4 ms·

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

by 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.

by 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.