At what point does a war become a massacre?

[Ludovico Technique 0]

I was pondering after seeing some photos of the highway used by the Iraqi army as it retreated back to Basra. For those not familiar with this part of the war, the road to Basra was where the allied aircraft continually attacked the retreating convoy of Iraqi soldiers.

There were a few pictures of the road (published in The Guardian in the UK) Hundreds upon hundreds of vehicles turned over, blown apart or gutted by fire. The incinerated bodies of the soldiers as they tried to claw their way out of blazing trucks, bits of wreckage of vehicles and of men, and along the side of the road some US troops with a bulldozer piling some of the 40,000 corpses into a big hole. Anywho, on seeing this, and with the inevitable second Gulf War on the cards, it made me wonder. Where do we draw the line on something being a war and something just being a legitimate massacre?

[Frizbee 0]

Point of note: Wouldn't this technically the third Gulf War now?

As for the question you posed, when a War between two legitimate head's of state (Ie. The "War" declared by Osama Bin Laden on all Western countries, and Christians doesn't count) is declared, ANY and ALL casualties can be considered casualties of war.

All such casualties are lives needlessly lost. There is no line drawn where a war becomes a massacre.

On the other hand, a war declared by an insane religious zealot like Osama Bin Laden is not a war, but deliberate and pre-planned massacres of civilians.

[red oct 2]

to me, massacres are just a part of war and always have been. what isn't humane about war.

[Mr. Snrub 0]

'War' and 'massace' aren't two points on a sliding scale of destructiveness - all wars invariably involve casualties, and most have unfortunately involved massacres. You also have to clarify what you mean by 'massacre' - a horribly bloody and violent, yet legitimate, battle can be a massacre. Wars are terrible and will inevitably result in deaths. What really matters is whether these deaths are seen as 'legitimate' in international law or illegal, as in the murder of civilians / POWs.

The point about the Basra Highway is that Iraq had not officially surrendered or yielded to UN demands, therefore any Iraqi combat units were still legally, though perhaps not morally, 'fair game'. Even though they were retreating (which one might argue is reason enough not to attack), coalition forces attacked in order to effecitvely eliminate the possibility of future Iraqi aggression (no army = no aggression) or to simply prove a point to the Iraqi leadership.

[FallenPaladin 0]

I think killing and decimating retreating forces is against the rules of engagement. There are certain rules for combat, that should be sacred, but unfortunately they aren`t...

The Basra highway was in my eyes a massacre, because I think if the soldiers on that road were given the chance to surrender they would have done so, no matter what Saddam Hussein commanded them. Wiping them out mercilessly with repeated bombing runs is in the same way worth condamning as killing medics or prisoners of war!!

[theavonlady 2]

I disagree in general, FP. I don't know the exact circumstances of the Basra Highway but, in general, if an enemy you're at war with doesn't show obvious signs of surrender, a retreat is not a reason to refrain from attacking. They remain a legitimate target.

Letting opponents pick up their swords again when they've dropped it is very debonair but stupid.

[FallenPaladin 0]

http://www.deoxy.org/wc/wc-death.htm

Please check this link. They were not pulling back to fight on another place.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FallenPaladin @ Feb. 17 2003,12:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">http://www.deoxy.org/wc/wc-death.htm

Please check this link. They were not pulling back to fight on another place.<span id='postcolor'>

Again, I was speaking in general.

However, I've checked other links. Read the fint print:

"....Iraq had announced it was withdrawing its forces from Kuwait, but still refused to accept all the UN resolutions passed against it."

Dejavu.

[FallenPaladin 0]

What I mean is that you can`t always make the soldiers responsible for the BS their political leaders tell. There is a flying word that says: "Never kill the messenger"

Even in war there should be a little place for humanity. I was a soldier and probably will be again, this time as sergeant, but if I ever face an enemy that is outgunned and in a loosing position, I`ll try to make sure he gets a chance to surrender himself. I would never kill such an enemy only because of the suspicion that he could fight again somewhere another time. Maybe we all should live according to a warrior codex like the bushido: if the enemy can`t fight any more, let them go, so they can die honorfully another day.

