IDF commander admits "war crimes"

[ziggytrix]

Originally Posted by Preechr

This is a good example of an American trying to sort out this conflict without any sort of context.

No offense, Zig...

...

These are the rules by which we are playing in the Middle East.

They do not share your values.

None taken, but is a context really necessary for an answer to that rhetorical question? Destroying a city and destroying a building are inarguably on different scales.

I'm quite aware that Al Qeada fighters don't share my values. Then again, I don't share your values and you don't share mine, so that's not saying much, is it?

The question I'm posing is this: should we be willing to adopt the values of our enemy in order to fight them? This is a question that has to be addressed by every soldier in every war ever.

Is there such a thing as going too far, and where is that line drawn? The Geneva Conventions are a modern attempt to draw these lines, but attempts to draw this line go back to the beginnings of recorded history.

Let's take the torture issue. You seem to be OK with us torturing terrorists. So putting aside the questionable usefulness of the practice at discovring credible intelligence, and any current legal rulings, how do we even know who to torture?

Is that something we reserve for fighters we personally capture in combat? Can it be someone who has been accused of terrorist activity by someone we have arguably no reason to disbelieve. Or can it be anyone of whom we have suspicions, including American citizens who have not recieved criminal charges? Is it situationally OK, or generally OK?

Lastly, is this an American value, or a wartime "exceptions must be made" value?

I don't want to change your mind, I just want to dig at it. I'm fascinated by people's concepts of right and wrong (and especially the gray area in-between). This is all subjective opinion stuff, so please feel free to speak frankly, assuming you have any interest in this tangent.