4 ms·

'Do you have any evidence of this or are you just asserting to because it sounds nice?' I don't have evidence that what the parent said happened actually happe

by Aqueous 11y ago

'Do you have any evidence of this or are you just asserting to because it sounds nice?' I don't have evidence that what the parent said happened actually happened. I'm not saying it didn't happen but I don't have any evidence that it did. Do you? "Saying "we don't target civilians" doesn't get you any points" Not targeting civilians gets you a lot of points. 'Intent' vs 'non-intent' (along with 'consent' vs 'non-consent') is in my view the central concept of all ethical / moral discussions. As for whether or not US soldiers, either disobeying orders, obeying direct orders, or obeying the orders from high up in the chain of command, actually kill civilians, yes, that is a critical part of this conversation as well. But it is much easier to stop killing civilians when it is not a stated part of our foreign policy, our military strategy, or our laws to deliberately do so. And I can't say the same thing about ISIS or Al Shabaab or terrorists in general.

kuschku 11y ago
> it is not a stated part of our foreign policy, our military strategy, or our laws to deliberately do so. You heard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_bombing_directive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_bombing_directive before? The aim of your foreign policy was literally to hurt civilian morale by de-housing them and killing their friends, family, etc. I am only glad that, after the war, you decided it would be best to help by rebuilding all that.
- Aqueous 11y ago
  First, that was Britain's directive, not the US, though the US definitely indiscriminately bombed cities in both the European and Pacific theatres as well. Second, Germans were conducting a campaign of area bombing against London in the Battle of Britain and the Blitz, as well [1]: 'The Luftwaffe, which Hitler had prohibited from bombing civilian areas in the UK, was now ordered to bomb British cities.' So this attitude of 'total war' was not one-sided and was precipitated by Germany's "accidental" bombing of British civilian areas, followed by their expressly deliberate bombing of civilian areas. None of this makes this right, but World War II was not the finest hour for anyone in the conflict, and people were generally responding in kind to defend themselves. This was before many of the international norms that are in place today existed. Third, I have already said repeatedly that the US has blood on its hands, but I have also argued that our military policy has evolved considerably since 1945. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II#The_Battle_of_Britain_and_the_Blitz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World...
  - kuschku 11y ago
    And I’d like to quote myself: > I’m not saying the US is bad, or good, I’m trying to say there is no "good" side in a war. No one in a war is innocent. > There is a side that gasses jews, and a side that nukes civilians. There is a side that bombs hospitals, and a side that blows themselves up at a concert in Paris. There’s a side that massacres disabled people, and a side that shoots children. > We can’t compare, or even weigh up the sides against each other, and doing so would miss the point. But we can’t say "only terrorists kill civilians".
justin66 11y ago
>I don't have evidence that what the parent said happened actually happened. I'm not saying it didn't happen but I don't have any evidence that it did. Do you? Chuck Yeager admitted to participating in missions over Europe that involved strafing civilians, and more generally committing atrocities (his word) in his first autobiography. It's so baffling that this would come as a shock to you, in light of the more heavily publicized and more terrible bombing in the Pacific theatre.
- Aqueous 11y ago
  It is not surprising to me. If you read over this entire thread you'll see that I acknowledge that the US has blood on its hands but I also argue that we have made considerable progress in foreign policy particularly with regard to how we treat civilian casualties. This, and the critical difference of 'intent,' is something conveniently ignored by those who want to hand-wave away the difference between the foreign policy of Western countries and the actions of extremists who indiscriminately murder un-armed civilians routinely and without warning. It is a false equivalence.
  - justin66 11y ago
    Just correcting that one bit of obvious, gross ignorance or dishonesty. I'm sure you're a total expert about everything else.
    - Aqueous 11y ago
      As I'm sure you are as well. One of the things that eludes the mindset of the ideologue is that you can have civil disagreements. In other words, you can disagree with someone without being a fucking dick about it.
      - justin66 11y ago
        I'm not an ideologue at all, although there's nothing wrong with that. I'm just annoyed by people who pontificate at length about historical matters of which they are ignorant.
shkkmo 11y ago
> I don't have evidence that what the parent said happened actually happened. The parent provided evidence via hearsay from his grandmother. Him providing a source for his assertion lets us make our own judgements about it's veracity. You made a definitive statement: > they were acting against orders, at least the orders of the high command I assumed you had some reason, possibly just hearsay regarding similar incidents, leading you to make that assertion. If you don't have any actual reason for believing it, then you are just saying it because it sounds nice. That makes you propagandist/liar.

