4 ms·
I don't think its that simple. Weddings may constitute a collection of individuals key to a war effort and in striking a wedding one might prevent the devastati
by Quarrelsome 8y ago
I don't think its that simple. Weddings may constitute a collection of individuals key to a war effort and in striking a wedding one might prevent the devastation of a prolonged conflict.
Also Middle Eastern weddings can occasionally be mis-interpreted as militant given the propensity for arms fire in celebration.
If a drone strike hit an American wedding they would ground their _home_ fleet.
Its a key difference. The information for an electorate of a democratic state to make more empathetic choices are available its just a question of whether:
* The electorate are wilfully ignorant of foreign suffering (as its tortuous to read)
* The electorate are kept ignorant intentionally or unintentionally as a product of the conflict for eye balls between media institutions.
* The electorate are not able to make impactful choices due to the type of democracy they have.
I'd argue its a bit of every one of those things.
I prefer to measure things in outcomes and I would posit the major difference in supplying or not supplying arms to a conflict is merely the level of guilt from the origin of supply. People are still going to die be it by drone, missile, mortar, ak-47 or spear.
We could argue that arms sales can enable conflict by giving one side an apparent advantage that they choose to capitalise on but that's a messy problem to investigate. Surely to wish to capitalise means that someone has already drawn the lines and is considering hostilities. What makes a war? The lines being drawn or the weapons or a combination of many factors multiplied over time and key events or decisions made by actors on either side?
One may decide to war without advantage, one may choose not to war with advantage. So I don't think its as clear cut as weapon sales == war.
- YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago>> I don't think its that simple. Weddings may constitute a collection of individuals key to a war effort and in striking a wedding one might prevent the devastation of a prolonged conflict. Same for a hospital (patching up wounded enemy combatants) or a school (educating future insurgents). Or a nursery, football stadium, shopping mall, etc etc...
- Quarrelsome 8y agodon't be so flippant. That's not at all what I was saying.
- YeGoblynQueenne 8y agoI'm not being flippant. You commented that there might be legitimate reasons to bomb a wedding. Well, there are similar reasons to bomb hospitals etc, yet we don't accept that this should be done. If I misunderstood your original comment, please clarify.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- Quarrelsome 8y agoyou suggested bombing schools to "prevent future generations of insurgents". You're advocating genocide. You were being flippant but now you're acting innocent over it which belies a fabricated ignorance that is further insulting. Conflict and arms is a complex topic and simplifying it to "just don't kill people lol" is crass at best. Either engage with the arguments or go to a school about to be bombed in this perceived reality you've fabricated where I represent your perfect demon to squabble with. If that wasn't clear enough: I am not fucking advocating genocide.
- YeGoblynQueenne 8y agoYou said there may be merit to bombing weddings. Why is it any different to bombing hospitals, nurseries, scholyards etc? Those are all civilian targets. Edit: In the spirit of reconcilliation, I would like to explain that I didn't accuse you of anything, much less advocating genocide (I don't even think that bombing a school is genocide; infanticide, at scale, maybe- but, genocide? I don't see that). I felt you are trying to do something extremely risky, to justify killing Y civilians by the number X of combatants that would also be killed. I don't think Y > 0 can ever be morally justified and I don't think that a targeted strike against any number of enemy combatants in a civilian area is, either, no matter the tactical outcome. Dropping bombs on the heads of people going about peacefull activities is just wrong, any way you cut it. Hence my comment- we don't accept the bombing of hospitals, regardless of their tactical value as targets, so why would we accept bombing weddings to kill some terrorists? It's clear you find the idea of bombing hospitals or schools revolting, yet you're OK with bombing a wedding? I don't understand that.