von Marwitz
Forum Guru
Probably we misunderstood each other. I am in complete agreement. The killing of civilians is always wrong. It can never be morally right. It's therefore always a crime against humanity in my mind as well.No. The killing of civilians is always wrong. It can never be morally right. It's therefore always a crime against humanity in my mind.
Exactly.But it's not always a war crime.
But if perpetrators of crimes against humanity define 'war crimes' in a way that these don't cover crimes against humanity while only considering 'war crimes' illegal at the same time, then this is nothing else than justifying crimes against humanity. IMHO nothing else but semantics to declare which can never be morally right to be acceptable - and to act upon it.
It is, however, completely irrelevant, who uses this method or who may have used that method before.
If I steal your car, that's illegal. If you steal my car, it is illegal in exactly the same way.
That I stole your car before your stealing of mine makes your theft not one bit more legal.
More understandable, yes. More legal, no.
As long as you are of the conviction - which I share - that "the killing of civilians is always wrong", then the German bombings of British civilians is wrong, the British bombings of Germans civilians is wrong, the German bombings of British civilians before the British Bombings of German Civilians is wrong, the British Bombings of German civilians after the German Bombings of British Civilians is wrong, the German bombings of Spanish Civilians is wrong, and the British bombings of civilian colonials by air police is wrong. It is always wrong.
Granted. Yet it remains always wrong.And it's completely unrealistic to think that, if one side does it, the other side will stop short.
von Marwitz