The people in this convoy were obviously retreating, and I`m pretty sure when the first 10.000 of them were slaughtered, the others showed signs of surrender. But they are of course sooooo hard to see, if you are in the cockpit of a F16

And how should you find a piece of white cloth, when everthing around you is burning

I hope you guys get my point, because it`s kinda hard to express my feelings in english.

[Pukko 0]

Ok. I think I get it:

Slaughtering 40 000 humans of the category 'soldiers' that is fleeing is totally ok.

Killing one soldier with a chemical/biological agent is wrong, even if that soldier is still fighting.

Whats the real differance??

The only personal 'experience' of fleeing troops I personally got, is when I always pursuit and kill all fleeing troops in the Shogun/Mediaval Total war games. Sure, I dont want to face those troops again. But I would on the other hand dont mind gasing them to death either. But since thats not legal, I will probably never have the opportunity to.

Tell me, is it that dying from chemical/biological agents is 100 times worse than slowly burning to death that is the reason for it being illegal? Was there ever even in WW1 any single gas attack that killed 40 000?? Is it just that it looks so much cooler when people burn to death than when their bodies malfunction due to C/B agents?

The reason is maybe that the winner/most powerful always have the opportunity to define what really happened. If Iraq would have done something like it, I bet USA would see it as reason enough to use nuclear weapons against them. Remember - nuclear weapons is justified to use when many soldiers risk dying.

EDIT: oops, I made an illegal actionn here; I spelled nuclear as nucelar

[FallenPaladin 0]

You can call it the bush symptome:

If I do it, it`s justified and for a better cause, if someone else does the same he`s evil

[Mr. Snrub 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FallenPaladin @ Feb. 17 2003,21:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You can call it the bush symptome:

If I do it, it`s justified and for a better cause, if someone else does the same he`s evil <span id='postcolor'>

Yeah, unfortunately Bush's policies seem to be painfully hypocritical, but then again you won't find any government on the face of the earth that hasn't been hypocritical to some extent or other.

You'll probably find that in any situation during a conflict that a country can take advantage of militarily (ie. achieving objectives more quickly), without it being against international law, they will take it. This applies not only to the US, but to every other country as well. Your beef should probably be with the rules of engagement as according to international law, not with what the US did to the retreating Iraqi forces - as they were legally adhering to the rules of war.

[Chronicles 0]

War :

Soldiers killing soldiers (guerilla are in the same category)

Massacre :

It begins by murdering civilian , intentionally or not

Soldiers choose to kill and die (resulting of obeying orders) by choosing to be a soldier , civilian never make such a choice, but are forced by soldiers to die , intentionally or not.

That is why i never call a war a massacre and a massacre a war.

[Pukko 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Chronicles @ Feb. 17 2003,15:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">War :

Soldiers killing soldiers (guerilla are in the same category)

Massacre :

It begins by murdering civilian , intentionally or not

Soldiers choose to kill and die (resulting of obeying orders) by choosing to be a soldier , civilian never make such a choice, but are forced by soldiers to die , intentionally or not.

That is why i never call a war a massacre and a massacre a war.<span id='postcolor'>

1. What about drafted troops?

2. Is'nt fleeing troops close to transform into the category 'civilians' ?

[Mr. Snrub 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Chronicles @ Feb. 17 2003,23:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">War :

Soldiers killing soldiers (guerilla are in the same category)

Massacre :

It begins by murdering civilian , intentionally or not

Soldiers choose to kill and die (resulting of obeying orders) by choosing to be a soldier , civilian never make such a choice, but are forced by soldiers to die , intentionally or not.

That is why i never call a war a massacre and a massacre a war.<span id='postcolor'>

Seeing as the word 'massacre' is really just a vague (and emotional) descriptive word, I think it's worthwhile differentiating between legal massacres (as in a one-sided battle during a war - Basra would be legally considered as a battle) and illegal massacres (war crimes etc. - mass murder of non-combatants).

It's a very good topic, though. It's just very hard to come to any morally and at the same time technically justifiable conclusion.

[Die Alive 0]

[/b]mas·sa·cre[    

{*}1-The act or an instance of killing a large number of humans indiscriminately and cruelly.

