3 ms·

So you assert. Even if true it's meaningless.

by tsotha 11y ago

deciplex 11y ago
Well, it does have the meaning "it is widely considered a war crime", which is all I was asserting in the first place. I'm not really interested in a semantic argument with you, nor discussing the topic of whether Americans do or should give a fuck about their image internationally, nor even whether the term "war crime" makes any sense in the first place. The parent claimed "we understand that it was horrible war crimes" and unless you interpret "we" to mean "literally every single extant member of the human race", then the claim is accurate.
- tsotha 11y ago
  It's meaningless because if "widely considered a war crime" is the standard than it's more of a popularity contest than a crime. The whole concept of criminality relies on objective criteria in place at the time of the event. All the legal bases for that widely considering is based on treaties and fluffy documents rendered after the war. It's also meaningless because the whole concept is flawed. Crimes do not occur above the sovereign nation state level. "War crimes" is a convenient excuse for the winner of a conflict to execute the leaders of the losing side. It's victor's justice.
  - deciplex 11y ago
    Objective criteria which are established... how exactly if not by popularity contest? And if making the criteria ex post facto also wins the popularity contest, then ex post facto it is, regardless of whether that offends your sense of justice. (It's not really ex post facto anyway - you simply apply the existing (1945) standards for what was considered a war crime, and find that the bombings fit the bill [1]. That seems to me the best way to do it - what would you prefer? That no one had used an atomic bomb before, need not exclude the possibility of the first such use of one being a war crime.) That said, I mostly agree with your take on war crimes in practice, if not in principle. But if the allies had lost the war the bombings would have been considered a war crime by the victors, without a doubt. In that sense it is appropriate to call it a war crime. Again, it was a war crime in a war replete with them, and it was not the worst of them either: it was certainly no Holocaust, and I don't think the two bombings taken together even rise to the level of one Rape of Nanjing, either - but it was a war crime and yes, that is the popular opinion of it globally. Try to keep in mind that I'm mainly defending the original statement "we understand that it was horrible war crimes". That is an accurate statement, even if you have grounds to think that people are wrong to see it that way. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Bombings_as_war_crimes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombing...

So you assert. Even if true it's meaningless.

by tsotha 11y ago

So you assert. Even if true it's meaningless.

Well, it does have the meaning "it is widely considered a war crime", which is all I was asserting in the first place. I'm not really interested in a semantic argument with you, nor discussing the topic of whether Americans do or should give a fuck about their image internationally, nor even whether the term "war crime" makes any sense in the first place. The parent claimed "we understand that it was horrible war crimes" and unless you interpret "we" to mean "literally every single extant member of the human race", then the claim is accurate.

tsotha 11y ago
It's meaningless because if "widely considered a war crime" is the standard than it's more of a popularity contest than a crime. The whole concept of criminality relies on objective criteria in place at the time of the event. All the legal bases for that widely considering is based on treaties and fluffy documents rendered after the war. It's also meaningless because the whole concept is flawed. Crimes do not occur above the sovereign nation state level. "War crimes" is a convenient excuse for the winner of a conflict to execute the leaders of the losing side. It's victor's justice.
- deciplex 11y ago
  Objective criteria which are established... how exactly if not by popularity contest? And if making the criteria ex post facto also wins the popularity contest, then ex post facto it is, regardless of whether that offends your sense of justice. (It's not really ex post facto anyway - you simply apply the existing (1945) standards for what was considered a war crime, and find that the bombings fit the bill [1]. That seems to me the best way to do it - what would you prefer? That no one had used an atomic bomb before, need not exclude the possibility of the first such use of one being a war crime.) That said, I mostly agree with your take on war crimes in practice, if not in principle. But if the allies had lost the war the bombings would have been considered a war crime by the victors, without a doubt. In that sense it is appropriate to call it a war crime. Again, it was a war crime in a war replete with them, and it was not the worst of them either: it was certainly no Holocaust, and I don't think the two bombings taken together even rise to the level of one Rape of Nanjing, either - but it was a war crime and yes, that is the popular opinion of it globally. Try to keep in mind that I'm mainly defending the original statement "we understand that it was horrible war crimes". That is an accurate statement, even if you have grounds to think that people are wrong to see it that way. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Bombings_as_war_crimes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombing...