how can u justify the innocent slaughter of civillians in any war?

Question

whether it was caused by the invaders or by intervention in a countires political affairs, if a country is which is kept together by a fragile government sohuldn't no other country interfere with it's affairs as it will only lead to a break up of the nation.korea, the former yugoslavia(kosovo) and now iraq are all divided now with ethnic tensions.so sohuld other countires keep out of other countires affairs?

Answer 1

well money is what makes an evil country tick, the more money they hve the more civillians they kill, the u.s, its allies, germany, japan, all have a wealthy economy and all hve commited mass murders and some like the u.s still are to this present day.

Answer 2

In modern warfare (after 1914-18) it is almost impossible not to involve the civilian populace. There are no battlefields anymore… Bombing/shelling, despite technology, is still, for the most part, indiscriminate. Governments start wars, the population pays the price.
Recent history shows us that, no matter how good the intention, direct foreign involvement does not work. It would be good if these tyrannical dictators could just be “removed” but that’s naive. Peace keeping and the inevitable resentment it breeds, presents a whole new set of problems. Having said this, there is a moral dilemma in that the implication is we (the West) do nothing? Or do we impose sanctions that may do even more harm to the population? For me, helping innocent people to help themselves (militarily or other) has to be the way.

“Peace Man”

Answer 3

Korea is split as a result of American and Soviet power games during the cold war, although it was a mess immeadiately after the 2nd world war: America trained the locals to fight the Japanese, who after the war drove the French out, the American supported one side against those they had trained, the Soviet Union supported the other in the hope that it would change the political balance in the Pacific rim.

Yugoslavia and Iran were both being oppressed, there were always religous based tensions (generally races divide into religions).
In Yugoslavia the Soviet Union was the oppressor of all when it went the government was weak, old tensions re-emerged and nothing stopped the violence.
In Iraq everyone was oppressed by Saddam Huessain, he controlled everyone so that there religous differences were less than their fear of him.

Answer 4

There's a great difference between the UNIFIL in southern Lebanon and the Coalition Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, if that's what you mean. Keeping the peace is one thing, and interfering in the restructuring of a nation's political and geographic formation is quite another.
As to innocent slaughter of civilians, I can confidently say that the most prominent reason behind that is terminal psychological malfunction, caused by all that comes with the pressures of direct and constant danger and also reasonably due to the sense of a loss of accountability, otherwise, one can safely assume there are originally demented individuals among the troops.

Answer 5

If the deaths of the harmless are actually not meant and if each precaution has been taken to avert such deaths, i think of that some wars are sinful till protective. Tthe deaths of the harmless if not intendede and due care has been made to avert their deaths, then no sin has been dedicated. my own doubt isthat the place does one draw the line as to what's "due care" and what isn't. An meant dying of an harmless and wih finished conciiouysness, wisdom and deliberation at ones own hands as a soldier is a sin. A non-self-protective act in conflict is probably a sin. If each precaution commonly used has been taken to avert the deaths of harmless human beings, has been taken, then their deaths could desire to those occurr, is an coincidence , yet some part of sin could be in contact. Sins, according to se, in that condition could be mitigated via circumstsnces previous one' s administration, and so are actually not what could desire to be termed, "mortal sin" it extremely is a confusing question, using fact the dying of innocents can ensue in conflict with out entire ability of avoidance as to an analogous. i think of Wars are sinful till they're protective Wars, yet having pronounced that, in the issue of conflict, it extremely is extraordinarily much specific that harmless human beings, Civilians or infantrymen, will die.

Answer 6

You can't. I mean look at what Russia did to the Civilians of the countries they over ran during WWII. They were horrible to the german civilians. War atrocities that number in the millions. Then almost another million civilians murdered in Afghanistan and hundreds of thousands in Chechnya. It's war and sometimes civilians are killed while the military is fighting for an objective. But there is one case of russian troops gang raping 30 nuns at a German convent 70-80 times each then nailing them to a barn door and using them for target practice. And it all got swept under the rug because russia then occupied that part of germany until the Berlin wall came down.

Answer 7

There will always be some excuse -

ie you will always find someone who will say that the killing of Iraqis or Palestinian Civillians is "wrong" but the killing of American Civillians on 9/11 or British Civillians on 7/7 was "justified".

Personally I beleive the killing of unarmed civillians is detestable in any circumstance. Noone, whether its regular armies or terrorist groups, has the right to do it.

Answer 8

Because rulers just think of us peons as cannon fodder. Just look at how "Fat-cats" treat "the workers". Some people in power are just ruthless careerists, Ala - Tony Blair, Walmart bosses, The Hussian family, The Bush family,NTL.
Adolf Hitler once said "Luckily for us Leaders, the average man is so gullible" or words to that effect.

Answer 9

a war is a war there are no rules even though human rights try to inflict them we are all sorry for those who are innocently killed by war and yes other countries should intervene I know its not quite the same but if two people were fighting in the street and you saw it surely you would think the best thing would be to go over and stop it rather than just watch them beat each other to death and unfortunately there will be more wars to come and maybe the next one might just be in our England and we might need other countries to help !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Answer 10

Simple....civilians aren't innocent. Neither do you need a justification for killing them. In war, you fight to win. Failure to fight to win results in your extermination if your enemy is not enlightened. If they are enlightened, btw, there is no war. What this means is that the US never gets into a war with any other normalized power and has not ever done so in modern history. Any war we are in, we better fight to win....or else.

BTW, it is a necessary thing to execute people like you in such situations. Be very damn careful what you say if ever the US has a situation like a nuke being detonated on our soil. Saying what you just did, under such circumstances has a 100% chance of earning you a quick trip to the gallows. It always has for the entire history of humanity and it always will. And for good reason.