by Aqueous 11y ago

kuschku 11y ago

> it is not a stated part of our foreign policy, our military strategy, or our laws to deliberately do so. You heard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_bombing_directive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_bombing_directive before? The aim of your foreign policy was literally to hurt civilian morale by de-housing them and killing their friends, family, etc. I am only glad that, after the war, you decided it would be best to help by rebuilding all that.

Aqueous 11y ago
First, that was Britain's directive, not the US, though the US definitely indiscriminately bombed cities in both the European and Pacific theatres as well. Second, Germans were conducting a campaign of area bombing against London in the Battle of Britain and the Blitz, as well [1]: 'The Luftwaffe, which Hitler had prohibited from bombing civilian areas in the UK, was now ordered to bomb British cities.' So this attitude of 'total war' was not one-sided and was precipitated by Germany's "accidental" bombing of British civilian areas, followed by their expressly deliberate bombing of civilian areas. None of this makes this right, but World War II was not the finest hour for anyone in the conflict, and people were generally responding in kind to defend themselves. This was before many of the international norms that are in place today existed. Third, I have already said repeatedly that the US has blood on its hands, but I have also argued that our military policy has evolved considerably since 1945. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II#The_Battle_of_Britain_and_the_Blitz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World...
- kuschku 11y ago
  And I’d like to quote myself: > I’m not saying the US is bad, or good, I’m trying to say there is no "good" side in a war. No one in a war is innocent. > There is a side that gasses jews, and a side that nukes civilians. There is a side that bombs hospitals, and a side that blows themselves up at a concert in Paris. There’s a side that massacres disabled people, and a side that shoots children. > We can’t compare, or even weigh up the sides against each other, and doing so would miss the point. But we can’t say "only terrorists kill civilians".

justin66 11y ago

>I don't have evidence that what the parent said happened actually happened. I'm not saying it didn't happen but I don't have any evidence that it did. Do you? Chuck Yeager admitted to participating in missions over Europe that involved strafing civilians, and more generally committing atrocities (his word) in his first autobiography. It's so baffling that this would come as a shock to you, in light of the more heavily publicized and more terrible bombing in the Pacific theatre.

Aqueous 11y ago
It is not surprising to me. If you read over this entire thread you'll see that I acknowledge that the US has blood on its hands but I also argue that we have made considerable progress in foreign policy particularly with regard to how we treat civilian casualties. This, and the critical difference of 'intent,' is something conveniently ignored by those who want to hand-wave away the difference between the foreign policy of Western countries and the actions of extremists who indiscriminately murder un-armed civilians routinely and without warning. It is a false equivalence.
- justin66 11y ago
  Just correcting that one bit of obvious, gross ignorance or dishonesty. I'm sure you're a total expert about everything else.
  - Aqueous 11y ago
    As I'm sure you are as well. One of the things that eludes the mindset of the ideologue is that you can have civil disagreements. In other words, you can disagree with someone without being a fucking dick about it.
    - justin66 11y ago
      I'm not an ideologue at all, although there's nothing wrong with that. I'm just annoyed by people who pontificate at length about historical matters of which they are ignorant.

shkkmo 11y ago

> I don't have evidence that what the parent said happened actually happened. The parent provided evidence via hearsay from his grandmother. Him providing a source for his assertion lets us make our own judgements about it's veracity. You made a definitive statement: > they were acting against orders, at least the orders of the high command I assumed you had some reason, possibly just hearsay regarding similar incidents, leading you to make that assertion. If you don't have any actual reason for believing it, then you are just saying it because it sounds nice. That makes you propagandist/liar.