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 8)
9 PagesFirst 6 7 8 9 
on Feb 21, 2010

Taltamir,

From the fact it appears obvious that the Christians betrayed Jesus.

So what do we do know? Persecute those god murderers?

 

 

on Feb 21, 2010

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

100% of agreement here. Clinton lobbed some missiles at the terrorists (half-heartedly), but otherwise ignored the growing problem, perhaps a time that could have avoided the place we are in now.

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

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


Judas Iscariot, Hebrew: יהודה איש־קריות‎ "Yehuda" Yəhûḏāh 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


^ John 12:6, John 13:29
^ Matthew 26:14, Matthew 26:47, Mark 14:10, Mark 14:42, Luke 22:1, Luke 22:47, John 13:18, John 18:1

Sorry, your right. Their role was to advise and finance. I'll let each reader decided for themselves the right or wrong of it, it's not my concern. As I said it's not my subject area, but then again I never mentioned Judas in my original comment (funny how these things evolve).

"And Satan entered into Judas, who was surnamed Iscariot, one of the twelve. And he went, and discoursed with the chief priests and the magistrates, how he might betray him to them. And they were glad, and convenanted to give him money. And he promised. And he sought opportunity to betray him in the absence of the multitude." (Luke 22:3-6)

I'm sure we can each find refrences to express opposing views, so this is over for me as I have little interest in doing such. The original example I mentioned was entirely to make a point (don't believe me, go to the religious section and count the number of my comments there). If anything this sideshow gives even more credence to the example given supporting personal beliefs/feelings/emotions influencing what should be rational military decisions.

 

on Feb 21, 2010

So what do we do know? Persecute those god murderers?

How unnecessarily dramatic can one get.

 

on Feb 21, 2010

I decided to look the military decision up in this huge 1200 overview I have to see what it said there about the military decision.

from Gerhard L. Weinberg, A world at arms, a global history of world war 2, 2nd edition 2005, Cambridge UP, p 812. This chapter is called "The final assault on Germany - offensive in the West

By this time, Patton's 3rd Army had driven the Germans back to the Mosel on 1st Army's right flank and, in the fashion Patton knew best, now drove across the Moselinto the rear of the German forces facing an attack by the American 7th Army of 6th Army Group. When the German commander in the West, von Rundstedt, wanted to withdraw these units across the Rhine, Hitler replaced him with Field Marshal Albert Kesselring (smiling Albert), who had been so successful in stalling the Allies in Italy. This made no difference to the American 3rd Army, which cut the German Army Group G into shreds, captured huge numberes of prisoners, reached the Rhine near Oppenheim on March 21 and late on the following day crossed the river.

The allied operations had been assisted both by the massive deployment of tactical air support and by continued heavy attacks on German oil, transportation and industrial targets. At the Yalta Conference, the Russians had asked for major attacks by the air forces of the Western Allies on cities behind the Eastern Front. This request coincided with British plans for massive bombing raids to disrupt German defenses in the East, to aid the next Soviet offensive. As a result, February and March of 1945 saw very large attacks on such German cities as Berlin and Dresden, with massive fires and destruction in Berlin and a firestorm in Dresden. By the end of March, Churchill, who had been a strong advocate of area bombing, began to change his views on this subject, but by then enormous destruction had been caused by the fleets of British and American bombers which were now at their most numerous and, with their fighter escorts, simply overwhelmed any remaining defenders.

This is out of context of the rest of the chapter which describes in detail how which army moved and which battles were fought etc.

It is a good book, very detailed, about the european and also pacific theatre in WW2.

I don't have military experience or any knowledge of battle strategy. According to Weinberg, there seems to have been an overall strategy, which unluckily overlapped with maybe an overzealousness to bomb Germany to damnation by Churchill. The evaluation if that strategy was successful or not isn't included  in this paragraph though. In the grand scheme of things, Dresden was but one small part.

on Feb 23, 2010

Rightwinger

 At least you're consistent in your disregard of, and hatred for, America.

RW, I will disagree with you here.  I do not think Bahu hates America.  In some ways I think he loves and admires it.  But he is an idealist.  As such he wants it to be an ideal, and campaigns against any flaw, perceived or real, that he sees. But as an idealist he is also a tool for those who hate America.  He writes many anti-american posts because he sees a flaw (in this case perceived and wrong), and tries to bring attention to it to have it dealt with and changed.

