5 ms·

> Is the author seriously suggesting to view deliberate terror attacks against civilians the same as military strikes (drones or planes — I don't see a differen

> Is the author seriously suggesting to view deliberate terror attacks against civilians the same as military strikes (drones or planes — I don't see a difference) performed against enemy combatants, by people who are trying to minimize civilian casualties as far as they can? Why not? Let’s that the countries of Xanadu (“X”) and Yalü (“Y”) are at war with each other. Isn’t it meaningful to compare the number of X and Y citizens killed by each other, regardless of how it is carried out? If X says “We’re careful to minimize killing Y’s civilians,” shouldn’t we judge X by how successful it is in minimizing those casualties? Or should we say, “Oh, well, X is trying their best, so no need to keep count or compare the counts.” Quite obviously “terror” attacks and “military” attacks are different things. But it’s perfectly legitimate to compare them by the number of civilians killed. It shouldn’t be the only way in which we compare them. But it’s still informative to compare them.

avz 11y ago
> Why not? Intention does matter. A military which aims to reduce civilian casualties and fails is less evil than a terrorist who deliberately targets civilians.
- Udik 11y ago
  We have statistics. We know the probable outcomes. The man who pushes the button doesn't know if he's going to kill civilians and how many of them in that particular case, but the average number of civilans killed per bomb is well known. He knows that his actions will cause the death of a certain amount of innocents, and still he pushes the button in order to advance the political or military objectives of the entity he belongs to. On the other hand, if terrorists were able to drop bombs on the homes of high ranking army members and politicians of the West from drones travelling at 30 thousand feet and controlled from thousands of miles away, wouldn't they do so? Of course they would. Would that make them better?
  - thephyber 11y ago
    > We have statistics. We know the probable outcomes. Yes and no. Those things are possible if we have sufficient data, but I'm under the impression the way the CIA classifies a civilian vs. a combatant is inherently biased to reflect a much brighter outlook than a rational, detailed, slower, more careful approach would (although I have no hope for such an alternative). > but the average number of civilans killed per bomb is well known By whom? The CIA considers (considered?) every male of combat age in certain regions an "enemy combatant" or "militant" or something similar [1]. Under that definition, only women, children, and elderly _could_ be labelled as "civilians". What incentive is there to minimize harm to combat age men who are not "enemy combatants" when they are defined as such? The CIA (who I am under the impression controls most drone strikes in {Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, Yemen, Somalia}) doesn't go collect DNA then forensically work the case for every person killed in their strikes as if there was a DNA collection of all terrorists. _They_ are the people expected to tally up the terrorist vs. civilian in your visualized scenario, yet they are the same people who refuse to distinguish between combat age males and combatants. You seem to be arguing that there is a moral high ground in trying to limit the number of innocents killed (which I agree with), but the article is about controlling media information. Perhaps your post would have been a reply to the grandparent post. [1] http://www.salon.com/2012/05/29/militants_media_propaganda/ http://www.salon.com/2012/05/29/militants_media_propaganda/
  - golergka 11y ago
    > The man who pushes the button doesn't know if he's going to kill civilians and how many of them in that particular case, but the average number of civilans killed per bomb is well known. He knows that his actions will cause the death of a certain amount of innocents, and still he pushes the button in order to advance the political or military objectives of the entity he belongs to. This is exactly my original point: his "military objective" is usually to prevent far more civilians from dying in the end. > Would that make them better? Attacking officials of opposing force in high-precision strikes instead of civilians? Yes. It actually would make them better, yes. May be not "good", but definitely better. How is this not obvious?
