What is a ‘war crime’ ?

A war crime

According to the head of UNESCO, the destruction of ancient temples in the ruins of Palmyra is “a war crime”. Baal Shamin, head of UN’s cultural agency describes it as an ‘immense loss for the Syrian people and for humanity’.

So is this a war crime then?…

Not a war crime ?

Here we have ISIS barbarians murdering 400 civilians and chucking their bodies into a mass grave. Been there before haven’t we? I think it was called Nazi Germany.

Khaled al-Asaad

And apparently the murder of the guardian of Palmyra, Syrian scholar Khaled al-Asaad seems to be downgraded to a ‘deplorable murder’. The man dedicated decades of his life to the preservation of the site and at the age of 82 had his head chopped off. He was then hung from a lamp post by his ankles and his severed head – with the glasses still on it – was placed on the ground below him.

Two things need to happen here :

(1) We need to get a sense of perspective as to what the hell these people are all about and what constitutes a war crime.

(2) We need to take appropriate action to deal with them. Now. Not later. Not after we have talked about it for months. Now.


14 responses to “What is a ‘war crime’ ?

  1. My take on this is that these are barbarian people living in barbaric countries following a barbaric religion doing barbaric things. As long as they do not come here it's not something for us to get involved in. We are not the world's police force. Let these countries sort themselves out. Boycott these places, and see what a few years of isolation bring. Nothing going in and nothing coming out. That approach did finally help to end apartheid in South Africa – agreed SA is certainly a lawless place now, but at least white rule ended.

    It's when these ISIS bastards want to export their brand of mayhem that I really take issue. I have long argued that we need a bigger, not smaller, armed forces, but for the defence of our borders, not to go and fight or “peace keep” in civil wars overseas. The last point I'd like to make is that I'm sick to death of hearing the Islam is a religion of love and peace. Based on the evidence that seems to be utter bollocks.

  2. Ads to your last point, I completely agree

  3. I agree with Eye..t

    These are not people in any sense of the word, just barbaric sub-humans with whom reasoning is pointless.
    And Islam translates as submission, not peace. It's a bastardised version of Judaism & Christianity, with all the good bits taken out and replaced with aggressive insane mind-controlling nonsense.

  4. If we nuked the cunts, would that be a war crime?

    Just a thought…

  5. Not if we still have some neutron bombs knocking around:- they won't leave too much nasty residuals. If not, perhaps Israel would lend us a few…

  6. Good point. Maximum casualties without damaging property…

  7. And what would you suggest we do about it? Drop more bombs? Arm more rebels? Invade another Middle Eastern country? Pour more gasoline onto the fire? Its all worked brilliantly so far, hasn't it?

  8. Islamic State isn't a country. IS are the invaders so we wouldn't be invading would we?

  9. IS was formed as a result of the (illegal) invasion of Iraq, to pour more troops/guns/bombs into the conflict can only result in making things worse. In this day of asymmetric warfare there is no such thing as a winnable war. The Yanks despite all there high tech trillion dollar armed forces have not won a war since WW2.

    Don't get me wrong, I don't like IS any more than you do. Nor do I have a definitive solution to the problem. But what I do know is that repeating the same action over and over and expecting there to be a different outcome each time is insanity.

  10. (1) Why IS was formed isn't really relevant. They exist and must be dealt with

    (2) So your answer is to do nothing and let IS expand to a street near you?

    (3) As regards a winnable war, if the Yanks keep losing then somebody must be winning mustn't they?

    Funnel the bastards into one area in the desert and nuke the lot of 'em. One big bang – problem solved. I think that might count as a win…

  11. 1/ How IS were formed is very relevant, it demonstrates that violence can have far reaching unforeseen consequences.

    2/ As I said, I don't have the answer but I do know that IS are an idea, and you cannot bomb an idea. You can only confront a bad idea with a better one, try to demonstrate that the bad idea is a false premise. For example, what IS want is to establish an Islamic Caliphate, they say this is what the Koran says a good Muslim must do. This is bollocks, the Koran says no such thing.

    3/ I said that wars have become unwinnable and that USA have not won a war since WW2. This does not mean they lost the wars, that is what unwinnable means, neither side wins and everybody else losses.

    If you want to live in a fantasy world of consequence free nuclear strikes, go ahead. I obviously made the mistake of thinking this site was for reasoned debate, mea culpa…

  12. Just because we disagree doesn't make either of us either right or wrong.

    As far as I can see, my 'fantasy world' is no more bizarre than yours. I refer you to General George Custer who as head of Indian Affairs in the USA was challenged as to how he could describe himself as a peace loving man and pursue his aggressive policies against the Indians. His reply? “There ain't nothing as peaceful as a dead Indian!”

    As regards nuclear strikes and unwinnable wars, I refer you to Hiroshima. It brought Japan to its knees and saved thousands of allied lives. The WWII Japanese were pretty much on a par with IS. It took drastic measures to make them change their ways. Drastic situations call for drastic solutions.

    You can't reason with these people or apply civilised rules to them because they will piss all over you.

  13. No, IS was not formed as a consequence of Iraq – despite that war being entirely unjustified. IS came out of the conflict in Syria, which was the end game of the Arab Spring. This had nothing whatsoever to do with the Iraq war and everything to do with the fact that Middle Eastern dictators could no longer contain the bubbling resentment in their countries.

    Ultimately, you cannot reason with the unreasonable – and the followers of IS are insane, following an insane ideology.You will never win a battle of ideas with these people. Ever.

  14. Yes, WW2 Japan is an accurate analogy. The alternative to nuclear strikes would have been a very drawn out and bloody invasion with mass casualties on both sides. The lesser of two evils.

    I'm not convinced a nuclear strike would work this time because IS is not a country, it is an ideology that crosses boundaries. A strike on this occasion would simply enrage followers worldwide, leading to an uncontainable escalation.