But as a tool, he is only destroying that which he admires so much.  Nothing created by man is perfect, but evil men can use the idealist who strive for it to destroy that which is closest to it.

on Feb 23, 2010

Leauki
I have no sympathy for the people of Dresden in 1945. If they (and the other Germans) had stopped this war before 1939 (or better yet, before 1933) nothing would have happened. But they chose to follow Hitler and those that didn't remained quiet out of fear.

They paid for that sin. And those who were afraid learned that the danger did not go away because they remained quiet.

I do.  I am sure that of the 150k people who died, many were as you describe.  But not all were.  But that is war, bombs cannot differentiate the innocent from the guilty.  I was not trying to portray my description of Dresden as an attack on a bunch of lambs, but only on an incident that did not have a strictly military justification.  it WAS a war, and millions of innocents died, in Dresden, Tokyo, London, Paris and Honolulu.  That is why I object so strenuosly to Bahu's characterization of it.  Today a lot fewer die than when we dropped thousands of bombs trying to wipe out a ball bearing factory.  But they still do die, regardless of how "smart" the weapons are.

on Feb 23, 2010

I declined to comment after a couple of posts seeing this was a debate between Leauki and Utemia.  A very interesting one, but as Bahu noted, far afield.

Daiwa, as usual, then cut back to the meat, but did not really add more than I already commented on as far as the fallacy of the thesis. I guess I got this whole mess started by stating Dresden was less military than it was propanda.  I don't think any of us disagree that innocents were killed in the raid, but as Leauki pointed out, the "city" was not innocent and a legitimate target.

Since then, the civilization of war by the victors has tended to try to stay away from such demonstrations (with perhaps the exception of the old USSR - but then the only difference between Stalin and Hitler was their victims nationality).  That in itself is a solid refutation of bahu.  His post is an attempt to vilify those defending against an agressor as equally as guilty as the agressor for all acts conducted by both sides.

And the final refutation of him is the simple fact that in this war, most muslims are not dead or dying, even though most do not condemn the agressors.  Had this war been started 70 years ago, that would not be the case.  Then war was all out war, and make no mistake, Nato and its allies have the capacity to wage such a war with the almost equal outcome of WWII - the total annhilation of the agressor.

The US and Nato and its allies have chosen not to take that path.  Some may argue to its detriment, but only a tool of the agressor would argue that it is just an oversight.  As Bahu seems to be doing.

on Feb 23, 2010

Sorry for the lenghty debate,  know that it's quite the turnoff. As it is, I read the same debates (mostly about religious themes or a mix of politics and morals like the gay marriage thing or abortion etc) between the same people on many different threads. It can get a little tiring as often, nothing new is contributed. And I have the vague feeling that I already argued similarly about this topics regarding the nazis somewhere on JU as well. 

Nobody can be asked to read lenghty tracts on history or philosophy in posts but to really make an argument on complicated issues that involve both it is sort of a necessity. And german traditions in humanities almost require that you talk veeeeeery lengthy, use complicated language with very very long words and sentences and generally appear as dusty and dry as the sahara. To my slight horror I discovered that I can write like that as well when properly motivated as it happened in this thread.

Anyway, back on topic.

on Feb 23, 2010

utemia
Sorry for the lenghty debate, 

That is fine.  More often than not, these posts take on a life of their own.  If the OP does not mind, I see no reason to curtail it or apologize for it.  I did find it interesting.  But I did feel that you and Leauki started repeating yourself after a while.

Leauki has a habit of getting deep on some subjects with the right instigation.  And most of the time I enjoy his perspective and often learn from both parties.

on Feb 23, 2010

I got miffed and wanted to explain/prove my arguments after they had been rejected as either evil or too easy and also to refute the claim that history is straightforward or simple. A debate like that can quickly turn into a roundabout affair though, you're right. It's quite a challenge to keep it interesting.

on Feb 24, 2010

I do [have sympathy for the victims among the people of Dresden].

I only have so much sympathy going around. And in World War II there were so many victims, I find it odd to have the victims in Dresden stand out in any way.