    - Udik 11y ago
      No, your original point was that terrorist attacks against civilians are inherently worse than attacks which try to minimize civilian casualties as far as they can. Then you added that civilian casualties are horrible but justifiable when targeting an even more dangerous terrorist. But you are confusing two aspects that are completely unrelated: the first is a matter of means (how can you wage war), the second of objectives (why you do it). And then you assume that the western justifications can be taken at their face value (we kill to prevent more being killed, no political purpose implied) which is even more naive. Finally, you seem to admit that having higher precision weapons would make terrorists better people. Maybe, who knows, as good as we are? That was much of my point.
- braythwayt 11y ago
  I strongly disagree with you about them being “less evil,” but even if I agreed with you, that wouldn’t invalidate what I said. Which is, there are a number of ways to compare countries X and Y, and civilians killed is a legitimate way to compare them. “Amount of evil” is another, and we could agree, disagree, or debate it indefinitely. But in the meantime, that’s a separate category of consideration.
rlpb 11y ago
Your argument suggests that only X are responsible for Y's civilian deaths. But given that X and Y are at war with each other, if Y sets up military operations in the middle of Y's civilians ("human shields") whereas X keeps its civilians and military apart, then I don't think it's fair to say that X are performing worse (less ethically, or whatever) if more of Y's civilians die in the conflict than X's civilians. > It shouldn’t be the only way in which we compare them. But it’s still informative to compare them. Unfortunately I think it's as uninformative to compare them as it is uninformative to not compare them. I think it only makes sense to count a civilian death in the context of what the civilian was doing in an area targeted by the military of the other side. That is relatively easy in the West to understand, since these areas aren't in the middle of warzones. In areas of conflict it becomes impossible to understand because of propaganda.
- rdancer 11y ago
  Ironically, much of the personnel involved in the U.S. drone program lives and works stateside, among the civilian population.
  - omonra 11y ago
    Yet no muslim terrorist has accidentally killed innocent civilians when targeting drone operators, have they? They rather simply always target innocent civilians.
    - lolc 11y ago
      Many definitions of terrorism require targeting civilians. So your statements are trivially true. There have been attacks on people in uniform by people identifying as Muslims. These were labeled as terrorist attacks too, so your second statement is not true if you follow the broader definition. One wrong does not justify another, unless of course you decide to follow their logic.
      - omonra 11y ago
        We were talking about drone operators as being equivalent targets to whoever Americans blow up with drone (with concomitant collateral damage). I pointed out that no muslim terrorists have killed people while attempting to kill drone operators (or other specifically targeted military personnel). And why jump through verbal hoops with 'people identifying as Muslims'. Don't we have a word for that - 'muslims'? Is there any chance of someone not being sure if you are talking about people or goats, thus the need for further clarification?
golergka 11y ago
> If X says “We’re careful to minimize killing Y’s civilians,” shouldn’t we judge X by how successful it is in minimizing those casualties? Or should we say, “Oh, well, X is trying their best, so no need to keep count or compare the counts.” Compare what to what? How do you find out how many civilians would have been killed or lived in an alternate version of history? US killed more japanese civilians than Japan killed US civilians. This doesn't mean that US was evil and Japan wasn't. It just means that US was successful and Japan wasn't, nothing more.
- asdfzxc 11y ago
  If you go by the spirit of the argument, you should compare total civilian deaths caused by a side rather than reciprocal deaths. Japan killed way way more civilians in general than the USA, during world war 2.

