steveh_131
Grandmaster
Spot on. War is hell, and I'm not really concerned about complying with some pencil head's idea of "fair." And war should be hell. It should be brutal. It should be vicious. It should be ruthless and severe. Were it so, I suspect there would be a little bit less of it in the world today.
Weakness is provocative. ROE are a form of weakness. I can tolerate a respectable level of chivalry, but only if the opposing sides plays by the same rules. Otherwise, I will default to the meanest, nastiest set of rules being used by any given participant at the time. I would wage war to win. Not make friends. Global reputation be damned.
If you were a guard at this prison, would you feel morally comfortable with torturing these prisoners?
Somehow I don't think what she did (Humiliation), and beheading not only captured prisoners but civilian contractors, are in the "Eye for an Eye boat."
Nobody said they were equivalent.
However, a justification of 'they did it first' was provided to defend these actions, and he was refuting that justification.
I agree with him. 'They started it' is not a convincing moral justification. The justification provided by 88GT is much more convincing, in my opinion.