 

I am sure that of the 150k people who died, many were as you describe.  But not all were.  But that is war, bombs cannot differentiate the innocent from the guilty.  I was not trying to portray my description of Dresden as an attack on a bunch of lambs, but only on an incident that did not have a strictly military justification.  it WAS a war, and millions of innocents died, in Dresden, Tokyo, London, Paris and Honolulu.

Millions died in China. Tens of thousands died in Dresden.

The Chinese never had a choice.

 

That is why I object so strenuosly to Bahu's characterization of it.  Today a lot fewer die than when we dropped thousands of bombs trying to wipe out a ball bearing factory.  But they still do die, regardless of how "smart" the weapons are.

I believe the usual way is to protest against deliveries of smart bombs and then complain when instead cluster bombs are used. This is called "peace activism" and it can't be blamed for anything, regardless of how many deaths it causes.

 

Leauki has a habit of getting deep on some subjects with the right instigation.  And most of the time I enjoy his perspective and often learn from both parties.

 

on Feb 24, 2010

Leauki
I only have so much sympathy going around. And in World War II there were so many victims, I find it odd to have the victims in Dresden stand out in any way.

 Millions died in China. Tens of thousands died in Dresden.

The Chinese never had a choice.

You are right on both counts.  Yet what grabs our hearts strings and what does not?  To each it is different.  In my case, my sympathy was long ago grabbed by the Tribes of North America and what the european descendants did to them (it is not as massive as china or Dresden, but no less horrorific).  Dresden got me because of the purpose of the bombing, not the magnitude or the guilt or innocence of them.  Of course we all mourn for the chinese during the long war (that one started in the 20s, which most do  not remember or know).

yes, it is easy to get immune from all the suffering in all parts of the world, especially when today's media has to make every death an indication of some genocide attempt (when it more than likely is not).  I think Bahu is trying the latter tactic on the conflict in Afghanistan.  I am sure he is probably sincere (I have come to respect, if almost always disagree with him), but it is just the sensationalism that they try to invoke in todays news cycles to get people to care.  It is not that people are callous, just that after being bombarded with it constantly, they do build up a tolerance to it.

It is the cognizant's duty to weed out the hysteria from the facts.  There are needs all over the world, and all are competing for attention and action.  But we have to discern where we are doing the most good with our money and mouths, and not let the propagandists dictate what and where we should be hanging people.

on Feb 24, 2010

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 don't remember reading about very frequent drone attacks. But I do know what they write about Operation Moshtarak in Afghanistan right now. After all, embedded reporters might not be objective and slightly sensationalize their reporting, but they probably get an accurate pulse of what soldiers are feeling and thinking. The rules of engagement are very strict  (I can only cite what I read about that in german newssources though - I didn't look them up): Soldiers are not allowed to shoot back if they can't see the shooter and his weapon. They're not allowed to shoot if the shooter throws away his weapon. Avoiding civilian casualties is one of the top priorities of ISAF and US forces. I am sure that these considerations also apply to the use of drones, but that's only a guess.

From everything I read about the way Nato procedes, it reminds me more of police action. Even with those strict rules mistakes happen and I find it inherently unfair to accuse the US and Nato troops of being careless or disregarding the conventions they signed. They do everything they can to prevent unneccessary losses, something that was never an issue in earlier wars. The bigger picture was certainly more important in WW2 than avoiding collateral damage. It is the luck of the people in Afghanistan that the bigger picture there involves a stable and secure talebanfree Afghanistan where the people trust their government (highly unlikely - I think they're wise not to trust them) or at least the NATO and ISAF troops.

 

on Feb 24, 2010

yes, it is easy to get immune from all the suffering in all parts of the world, especially when today's media has to make every death an indication of some genocide attempt (when it more than likely is not).

The media tend to convert real genocides (or such attempts) into non-stories and individual deaths into genocide.

We hear little about the (real) genocide in Darfur (apparently a first peace agreement was signed a last week), but discuss every single death in Afghanistan (unless there is no way not to blame the Taliban for it).

In World War II (which started earlier in China, as you said) Dresden keeps coming up as does Nagasaki and Hiroshima. But the huge number of Chinese victims, which totally dwarves the deaths on the German and Japanese sides is rarely mentioned.

 

on Feb 24, 2010

Japanese sides is really mentioned.

Rarely.

9 PagesFirst 6 7 8 9