Quote:
Originally Posted by adzii_nufc
Jean Charles De Mendes springs to mind, Civilian shot dead by British police under the suspicion he was a terrorist. They've been in and out of court since 2005.
We wouldn't allow drones to take out terror suspects in the UK. Nor would we accept the death of 50 British members of the public as realistic. 
1000 civilian deaths caused by Western drones to 50 potential terrorists killed isn't realistic, it's legal mass murder. That's over 900 strikes on evidently unverified targets with no legal response. You can't possibly come to the conclusion they were just caught up in the crossfire on 900 different occasions because they weren't. They were very wrongly marked as kill with evidently dire Intel. Despite this they continue to kill civilians. It's not accidental. It's based on the exact same presumption as Mendes. They were wrong then and they're even more wrong now.
The western double standards are truly a mess. The Russians waltz into Ukraine and it's a world outrage. The British and US march into the middle east looking for mythical weapons and find nothing...totally justified. |
I fail to see how this is anything to do with the topic of genocide and who is still legally culpable and who isn't. You're just talking about inconsistent moral standards in the West and general moral relativism.
---------- Post added at 09:13 ---------- Previous post was at 09:02 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kymmy
Where though does someone draw the line? Even joint enterprise in this country wouldn't sentence a mass murderer's accountant even if the accountant knew what was going on and was to scared to stand up to the murderer.
|
Actually they might well do depending on the exact circumstances. Especially if that possible was still involved in corrupt activities. In this case collecting and selling on the items, remember this guy also stood guard for new arrivals to 'help' with their possessions.
Another thing is one of the more constant defences on here was that he would have been killed if he objected but there isn't much evidence of the Nazi's harming or murdering SS officers who didn't cooperate with the exterminations. I believe one of the reasons they used gas was because shooting was having an affect on the moral and mental well-being of those being tasked to do the job.