Once I saw that, I quit reading.  With that level of 'insight', anything that followed wasn't going to be worth the time.

Daiwa, kudos for at least attempting to put the topic back on track. I saw that too and it never fails to give me a chuckle.

on Feb 20, 2010

It would have been better to have used another verb, I commented on that in the very first post I made in this thread as well. President Bush did declare the war on terror officially, the US started actively/officially fighting terrorism in his presidency (I'm having trouble to come up with the right adverb here myself). Before that it was not a politicum the way it is now. I mean fighting terrorism was always something that was actively pursued - there were enough attacks before 2001, the USS Cole comes to mind, also the embassy in Nairobi, and it had been attempted in the early 90ies to blow up the WTC.

Unleash suggests some form of unlawfulness or that the war on terror is unjustified and those that war is unleashed upon are innocent victims. Very ungeschickt.

on Feb 20, 2010

president bush "declared war on terror"... but terrorists were already at war with america, he just admitted it and committed to fighting back. Kinda like how the US "declared war" after pearl harbor.

They should really call it "recognition of war" rather then "declaration of war"

on Feb 20, 2010

as for "it was the jewish authorities that turned jesus to the romans"...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judas_Iscariot

Judas IscariotHebrewיהודה איש־קריות‎ "YehudaYəhûḏāh ʾΚ-qəriyyôṯ was, according to the New Testament, one of the twelve original apostles of Jesus. Among the twelve, he was apparently designated to keep account of the "money bag" (Grk. γλωσσόκομον),[1] but he is best known for his role in betraying Jesus into the hands of Roman authorities.[2]

References

9 PagesFirst 5 6 7 8 9