I don't care if I get hate for this, but why is rape during War considered evil and a big deal but mass firebombings and massacres not?

[thethug123]

Soldiers who rape enemy women are considered evil and get punished in court.

But the bombers who drop firebombs to burn civilian populations alive are considered heroes.

Can someone explain?

[Leonharted]

I will explain by using a quote from a book, and answer any further questions you have:

War is not violence and killing, pure and simple; war is controlled violence, for a purpose. The purpose of war is to support your government's decisions by force. The purpose is never to kill the enemy just to be killing him. . . but to make him do what you want him to do. Not killing. . . but controlled and purposeful violence. But it's not your business or mine to decide the purpose of the control. It's never a soldier's business to decide when or where or how--or why--he fights; that belongs to the statesmen and the generals. The statesmen decide why and how much; the generals take it from there and tell us where and when and how. We supply the violence; other people--"older and wiser heads," as they say--supply the control. Which is as it should be. That's the best answer I can give you. If it doesn't satisfy you, I'll get you a chit to go talk to the regimental commander. If he can't convince you--then go home and be a civilian! Because in that case you will certainly never make a soldier.”

[Cubus]

Hurting civils is in overall evil because:
1. They don't take part in fightings
2. They are defenseless against soldiers.
And raping woman not only are hurt physically but also emotionally. It lefts a scar for your whole life. You can say - it's a war, but it's really lame to use your power on someone who is weaker than you and won't fight you back.

When Soviet soldiers were "liberating" Poland in 1945 they were also raping women on a large scale (which is not often talked about, but it should be). One of the victims had a phone pushed into her vagina. Such "liberators".

It is morally neutral at war for soldiers to fight another soldiers. But it's really morally wrong to attack somone who doesn't have a gun and (for women) is usually physically shorter and weaker.

[purplepoppy]

Civilians might not fight but they do support the war effort by working in things like ammo factories. Therefore it's important to kill them. Targeting civilians also demoralizes troops and causes a breakdown in discipline.

With rape you've already conquered a town so there's little military justification other than to boost troop moral

[libsaretards]

I am prior military so let me shed some light on this.

Regarding civilian targets, there is no such thing. We do not deliberately target civilians. Civilians accidentally get killed in bombings sometimes, but they are not the intended targets. Most of the time before we hit a target we try our best to get civilians out of the way where possible. However, if a civilian deliberately gets in the way after ample warning they will be viewed as an enemy combatant and treated as such. We only do the level of damage needed to get the objective done. Also, after a battle our medics will treat the wounded of both sides, not just our own.

As for rape, there is no justifiable reason to rape anyone, war or not. We servicemembers are fighting a war to protect our nation's interests, not to spread pain and evil for no reason. The military is not above the law. We do not break the law of the nation we are in unless the mission dictates breaking the law.

[jshm2]

Easy.

Both are evil and punishable if proven in a court of law. It's easier to get testimony and a bit of DNA to prove rape, from a living victim. Than it is to get DNA and testimony from a charred corpse.

Thus the answer is more gruesome than you were hoping for. Leave any alive, you're going to jail. No witnesses and you're a "hero". Though will probably commit suicide when the guilt catches up with you.

[Anonymous]

Strategically targeted bombings are not considered evil because they serve a valid purpose in war.

But anything that leads to intentional civilian casualties is viewed as just as evil as wartime rape because there is no valid purpose for them.

This is not rocket science.

[Adam1978]

There are both evil. But sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. You can't shame an enemy to stop his evil acts.

[Levin]

You have a point.

War and violence can be righteous if in genuine self defence.

Most war is politically motivated, and thus, evil.

[awkward_author]

The latter is expected during war, while r*pe isn't expected in the same way. One may be viewed as a necessary casualty, while the other is seen as an evil and unnecessary act.

[OddBeMe]

Both are considered evil. Bombing a factory at least has a primary advantage of destroying enemy infrastructure. Raping civilians is just evil.

[WhiteBoyChill]

That isn’t true at all. Massacres are considered evil.

And firebombings aren’t intended for civilian targets

[jahaims]

I personally consider rape worse than murder

[Twalli]

Wartime casualties