>war crimes

File: smug dog.jpg (65KB, 438x423px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 438x423px

>war

>>2714340
Bombing civilians is apparently a war crime. do these cucks not realise that those civilians contribute to the war effort and will grow up to become soldiers.

>>2714601
>All of the old and infirm we managed to not conscript will grow up to be soldiers, guys!

File: stirner.jpg (59KB, 607x608px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 607x608px

>>2714340
>spooks

>>2714609
What are young people.

>>2714609
The old and the infirm raise the next generation for war. It is therefore imperative they must suffer too.

File: 755433ef58c57346f51c9833d47d147ed3bae84e809819a69237433c95ecd4ef.png (602KB, 1276x2860px) Image search: [Google]

602KB, 1276x2860px

>Geneva Convention

>>2714609
>what is paying tax money

no such thing as a non-combatant

>>2714601
t. "total war" german autist that doesn't realize what partisanship is

File: 1488396482825.jpg (13KB, 249x386px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 249x386px

>>2714340
Tell me about spooks.

>>2715124
>partisanship
I'm from Australia, if you are fighting a total war you are fighting a total war, don't hold back, hitler should have got the women in the factories earlier and the allies shouldn't cop shit over dresden. In war bombing is justified it there is a military target. In total war every citizen of that nation is a military target

>>2715147
Yeah, you're an autist. This shit was solved even in the 1st world war. People will fight so much harder when their homes, their way of life, their families are threatened. Total war turns every citizen into an enemy. The Rape of Belgium alone is proof that the concept of total war and devastation does not work to your advantage.

>>2715167
If your opponent is employing total war you are at a disadvantage if you do not.

I ... assume that the view under consideration is something like this: no doubt in the past we were justified in attacking German cities. But to do so was always repugnant and now that the Germans are beaten anyway we can properly abstain from proceeding with these attacks. This is a doctrine to which I could never subscribe. Attacks on cities like any other act of war are intolerable unless they are strategically justified. But they are strategically justified in so far as they tend to shorten the war and preserve the lives of Allied soldiers. To my mind we have absolutely no right to give them up unless it is certain that they will not have this effect. I do not personally regard the whole of the remaining cities of Germany as worth the bones of one British Grenadier.

Bomber harris do it again.

File: 1482185355621.jpg (67KB, 595x450px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 595x450px

>>2715173
>If your opponent is employing total war you are at a disadvantage if you do not.

We are talking abuot the current settis, where things like conventions held in Geneva and human rights are not spooks, but rather things with a very real effect.

If you begin shitposting with chemical weapons and similar war crimes, you will feel the thunder of any power that might want to promote their interests in the region, as well as shat on, get your diplomatic prospects ruined, and make your opponents invest further into the war.

The only scenario in which the doctrine would be useable in modern times would be a world war where your side has a smaller MIC and a concentration of force large enough to BTFO said MIC