Sebastian Junger Quotes

There is such a thing as legitimate warfare: war has its laws; there are things which may fairly be done, and things which may not be done.

In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes.

According to the laws of war, a warring party can just walk away from civilian harm that they have caused.

You don't torture people. You don't indiscriminately attack civilians. You protect as good as you can the impact of your warfare on women and children.

I knew that the Hague Convention prohibited the use of poison in war. I didn't know the details of the terms of the Convention, but I did know of that prohibition.

No matter how many people you kill, using a machine gun in battle is not a war crime because it does not cause unnecessary suffering; it simply performs its job horrifyingly well.

It is a rule of international law that weapons and methods of warfare which do not discriminate between combatants and civilians should never be used.

It's never acceptable to target civilians. It violates the Geneva Accords, it violates the international law of war and it violates all principles of morality.

1) The intentional bombing of civilian populations is illegal; 2) Objectives aimed at from the air must be legitimate military objectives and must be identifiable;, 3) Any attack on legitimate military objectives must be carried out in such a way that civilian populations in the neighbourhood are not bombed through negligence

Perhaps the most basic rule of the law of armed conflict is that civilians and civilian objects must not be made the object of direct attack, although incidental injuries caused to such persons or objects in the course of a legitimate attack must be proportionate to the purpose of the attack.

The Geneva Conventions cover everybody: military, civilian, everybody. We created this made-up category of unlawful enemy combatant in an effort to circumvent the conventions. But in fact, the other name for unlawful enemy combatant, in Geneva Convention terms, is either civilian or spy and saboteur. If they are civilians they can be prosecuted.... We should be prosecuting these people and we should be doing it in civilian courts. But to say we don't have to do any of these things because they are not covered by the Geneva Conventions is just a misapplication of the law.

I was ordered to go in there and destroy the enemy. That was my job that day. That was the mission I was given. I did not sit down and think in terms of men, women and children. They were all classified as the same, and that's the classification that we dealt with over there, just as the enemy. I felt then and I still do that I acted as I was directed, and I carried out the order that I was given and I do not feel wrong in doing so.

They target and try to kill as many of our civilians as they can. We do not target civilians..

The bombing was of no military significance since not one soldier had been killed..

One of the fundamental pillars of international humanitarian law is that proper distinction should be made between military targets and civilians. That is why indiscriminate bombing, let alone the deliberate targeting of residential areas or agricultural infrastructure, is considered a war crime.

The last thing we want to do is to go into an area and inflict unnecessary civilian casualties. One is too many.

I think it is tragic that a situation should arise where civilians on any side are killed. But it is almost a cliche to say that it is virtually unavoidable and this isn't unique to us alone.

Human-rights advocates, for example, claim that the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners is of a piece with President Bush's 2002 decision to deny al Qaeda and Taliban fighters the legal status of prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions.

You've got to forget about this civilian. Whenever you drop bombs, you're going to hit civilians.

The troops are therefore empowered and are in duty bound in this war to use without mitigation even against women and children any means that will lead to success.

I cannot grasp the difference between killing people with drones or rifles and knives. The objective in war is to kill the enemy before he kills you. I can't fathom the almost religious zeal with which the use of drones is being opposed.

The British bombing of Caen beginning on D-Day in particular was stupid, counter-productive and above all very close to a war crime.

The real trouble with war (modern war) is that it gives no one a chance to kill the right people.

If civilians are killed in an attack on a military installation, it is certainly regrettable, but I will not morally blame the I.R.A. for it.

As in any war, there have been dreadful mistakes and civilian casualties. The difference is when Israelis kill innocents they apologize; when Hezbollah kills innocents they celebrate.