Why is killing civilians in wars bad? And what's so bad about war crimes? I'm not /pol/ seriously why is it bad...

Why is killing civilians in wars bad? And what's so bad about war crimes? I'm not /pol/ seriously why is it bad? They should get the fuck out of the way if they don't want to be killed by the soldiers. I mean the holocaust is different thats a full scale genocide. War crimes are different.

Have a (you)

> the Dirlewanger fanboi

>(you)

pleb answer here. most people didnt give a shit about the wars, their lives would be the same under any ruler. they want no trouble.
they are also the tax base on the land. if you kill them you anger them and cant conquer.

if you mean like a defensive war and you push into the enemy country, the popupation there deserves it so i agree with you. If they were weak and ignorant and couldnt stop their ruler, the world doesnt have a place for people THAT weak.

Besides the obvious moral considerations, of why killing in general and civilians in particular is wrong, the reason why rules exist in war is because they are a reciprocal agreement between state actors. You don't fire on red cross targets or civilian targets, in the hope that the other side doesn't do it to you, since that can easily be deterimental to the war effort (e.g. soldiers dying of treatable wounds might lead desertion or reduced volunteer numbers), there is no power enforcing them whatsoever (it's not even red cross policy to "embargo" one side if they fail to uphold international agreements, they only go as far as to protect their members). This all changes if one side thinks that the benefits of breaking the treaty gives them an advantage that outweighs the negatives (e.g. chemical warfare).
Then there is the concept of total war, where every civilian in some way contributes to the war effort, so it's acceptable to target them, although in this case the destinction between military and civilian target is blurred.

Only western nations give a shit about war crimes is the real issue. Some isis or taliban goat fucker doesn't care about them, so y should we?

Demanding people to literally pack up and leave their homes just to get out of other people's shit isn't ethical.

Depend of the average IQ

Then that makes you a cuck faggot.

it's ok if they're commies

Point of war is to weaken opposing army to get a surrender, unless your intention ia genocide then kill all the citizens you want.

You're all a bunch of faggots. Man the fuck up. War is inherently a messy and bloody affair, so fucking what if civilians get killed. That's part of war, you snowflake, limp wristed libcuck faggot. I bet you think we should show mercy to the civies. Man fuck the civilians, if they don't want to get killed, then get the fuck out of the way you liberal faggots. If you can't handle the heat, get out of the way. We need war in society, and we need a good cleansing every now and then.

Because a sane person would consider war a bad thing and something they would not want to die in, especially if they are not the ones fighting in it.

>y
Your opinion officially doesn't matter now.

The time of civilians staying out of war is over. That time ended with the Levee en Masse in 1789 when the French National Convention declared "Henceforth, until the enemies have been driven from the territory of the republic, the French people are in permanent requisition for army service. The young men shall go to battle; the married men shall forge arms and transport provision; the women shall make tents and clothes, and shall serve in the hospitals; the children shall turn old linen into lint; the old men shall repair to the public places, to stimulate the courage of the warriors and preach the unity of the Republic and hatred of kings." When the French used this national army to roll over the rest of Europe until Napoleon was defeated in 1812 the rest of Europe got the hint and the national army engaged in total war was born.

The modern military-industrial complex is descended from theories of the Levee en Masse. Modern nations use every resource at their disposal in war and civilians are an integral part of that complex. As long as a nation's civilians are productive, a nation can stay in the war.

And by 1812 I meant 1815

whatever helps you sleep at night

It's a sort of "social contract" thing.

If you target the enemy's civilian population, they'll target your population as well. Because you don't want to get blown up in your home, you agree to an international norm that civilians should not be killed in war.

Go to bed, it’s a school night.

I don't know what sleeping at night has to do with it. I don't think it's a good thing.

Heh...

so you're obviously a sophomoric fool, a psychopath, or a complete troll but I'm just going to be the competent school teacher/parent/superego you never had. Most civilians( esp when we are talking about the past where voting wasn't a thing and even when it was half of the population couldn't do it) even time period considered, do not have control over everything their leaders decide to do. This is even in a democrazy since unfortunately they lie. It would help if all people were involved in politics enough to hold them accountable but not even that could rid the possibility.

(You) should've maybe read my post before making such a bad attempt at baiting, the tl;dr is pretty much2/10 you got me torespond

Someone is going to read these posts in the future and it's going to be like the talmud except 100x worse

>not giving a fuck about civilians because you either win and don't get prosecuted or die and don't get prosecuted

Man the edge on this one.