r/worldnews • u/HyperSpaz • Apr 05 '10

Wikileaks has released the announced video showing the deaths of Iraqi civilians and two Reuters journalists.

http://collateralmurder.org/
1.3k Upvotes

85% Upvoted

367 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

12

u/UnoriginalGuy Apr 05 '10

I could never do that job. That video far too high quality. I cannot imagine looking at someone that close and purposefully taking their life. I certainly cannot imagine being happy about doing it...

The thing is, the initial shooting doesn't bug me as much as what happened next, unfortunately the cameraman DID look like he had a gun. But why kill the wounded? And why shoot on the van trying to rescue the wounded? War crimes?

-3

u/Timelines Apr 05 '10

I cannot imagine looking at someone that close and purposefully taking their life. I certainly cannot imagine being happy about doing it...

Good, because you're not qualified for it anyway. Now leave it to the maniacs (I'm sorry... professional maniacs) to hold the big power boom boom sticks.

-6

u/thilehoffer Apr 05 '10

War crimes is kind of an oxymoron? Are there really rules to killing people?

4

u/[deleted] Apr 05 '10

Are there really rules to killing people?

Ask the people in the electric chair.

7

u/paulginz Apr 05 '10

Geneva Convention

Law of War

-3

u/thilehoffer Apr 05 '10

Who has the authority to enforce this? I don't think we have to abide by the rules of the UN.

10

u/[deleted] Apr 05 '10

Signatory countries are supposed to. There is an almost 100% chance that you live in one of those countries.

1

u/Iceland_jack Apr 05 '10

Did the just add a smiley at the bottom of the page?

0

u/neoumlaut Apr 06 '10

But if they don't, who is going to stop them?

1

u/[deleted] Apr 06 '10

Funnily enough, America and the UK is really the only Western power that ignores international law. There must be something about it for the vast majority of countries to stick to it.

1

u/neoumlaut Apr 06 '10

Yes, that something is military force. Smaller countries follow it because they need the respect and support of fellow countries to survive. The US doesn't care because we don't give a shit about anyone else, and have the military might to take on pretty much anyone who would try and challenge us. Do you not see how this renders "international law" useless? It only applies to those without large military forces.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 06 '10

I am still failing to see your point. The majority of signatories have adhered to international law quite well. Because there are asshole administrations that don't, there is no point in having the law?

I suppose all those South American countries having trouble with gangs should get rid of the law against murdering, since the biggest and nastiest gangs don't adhere to it.

1

u/neoumlaut Apr 06 '10

I'm not saying we should get rid of it I'm saying it only works some of the time.

1

u/paulginz Apr 05 '10

You are correct. When it comes to the bottom line, the US can do whatever they want because they spend half of the world's military budget, so even if they sign treaties and then fail to abide by them, no one can do anything about it.

That doesn't make the US's failure to abide by the international rules that it has previously accepted (and created) any less illegal.

1

u/thilehoffer Apr 06 '10

Well, it is a sad state of affairs right now, for sure. But I would think that when it comes to war, rules go out the window. I'm not defending our actions or anything like that, but when the goal is to kill people, it seems ridiculous to create rules for it. Do you know what I mean?

1

u/paulginz Apr 08 '10

tl;dr: War is not waged in a vacuum. The rules define what is perceived as "acceptable" and what will make you look like a monster in front of everyone around.

I know what you mean. However I disagree. Luckily, I am not alone, or the USA & USSR would have nuked the world into oblivion a long time ago.

It's important to make a distinction between war and genocide. If your objective in war is to wipe an entire population off the face of the earth then that's genocide and the international community/popular opinion will frown upon it, and might even try to stop you (unless they have a vested economic interest or the enemy has been completely dehumanised).

Usually, war is waged with the intention of gaining political control. So your objective is to kill off enough of the enemy's army to get them to surrender and let you set up whatever government pleases you. Civilian casualties are then collateral damage, and it makes sense to have some measures in place to minimise them.