avz 11y ago

> Why not? Intention does matter. A military which aims to reduce civilian casualties and fails is less evil than a terrorist who deliberately targets civilians.

Udik 11y ago
We have statistics. We know the probable outcomes. The man who pushes the button doesn't know if he's going to kill civilians and how many of them in that particular case, but the average number of civilans killed per bomb is well known. He knows that his actions will cause the death of a certain amount of innocents, and still he pushes the button in order to advance the political or military objectives of the entity he belongs to. On the other hand, if terrorists were able to drop bombs on the homes of high ranking army members and politicians of the West from drones travelling at 30 thousand feet and controlled from thousands of miles away, wouldn't they do so? Of course they would. Would that make them better?
- thephyber 11y ago
  > We have statistics. We know the probable outcomes. Yes and no. Those things are possible if we have sufficient data, but I'm under the impression the way the CIA classifies a civilian vs. a combatant is inherently biased to reflect a much brighter outlook than a rational, detailed, slower, more careful approach would (although I have no hope for such an alternative). > but the average number of civilans killed per bomb is well known By whom? The CIA considers (considered?) every male of combat age in certain regions an "enemy combatant" or "militant" or something similar [1]. Under that definition, only women, children, and elderly _could_ be labelled as "civilians". What incentive is there to minimize harm to combat age men who are not "enemy combatants" when they are defined as such? The CIA (who I am under the impression controls most drone strikes in {Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, Yemen, Somalia}) doesn't go collect DNA then forensically work the case for every person killed in their strikes as if there was a DNA collection of all terrorists. _They_ are the people expected to tally up the terrorist vs. civilian in your visualized scenario, yet they are the same people who refuse to distinguish between combat age males and combatants. You seem to be arguing that there is a moral high ground in trying to limit the number of innocents killed (which I agree with), but the article is about controlling media information. Perhaps your post would have been a reply to the grandparent post. [1] http://www.salon.com/2012/05/29/militants_media_propaganda/ http://www.salon.com/2012/05/29/militants_media_propaganda/
- golergka 11y ago
  > The man who pushes the button doesn't know if he's going to kill civilians and how many of them in that particular case, but the average number of civilans killed per bomb is well known. He knows that his actions will cause the death of a certain amount of innocents, and still he pushes the button in order to advance the political or military objectives of the entity he belongs to. This is exactly my original point: his "military objective" is usually to prevent far more civilians from dying in the end. > Would that make them better? Attacking officials of opposing force in high-precision strikes instead of civilians? Yes. It actually would make them better, yes. May be not "good", but definitely better. How is this not obvious?
  - Udik 11y ago
    No, your original point was that terrorist attacks against civilians are inherently worse than attacks which try to minimize civilian casualties as far as they can. Then you added that civilian casualties are horrible but justifiable when targeting an even more dangerous terrorist. But you are confusing two aspects that are completely unrelated: the first is a matter of means (how can you wage war), the second of objectives (why you do it). And then you assume that the western justifications can be taken at their face value (we kill to prevent more being killed, no political purpose implied) which is even more naive. Finally, you seem to admit that having higher precision weapons would make terrorists better people. Maybe, who knows, as good as we are? That was much of my point.
braythwayt 11y ago
I strongly disagree with you about them being “less evil,” but even if I agreed with you, that wouldn’t invalidate what I said. Which is, there are a number of ways to compare countries X and Y, and civilians killed is a legitimate way to compare them. “Amount of evil” is another, and we could agree, disagree, or debate it indefinitely. But in the meantime, that’s a separate category of consideration.

rlpb 11y ago

Your argument suggests that only X are responsible for Y's civilian deaths. But given that X and Y are at war with each other, if Y sets up military operations in the middle of Y's civilians ("human shields") whereas X keeps its civilians and military apart, then I don't think it's fair to say that X are performing worse (less ethically, or whatever) if more of Y's civilians die in the conflict than X's civilians. > It shouldn’t be the only way in which we compare them. But it’s still informative to compare them. Unfortunately I think it's as uninformative to compare them as it is uninformative to not compare them. I think it only makes sense to count a civilian death in the context of what the civilian was doing in an area targeted by the military of the other side. That is relatively easy in the West to understand, since these areas aren't in the middle of warzones. In areas of conflict it becomes impossible to understand because of propaganda.

rdancer 11y ago
Ironically, much of the personnel involved in the U.S. drone program lives and works stateside, among the civilian population.
- omonra 11y ago
  Yet no muslim terrorist has accidentally killed innocent civilians when targeting drone operators, have they? They rather simply always target innocent civilians.
  - lolc 11y ago
    Many definitions of terrorism require targeting civilians. So your statements are trivially true. There have been attacks on people in uniform by people identifying as Muslims. These were labeled as terrorist attacks too, so your second statement is not true if you follow the broader definition. One wrong does not justify another, unless of course you decide to follow their logic.
    - omonra 11y ago
      We were talking about drone operators as being equivalent targets to whoever Americans blow up with drone (with concomitant collateral damage). I pointed out that no muslim terrorists have killed people while attempting to kill drone operators (or other specifically targeted military personnel). And why jump through verbal hoops with 'people identifying as Muslims'. Don't we have a word for that - 'muslims'? Is there any chance of someone not being sure if you are talking about people or goats, thus the need for further clarification?

golergka 11y ago

> If X says “We’re careful to minimize killing Y’s civilians,” shouldn’t we judge X by how successful it is in minimizing those casualties? Or should we say, “Oh, well, X is trying their best, so no need to keep count or compare the counts.” Compare what to what? How do you find out how many civilians would have been killed or lived in an alternate version of history? US killed more japanese civilians than Japan killed US civilians. This doesn't mean that US was evil and Japan wasn't. It just means that US was successful and Japan wasn't, nothing more.

asdfzxc 11y ago
If you go by the spirit of the argument, you should compare total civilian deaths caused by a side rather than reciprocal deaths. Japan killed way way more civilians in general than the USA, during world war 2.