War criminals should have terrorists status.

[diamantis]

To my opinion , war criminals should be regarded as common terrorists in order to minimize their status, since organized armies can deliver the same amount of unspeacable terror as terrorists groups.

[Arjen]

What is a war criminal in your definition?

[Vasska]

Terrorists are people or organizations - regardless of how they got their ideals - who do terrible things, namely inflicting terror (hence terrorist) to achieve a goal. These are namely "noble" causes, as expressed by themselves, like the terrorist groups like FARC and ETA, Hezbollah, Hamas and many others who fight for freedom or other important issues, regardless of it's price.

All of Europe approved of these sorts of terrorists during the second world war against the oppressing German forces ruling Europe. We however do not now for some reason.

The term terrorism has been quite perverted and misused by the American and also extensively by European government (Dutch and British one's are big spenders on anti-terrorism campaigns) and allied media to display Muslim terrorists as the main threat. These Al Queda terrorists are however the terrorists whom i suppose you are talking about. The Al Qaeda allied terrorist groups who fight for different reasons, that according to our western knowledge, culture and thinking seem retared.

Terrorists like Al Qaeda might fall under war criminals, but only because their ideals are not compatlible with our ideals. Still remember that many terrorist groups like the Al Qaeda ones do not exist of only war criminals. There are people of my age, and your age who have been brainwashed in believing they are doing the right thing. Only their leaders are often the war criminals who really fight in a war.

War criminals, like the one's from Bosnia (Srebrenica, 1992-2995) to name an example did it for different reasons. It was extermination, genocide, infanticide and maybe even etnocide. They do not seek the freedom that FARC, ETA or any other group wanted, they did it because they wanted to, the wanted to kill these people, they enjoyed these tings.

War criminals are the people who run the war, like the Nazi's. They have the status war criminals because they even for their own laws were doing criminal things in the war.

The inflicting of which you speak is true, a terrorist group can inflict as much damage as an army, but the reasons are different. Also the types of terrorism are different.

[Aedes]

Terrorism is a tactic that is only one of many ways in which someone can be a war criminal. I'm not sure I would count forced resettlements, mass rape, and genocide as "terrorism", even though they clearly fall under the rubric of war crimes.

Furthermore, terrorism need not have any association with war. Look at the sarin gas attack in the Tokyo subway, or the Oklahoma City bombing.

Terrorism is a tactic mainly characterized by unpredictable acts of violence against civilian targets, particularly in order to deliver a political message or further a political movement.

War crimes are exceptionally important to have on the books as such, to codify that the conduct of war must ensure certain protections for non-combatants.

[No0ne]

Originally Posted by diamantis

To my opinion , war criminals should be regarded as common terrorists in order to minimize their status, since organized armies can deliver the same amount of unspeacable terror as terrorists groups.

So can the daily new's...

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by No0ne

So can the daily new's...

Sure, if your daily news source happens to be RTLM Radio or Der Sturmer.

[Holiday20310401]

War criminals like Bush had begun with the support of the public though. Regardless of whether there was propoganda involved or not, the people still allowed a blind eye to influence the power's movements. So we are in a way, as much war criminals as the government are.

Now though, I would say the public wants to get out of Iraq, I think anyways, hopefully; we are no longer war criminals, and it justifies never being war criminals to begin with. This is because the public evokes terror on another nation for a justifies cause, being that of getting rid of weapons of mass destruction, but the government obviously sees the war as something else.

According to Aedes," Terrorism is a tactic mainly characterized by unpredictable acts of violence against civilian targets, particularly in order to deliver a political message or further a political movement".

I have seen some of the news, where US troops have actually attacked civilians for no reason (as it appeared to be anyways), perhaps due to stress?, but nevertheless, an act of terrorism. Some of the civilians in the Middle East would probably argue that the US has not brought any attributes to democracy, only the increasing threats of insurgents.

I think a war criminal is someone who causes a war, knowing that the outcome will not be for the betterment of both sides. (Better for lifstyle)
I can see the two (terrorism, and war criminal) being used interchangeably.
War criminals will never have terrorist status though, because wouldn't war criminals always hold too much power to be swayed against like terrorists are.

[Vasska]

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

War criminals like Bush had begun with the support of the public though. Regardless of whether there was propoganda involved or not, the people still allowed a blind eye to influence the power's movements. So we are in a way, as much war criminals as the government are.

