This russian soldier accused of war crimes has me confused
Why not put the commander who gave the order to shot in the accused war crimes box and not the soldier
You see: this is how I see it
If you are at war the object is to kill the enemy and not be killed
Now was the old man an enemy
The soldier is not in a position to refuse an order from his commander, or decide if the old man is an enemy. Old people can be spies you know
The commander makes the decision and the soldier follows orders. Command and control or chaos
We read about russian troops refusing to follow orders and western powers see this as a weakness in the russian command and control. So why is this soldier being tried for war crimes when he did what western powers consider good command and control
That is why so many high ranking russian commanders have been killed. They are forced to be close to the front line to make sure orders are carried out according to the commanders order
So this soldier followed orders, regardless of personal thoughts as the commander must have his/her reasons
Otherwise you have chaos in the ranks
IMO they are accusing the wrong person for war crimes
Makes the west look like monsters willing to try any and all for war crimes You can't convict a whole army of foot soldiers, just because they pulled the trigger on their gun. So why is this one soldier being tried for war crimes. Because he is captured and has no rights, is what I think.
So now russia will do the same to captured steel fighters and we have tit for tat. Dumb dumb
In combat you follow orders or punishment is sever, or chaos runs rampant
here is a grand problem. remember, all those on trial after WW2 simply said, i was just following orders.
so if a commander tells me to do something horrible, and if i go along with it, do i share any of the blame? (this question is not about whether the old ukrainian man was involved with anything military related).
remember, in the 50's and 60's, this was an issue that came up quite often. the chad mitchell trio would write a song about it. when something horrible is carried out, who should get the blame? just the guy at the top? so are all of us peons always completely innocent?
when should i say,... no , i will not do that?
It's a wonderful point that I agree with as far as following basic commands.
If it involves killing children or raping women, or a civilian that' no threat for no good reason, then I think we can agree that this is a war crime no matter what.
Though it's possible, it's not likely that a soldier will be in hot water for not killing innocent people in cold blood.
Of course there are always gray areas........like this one but often not so, based on some of the incidents we've heard.
The problem is that killing in a war.....is part of the mindset of the soldier.
Even on the streets of a high crime big city, almost no people are actually anticipating that they will be killing enemies that day.
In a war zone, your mind accepts that. It has to accept that in order to survive. Otherwise, you don't belong there because the alternative thinking in your mind, like a person in a big city during peace...... would make YOU THE TARGET of the enemy without the right mentality to defend and accomplish your mission.
Going in, part of the mission ASSUMES there will be killing of the enemy.
Once your mind accepts killing of other people, it's already crossed the most important threshold/boundary that makes killing a crime.......no longer a crime.
The threshold for WHO TO KILL is the gray area that we are talking about after its been established that its the right TIME to kill.
Great topic Wayne, thanks!
Did USA refuse to sign on to war crimes or some thing to protect USA soldiers from crimes
Just runs in my head about some thing USA won't be a part of, along these situations
Agent Orange biggest war crime in history thus far
Exactly right on Agent Orange. They knew what it was and what they were doing for 10 years to win a bs war.
Then they covered it up for decades, even creating fraudulent science papers from corrupted scientists to show it didn’t do what it did.
nobody was ever held accountable.
All told, many trillions in lost lives, mutations for generations, suffering and environmental, wildlife damage. With long lived crop production impacts from it affecting the soils.
All because a group of evil men got together and hatched a diabolical effective scheme to get an advantage over the enemy in a war.
That goes to show you too that who gets charged with what all depends on the perspective of the gatekeepers of the rules and narratives put out there.
You have the right and obligation to not carry out an "illegal order".
That was our instruction. We were also told that if we decided to disobey an order because it was illegal, we damn sure better be sure it's illegal - but they never told us how to figure that out!
There you have it.
I see that this is one of your favorite topics here Wayne (-:
It's a great topic, so please discuss it more!
10 responses |
Started by wglassfo - May 3, 2022, 5:42 p.m.
Started by wglassfo - March 14, 2020, 7:48 p.m.
metmike: Since you brought up Agent Orange again, I mainly wanted to point out the details of the decade long horrific crime using chemical weapons perpetrated on many innocent people.
The US got away with this atrocity, right in front of the world and made stuff up to justify why they used it for numerous decades.........even to today!!!
Anybody that played a role in Agent Orange should have received life in prison........if the world was just.
That includes being charged with a crime for those, knowingly covering it up, even to this day.
Which especially includes the corrupt scientists that knew exactly what it was, then the scientists that manufactured fraudulent papers for the government to use in denying damaged veterans compensation for what Agent Orange did to them in Vietnam.