I'd say anyone who chooses to kill a civilian, whether based on an order or not, is a war criminal. I really don't care if they thought they were there for a noble cause or not.
replyWhat if they choose to kill a person who was a civilian until they were drafted into the enemy army the day before?
replyWhat if the civilian they kill has a substantial effect on the enemy's military capabilities, for example by being someone famous who loudly endorses the honour of signing up to fight for one's country, thereby motivating thousands of young men to do just that?
What if killing a soldier’s children might make him lose his resolve or act erratically? What if destroying an entire city full of millions of civilians might make the enemy lose hope and surrender? What if poisoning the land and water for decades could prevent the enemy from reconstituting itself? What if killing all the women could prevent the production of future soldiers?
replyOnce you open the door, where do you draw the line?
What does indirectly killed mean?
replySounds like a weird way to phrase collateral damage?
replyCollateral murder.
replyCivilians die in wars, and that's with the best intentions of all parties to the conflict. If one or both has got radicalised, then a lot of civilians die in war.
replyyou are justifying 9/11 attack on the US, the similar logic to yours was used by Al-Qaeda
replyThis is the Israeli take that is continually pushed to normalize their approach to "removing baby terrorists"
replyWho gives US president authority to just murder whoever he wants?
replyNobody. He just seized it. No one gave it to him; hence their upset that people like duterte are being kept in the Hague.
replyUS voters
replyA group which has been known to collectively make a mistake or two
replyCorrect. Either all soldiers are war criminals or none of them are. The world is black or white, without nuance.
reply