
Originally Posted by
Thorne
Yes, with the loser's on trial, as I said. I don't recall reading of any trials condemning the Russians for the depravities inflicted upon civilians by their soldiers, or the enslavement of prisoners of war. But then, they were on the winning side, weren't they?
I did accept that point in my last post. But the losers were tried for criminal acts, not for prosecuting the war. There is a distinctio
Blitzkrieg was a type of warfare, utilizing the speed and maneuverability of armored units. It has nothing to do with war crimes. Allied forces used the same techniques, once they saw how effective they were.
A genuine act of war, then, and not a war crime.
With very few exceptions, actions performed by the winners in. The war are not generally treated as war crimes.
See above. Generally speaking, genuine acts of war by the losing side are not treated as war crimes either. There is a distinction between acts of war and criminal acts by the combatants
Why do you assume there would be no regard for the consequences? If you assume that the bombs will NOT be found before they are placed at their targets, and you can only prevent that by randomly broadcasting radio waves that MAY detonate some of the bombs, isn't it likely that any damage, and casualties, will be far less than if the terrorists hit their planned target? Plus you are more likely to kill the bomb maker. Another plus.
If you don't know where the bomb factory is, how can you possibly make that calculation? Chances are it will be a house in the middle of a residential area, or in a high-rise block of flats.
Is it? Isn't making a bomb a terrorist act? Basically, an act of war? So killing the terrorist is also an act of war, is it not? Especially if the shooting is done by the police or the military.