I didn't wanna get involved in this thread. But I guess, seeing
the heated discussion and exchange of views, I decided to throw in
my loose change.
Civilians caught in war, or collateral damage? Summary Execution or
plain and simple murder?
They mean the same thing, just different perspective. None of them
paints a pretty picture, and definitely theres no way to hide the
tragedy that human life was loss.
SGT-rex's view is simply put, war is terrible. And you have to do
things that you don't really know whether is right or wrong at the
end. A split second decision to protect your buddy, your friends,
could well be an act of murder. You might accidentally shoot an
unarmed civilian, or even an unarmed- but surrendered enemy
soldier. But you might also have shot a potential insurgent who was
strapped with explosives and a detonator in hand. The only way to
find out is to risk either lose your buddy, your section mates - or
- risk being labelled as a murderer of an innoncent. Its a very,
boots on the ground view, coming from the perspective of a soldier
on the ground.
Chino, Dr Who, if I don't gather wrongly, have more legalistic and
in a way a more "politician's view." It is a fair cry for justice,
for the innoncents that have lost their lives from summary
executions and human rights violations. There is no reason why an
unarmed civilian or even an unarmed-surrendered- soldier, protected
under conventions can be shot.
Interestingly, both views, though at the extreme ends of the
spectrum, are what keeps actions commited in war, in check. In the
oddest of way, they work hand in hand, constantly checking on each
in order to achieve the same aim. That is, to reduce casualties to
a minimum.
Adopting SG T-rex's boots on the ground view wholly, would lead to
a situation of chaos and massive loss of civilian life, IF there
weren't legalistic hawks to jump of them. At the same time, if any
army was run by legalistic hawks who care more about following
conventions and lawful actions over the safety of their own troops,
then that Army is bound to take unacceptable losses, lose morale,
the will to fight and its sense of purpose. And eventually, they
will no longer be an army, but just a band of killers.
When the Japanese invaded Singapore, many young Chinese men were
beheaded, on suspect that they were part of the resistance
movement. Or in modern terms, insurgents. That is precisely the
scenario that i mentioned, where there are no legalistic hawks to
check on the actions of the army. Massacres and other human rights
abuses ensued.
Call me a fence sitter. But I believe BOTH views are necessary as
long as there are conflict and wars.