]*[The slaughter of a large number of animals.

*Informal. A severe defeat, as in a sports event.

tr.v. (b)mas·sa·cred,(/b) (-krd) mas·sa·cring, (-krng, -kr-ng) b mas·sa·cres /b

<ul>To kill indiscriminately and wantonly; slaughter.

*Informal. To defeat decisively.

(*)Informal. To botch; bungle: <span style='color:red'>I massacred iB Code trying to make this look like it came from a dictionary.(i)</span>

:-D

-=Die Alive=-

[DarkLight 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ludovico Technique @ Feb. 16 2003,08:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I was pondering after seeing some photos of the highway used by the Iraqi army as it retreated back to Basra. For those not familiar with this part of the war, the road to Basra was where the allied aircraft continually attacked the retreating convoy of Iraqi soldiers.

There were a few pictures of the road (published in The Guardian in the UK) Hundreds upon hundreds of vehicles turned over, blown apart or gutted by fire. The incinerated bodies of the soldiers as they tried to claw their way out of blazing trucks, bits of wreckage of vehicles and of men, and along the side of the road some US troops with a bulldozer piling some of the 40,000 corpses into a big hole. Anywho, on seeing this, and with the inevitable second Gulf War on the cards, it made me wonder. Where do we draw the line on something being a war and something just being a legitimate massacre?<span id='postcolor'>

War is always a massacre, a huge amount of people always die for nothing.

[Pukko 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mr. Snrub @ Feb. 17 2003,15:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's a very good topic, though. It's just very hard to come to any morally and at the same time technically justifiable conclusion.  <span id='postcolor'>

Maybe bound to be a discussion between 'normopaths' (like Sovjet collective masses were supposed to be like) praising rules, values and norms that put some structure to the world (in this case - "Well they are rules now, are'nt they?" ), and 'psycopaths' (like individualistic free Americans are supposed to be like) questioning the rules, values and norms that the world is made up of, and limits it (in this case - "Ha! Rules! In wars?! LMAO!" ).

Sorry, I think I got too much time at my hands (well not really, but I can pretend to push the tiresome stuff away). Been a while since I posted this much crap in one day

[Longinius 1]

"War is always a massacre, a huge amount of people always die for nothing."

People dieing for nothing does not make a massacre.

Loads of people dieing without any chance of escaping or stopping it, THAT is a massacre.

[Longinius 1]

"Soldiers choose to kill and die (resulting of obeying orders) by choosing to be a soldier , civilian never make such a choice, but are forced by soldiers to die , intentionally or not."

So mowing down 45 unarmed / sleeping / wounded / retreating soldiers is not a massacre, because they are soldiers?

[FallenPaladin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Feb. 17 2003,16:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So mowing down 45 unarmed / sleeping / wounded / retreating soldiers is not a massacre, because they are soldiers?<span id='postcolor'>

Almost 30.000 soldiers on retreat, which had no chance to escape the airial bombardement

[Longinius 1]

"Almost 30.000 soldiers on retreat, which had no chance to escape the airial bombardement"

I wasnt refering to the highway of death. I was talking about how soldiers surely can be victims of massacres.

[FallenPaladin 0]

I know that, I just wanted to underline the size of that incident. They were soldiers (most of them) and they were massacred. You can`t call that else!

[dayglow 2]

Isn't hindsight a wonderful thing? Think i fyou are the commanding officer. You've defeated the enemy on he invasion and they are retreating, but the enemy command structure is refusing to surrender or negociate peace. You have to assume that they are retreating to regroup. I'm sorry but there is no honor in war. I'd rather kill 100 of the enemy to save the life of 1 of my soldiers, because if I'm in war I believe I am on the side of right. The enemy is the enemy and is to be destroyed until they surrender. Plus I don't believe the reports of 40,000+ killed. What did they just sit in the vehicles waiting for the strike. After the first bomb the majority of the people would flee. The material was destroyed, but I doubt every person was hunted down and killed.

COLINMAN

[Longinius 1]

"What did they just sit in the vehicles waiting for the strike. After the first bomb the majority of the people would flee. The material was destroyed, but I doubt every person was hunted down and killed."

Where would they flee? How? When?