Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: redfish who wrote (6591)	2/4/2004 1:10:42 PM
From: zonder	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20773

I don't see why there should be such a large distinction between killing civilians and killing soldiers Maybe you would like to debate this with "Agreement for the Prosecution and Punishment of the Major War Criminals of the European Axis and Charter of the International Military Tribunal" (IMT), sitting at Nuremberg, which contained the following definition of crimes against humanity in Article 6(c): Crimes against humanity: murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against civilian populations, before or during the war; or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated. The International Military Tribunal for the Far East, at Tokyo, followed the Nuremberg Charter, as did Control Council Law No. 10 of Germany, under which the Allies prosecuted Germans in their respective zones of occupation. crimesofwar.org I believe the reasoning is that wars are meant to be fought between armies and hitting defenseless civilian populations is a cowardly act. But that is my own interpretation, of course. The matter is one that is generally accepted in international law in any case - hitting civilians, even in wartime, is not acceptable.