Many war criminals have had support of the public because they lied. Hitler led many people to believe he would fix Germany, instead he had a secret agenda, which he showed during Kristallnacht. Many people did not support this. Hitler after that backed up, and only in 1942 when he was losing the war he started his secret agenda again, because he could not care about the German people, for this Aryan race had disgraced him and deserved no destiny other than the Jews. In the last year of the war he deliberately let hundreds of thousands of German (Aryan!)people die, needlessly.

Bush got support because of 9/11 to invade Afghanistan, and later on Iraq. Now 8 years later people do not support him anymore, because they felt betrayed by him. His arguments were that Iraq possessed WMDs. None were ever found, what was found was huge profits for companies and control in the middle east.

You idea of war criminal is wrong. A war criminal is someone who inflicts criminal acts on people or animals that are against the rules of engagement or common human morality. For example the bombing of red cross vehicles.

Now though, I would say the public wants to get out of Iraq, I think anyways, hopefully; we are no longer war criminals, and it justifies never being war criminals to begin with. This is because the public evokes terror on another nation for a justifies cause, being that of getting rid of weapons of mass destruction, but the government obviously sees the war as something else.

The public does not inflict terror on other nations. War criminals do, the public is often lied to, as I said before. The war criminals have a choice in what they do. If i had been a Nazi official I had a choice, and some might the right choice to not be a war criminal. Others however did choose so.

I have seen some of the news, where US troops have actually attacked civilians for no reason (as it appeared to be anyways), perhaps due to stress?, but nevertheless, an act of terrorism. Some of the civilians in the Middle East would probably argue that the US has not brought any attributes to democracy, only the increasing threats of insurgents

Armies are like products. quantity of quality. One soldier can be worth more than 10 soldiers. Many soldiers are 19 year old kids who come from broken homes, or only enlisted for the money. These people get confronted with the reality of war and see now that war is not as fun as it seems in the movies, for people actually die and suffer. I, like everyone else, will go crazy at a time.

In Israel, when the French president visited they had to get on the plain in a hurry because of a gunshot. It turned out to be a guard who killed himself due to all the stress inflicted on him. Humans are still no robots.

And well, America with its democracy... shamefully little people know its a ******* republic and the patriot act destroyed all "democratic" rights these American people stand for.

I think a war criminal is someone who causes a war, knowing that the outcome will not be for the betterment of both sides. (Better for lifstyle)
I can see the two (terrorism, and war criminal) being used interchangeably.
War criminals will never have terrorist status though, because wouldn't war criminals always hold too much power to be swayed against like terrorists are.

A war criminal is not someone who causes war, it is someone who does awful things in a war, that are not needed and go against all human dignity and morality.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

I have seen some of the news, where US troops have actually attacked civilians for no reason (as it appeared to be anyways), perhaps due to stress?, but nevertheless, an act of terrorism.

Yes, it is an act of terror, because it is meant to subdue and intimidate people. Although it is almost certainly NOT mandated by commanding officers let alone the administration of the military -- it's patently NOT in America's interest to be responsible for civilian casualties except where entirely unavoidable.

Probably the classic example of where terrorism and war crimes were more or less synonymous were the actions of the Einsatzgruppen and more generally the SS on the Eastern Front of WWII.

[Arjen]

Thank you, Aedes, you are on the path to the reason why I asked what war, uuh, criminals are according to diamantis. The fact that war-crimes are commited by people following orders seems a reason for governments never to presecute war-criminals like terrorists.

The difference betwee war-crimes and terrist acts consists of the origin of the orders. War-crimes are being committed by following orders of 'the government'(or the chain of command in its place), while acts of terrorism are commited by 'shadow-governments', who wish to influence the acting governments into stopping their (war-)crimes, or become the acting government.

An acting government will never prosecute he committers of war-crimes in the same way as the committers of acts of terror in the same manner because the people following the orders of the state must have the illusion that they are on the side of 'good'; that following orders is 'good'. When prosecuted in the same way that illusion will become more transparent and a denial of the authority of the acting government becomes more likely.

So, it is in the interest of the state to uphold the lie that that state is the 'good'.

Dr. Joseph M. Goebbels, Nazi minister of propaganda said, “It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth becomes the greatest enemy of the State.”