Is one person's war hero another a person's war criminal?

Post Reply New Topic

I have heard the phrase: Another man's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. I don't know if the same can be said of those people in a time of war who maybe are heroes to some but war criminals to others. When I think of a war hero, I tend think of someone who for example, saves or tries to saves the lives of his fellow soldiers or civilians during a war. When I think of a war criminal, I think of someone who intentionally shots his gun at civilians, POWs (Prisoners of War) or commits themselves or orders others to commit genocide against defenceless uninvolved men, women and children motivated by racism or some other twisted reasons. Those things to me don't sound like the actions of a war hero. I have heard of cases like for example when Yugoslav war leaders Mladic and Karadzic were on trial for war crimes and were convicted, they were protests against their trials and hailing them as heroes. When I read about the My Lai Massacre during the Vietnam War, William Calley who was court martialled and convicted for the massacre, was still seen by some as a hero. I remember even reading that there were soldiers who intervened to stop the slaughter and save civilians from their fellow soldiers. The men trying to stop it sound more like heroes to me than Calley.

Where there is political freedom, the massacre of civilians is a war crime. This is from a civilian standpoint. Of course, standards for political freedom and civilians are also controversial.

Also from a civilian standpoint, sometimes war is a manifestation of justice, such as the French Revolution and the American Civil War. Whether slaveholders were civilians or not changed before and after the war.

People who can organize large-scale events in modern times often seem to be on a civilian side. Even terrorists like bin Laden said that countries led by the United States have been "violating" the faith, security and interests of the Islamic world for a long time. If the "jihadists" do not rise up against the United States, then the Islamic faith will " oppressed, defiled, and destroyed."

The right is good at long-term oppression; the left is used to short-term massacres.

The title of the thread is right. No one is always right, but all kinds of Zeitgeists have their own Reasonableness

Last edited by belijojo on 18 Feb 2024, 9:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I agree, you are correct, and this is quite timely. Your examples are perfectly on point. Netanyahu and the IOF is outright committing a Genocide, much like Israel has done many times before throughout its 76 year history, and yet you still have people defending him. Zionism is an ideological fraternal twin to Nazism, so even when the time finally comes for Zionism to be dismantled, and Dezionisation occurs, you'll still wind up with Neo-zionist.

Ultimately what it comes down to is A highly unprincipled and abhorrent application of Selective Humanity. They rarely outright say it, but based on their actions and behavior and sometimes exposed document, they believe that some people deserve the full protections under international law, but other groups of people that they dehumanize don't deserve the same protections.

This can be seen in Israeli Society today. Some examples i can immediately think of:

1. If you ask most Israeli Citizens or most Zionist if Hamas was in an Israeli hospital, if the IOF should bomb it, they would hesitate to answer. But if you ask the same question regarding a Palestinian Hospital, with little hesitation they say yes.

already in this first example we see a major double standards of applying human rights and the Geneva convention.

2. If you ask most Israeli Citizens or most Zionist why Palestinians don't have a right to defend themselves to due existing under occupation, apartheid and rampant ethnic cleansing with settlers in the west bank, they will act as though Israel's violence and ethnic cleansing is somehow Justifiable to keep "security", but that Palestinian violence that reacts to this Israeli violence that is intended to result in the doom of the Palestinian people is "terroristic".

3. The Media rarely focused on Israel's human rights violations, but always dehumanized Palestinians every time they reacted to it.

4. The notion that the Zionist State of Israel is allowed to do whatever it wants because of October 7, is a privilege that was never granted to Palestinians over the last 76 years of Israeli Oppression. Even though Israel is a state built on the bones of Zionist Terrorist, the Nakba (which itself is genocide), Ethnic Cleanings, Massacres, Apartheid, frequent terrorist night raids into villages, Arbitrary detainment without charge, Economic Blockades, War Crimes and constant oppression. And yet after decades of suffering under this extreme oppression, the Palestinians are apparently not allowed to fight back, but if they retaliate, then the Zionist State can literally be given a pass by much of the world to commit a genocide.

Yes, Winston Churchill might be a good example
He was a hero to the British people
But he also was responsible for one of the worst famines in Bengal India resulting in the deaths of up to 4 million Indians who starved to death

Yep, and then you've got King Leopold II, killed no less than 10 million in the Congo to exploit the rubber in order to build up the foundation of Belgian Capitalism. Belgium still has statues of this absolute monster around, but at least they are increasingly defaced and vandalized.