For perspective: I come from a country where “cafeteria” food at school is good and affordable (most is less than the equivalent of 5-10 USD max and it’s not slop, it’s actual food), but it’s not an obligation for everyone since it’s up to the student if they want to buy something or bring their own lunch.

The “cafeteria” in my school isn’t a typical American one, rather it’s closer to a canteen where they sell food you can purchase from cup noodles, fried stuff, sandwiches, baked goods, etc. also appliances like a kettle or microwave are available in the dining hall for students to heat up left overs if they wanted.

The thing I tend to notice from American schools (according to US movies, there’s bias whether it’s true or false) is that they tend to depict kids always heading for the cafeteria for recess or lunch picking up whats available instead of bringing their own food from home (left overs from dinner), why is that the case?

Short answer: “eyes glued to iPhone”, however distractions of any kind existed before the smartphone from people blasting loud music with headphones via a walkman, putting the radio at max volume, having either a book or newspaper obstructing one’s view. You get the point, I once heard an incident involving a woman almost getting ran over by a street car in Turkey all because she’s glued to the phone screen whilst walking.

For perspective: Sweden has a the draft (but it’s different) since they have what’s known as “totalförsvar” or Total Defense, it’s a comprehensive strategy combining military defense and civil defense preparing society for war or severe crisis. This involves all government agencies, municipalities, private businesses including citizens ages from 16 to 70 working in unison safeguarding the nation’s independence & security.

There are two components from their “draft":

• Military Defense: Led by the armed forces as their main goal is to deter and defeat armed attacks, protect territorial integrity as well as contributing to Allied defense alongside NATO.
• Civil Defense: Coordinated by the Swedish Civil Defense Agency maintaining critical societal functions such as healthcare, energy supply, transport & electronic communications during heightened alert or war.

Think of “Civil Defense” like this, you are not fighting in a war nor enlisting in the military: rather being drafted to serve organizations that tie in, you instead have to serve in FEMA (disaster response), Border Patrol, EMT (medics), Firefighting, NSA for a set duration in order to retain skills required in case of a invasion (Ameri-Corps exists, but what would happen if the draft either choosing that or being made to enlist in the army?)

I know that murder requires intent by definition of the word, but are war crimes committed by soldiers considered as such when you count atrocities from the battlefield? This is where responses get mixed between world views (from news) depending from one’s perspective (first hand encounters).

One can defend or justify soldiers actions by saying “they’re fighting to defend our country from terrorists” influenced via government propaganda while another person condemns the military’s actions by considering it a war crime since civilians who aren’t the enemy are murdered but framed as insurgents on media.

The clear distinction is: from knowing whether the individual is armed while another is unarmed during a military confrontation in the battlefield on whether it could be justified as self defense by the army or a war crime by the victim’s family since they killed an unarmed civilian who is not a combatant at all.

Soldiers are made to follow orders from superiors, so they are technically accomplices while the real perpetrators are the ones in command as they endorsed the actions enlisted personnel execute. The issue is summoning them to a normal court since they are military personnel (not civilians).

It’s also a case to case basis, as the prosecution will have to prove between:

• The victim was unarmed when the combatants killed them
• The victim was bearing arms when the combatants killed them

That alone outlines between whether:

• The military justifies their actions as self defense since the victim had the intent to open fire at soldiers as they were armed with a weapon, so they argue that their job is eliminating the threat since that’s their duty.
• Eyewitnesses spotted the victim not bearing arms when the soldiers killed them, so they testify by saying the victim didn’t pose a threat as they didn’t harm the soldiers but they still intended to murder that person.

If you look at it from the military’s perspective, they will assert that shooting anyone who is armed or concealing a weapon even though they didn’t open fire (their duty is to eliminate the threat regardless if they are a combatant or civilian, as that doesn’t concern them from a kid holding an AK-47 to a real enemy).

The line between hero or villain becomes blurred from the context on: families of servicemen consider them brave warriors while the victim’s family grieving over the loss of their loved ones deem them as monsters as they assert “my son did nothing to you!” referring to the fact he was not carrying a weapon when he died.

Accessing intel regarding the case becomes complicated when the mission in question remains classified (basically government’s eyes only as special forces were deployed) but remains straightforward when the mission is transparent (the soldiers are part of a regular unit) meaning there’s information that can be found.

Even though, do lawyers have access to those files? That depends on if the lawyer is an expert in civilian criminal law or military justice with clearance. In rare cases: specialized lawyers who can mediate between civilian court and the military judiciary may work if it involves civilian victims and a military perpetrator.

Both trials from a civilian courtroom versus a court martial are independent from each other. Since:

• Court martial dwells on military personnel (meaning both the judge and jury are within rank & file)
• From Civilian trials, the judge is a normal person and the jury are citizens fulfilling their civic duty.

I’ve noticed that American movies from the 1940s or 50s have their content “toned down” when it comes to depictions of sex or violence, even in romance where the lead characters kiss (they pause every 3 seconds) with zero nudity except maybe a bra & crime or noir flicks always involving the protagonist/s winning (like the narrative shows police must be victorious rather than admitting defeat towards criminals) to list a few.

I know that Bruce Willis became an icon when Die Hard was released in 1989 (he’s been an uncredited extra in a Paul Newman movie: the Verdict 7 years earlier in 1982). Same with Sylvester Stallone in Rocky (1976) which made him achieve stardom, 5 years earlier in 1971: he’s an extra in Klute (starring Jane Fonda & Donald Sutherland) during the scene they’re at a club as a disco dancer in the background (his appearance is uncredited).

How people back in WWII knew about war crimes committed by the allied forces or axis powers? At the time: it’s not like you can just say “I’m posting this online!”, there was no such thing as Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Reddit or Twitter (X) since they didn’t exist in 1939-45. The internet didn’t exist when Pearl Harbor was attacked, so that was only heard from word of mouth or tabloids (newspapers).

Now, when speaking about war crimes that the Americans, Brits or French committed during that era: people were oblivious about it at first only seeing them as liberators whilst overlooking their flaws (due to the propaganda floating about back then). They did kill German PoW’s, but how would the average joe in 1945 know that without the reliance of computers, search engines or social media feeds.

The thing is, how did normal people during that era manage to call out the Allies or Axis for their war crimes without the reliance of computers, social media or the internet (let alone livestream) during 1939-45? Japan did establish Unit 731, where Chinese and Allied PoW’s were subjected to brutal torture or human experimentation. How would people know its existence (let alone what goes on inside) during the 40s?