6 ms·

The parallel comment by salimmadjd has a point about Pakistan maybe being even worse than Iran, when it comes to terror support (I do doubt that Saudi A as a co

by berntb 14y ago

The parallel comment by salimmadjd has a point about Pakistan maybe being even worse than Iran, when it comes to terror support (I do doubt that Saudi A as a country is worse). I might stand corrected, there. >>Every powerful country kills the civilians/citizens of other countries To explicitly target civilians is serious because it breaks the laws of war, etc. Democracies generally don't do that.

freshhawk 14y ago
> To explicitly target civilians is serious because it breaks the laws of war, etc. Democracies generally don't do that. Democracies generally try not to publicize doing that. Unless it's done with drones apparently, then you brag about it.
- Turing_Machine 14y ago
  Link to a democracy bragging about intentionally targeting a civilian?
  - freshhawk 14y ago
    That was a reference to the fact that the election related PR is focused around Obama being tough, having a kill list that he oversees and the successful drone strikes against "militants". Because the definition of militant explicitly includes civilians in the area surrounding the targets and this was recently highly publicized I tied the two together in a flippant comment. But I suspect you knew that already and now want to argue about the US use of drones. I'll save you the time, it's terrorism dressed in Orwellian doublespeak and it's pointless to have internet arguments about it.
    - berntb 14y ago
      The war laws are specifying when/how you can risk civilians -- there will always be dead civilians in a war, you are required to try to minimise that. If you would want to be serious (somehow I doubt it), either (a) argue against the war laws or (b) argue that usa breaks them. Note that in this case, the terrorists target civilians and seem to use their own civilians as shields. You have no problem with that?
Cadsby 14y ago
You are leaving out a rather glaring example. Neither atomic bomb, dropped by the one and only country ever to use them, were dropped on military targets. The "Democracies" of the world kill many innocent civilians, an order of magnitude in fact than any terrorist related event if you really want to compare the two. Not because the people running them are cartoonishly evil or anything, it simply reflects the massive imbalance of military power between us and whoever the terrorist are supposed to be. It's cloaked in talk of noble intentions and euphemistically referred to as collateral damage. I doubt it makes a difference to the populations affected whether they were an intentional target, or the gps on the smart bomb that just leveled your house glitched out.
- berntb 14y ago
  I wrote: To explicitly target civilians is serious because it breaks the laws of war Got the answer: "kill many innocent civilians" Sigh, it is illegal to target. In a war, civilians will die. My point was that some sides do try to avoid civilan casualities. You didn't argue against my point, you made a spin. Then, someone isn't morally right by being weaker, so different strength have nothing to do with it. The nuclear bombs over Japan was 1: a long time ago, 2: a complex choice (e.g. military production in cities, different standards in WWII, the target selection process, etc, etc). You condemn without discussing that. And so on. I am sorry, but I must say that you write simplified propaganda. Please increase quality, I want a better HN. :-(
  - Cadsby 14y ago
    > Sigh, it is illegal to target. In a war, civilians will die. My point was that some sides do try to avoid civilan casualities. You didn't argue against my point, you made a spin. You place a lot of emphasis on intentionality. While it's an aspect worth considering, I don't find it as nearly as persuasive as you seem to. Many military actions are undertaken knowing full well the result with be civilian causalities, often many, and they are done anyway. Like I said earlier, I don't think your distinction means much to the victims whether they were intentional targets or not. > The nuclear bombs over Japan was 1: a long time ago, Uh, not really. It's still within living memory for many. And I think highly pertinent when discussing current issues of nuclear weapons/proliferation. > 2: a complex choice (e.g. military production in cities, different standards in WWII, the target selection process, etc, etc). You condemn without discussing that. I didn't get into those aspects in the interest of brevity, and because it veers a bit too off topic. I have considered them all at length, and ultimately find them unconvincing from a moral standpoint. Also notice how any actions taken by our society, or those representing it, immediately become complex and a hundred shades of grey. I'm sure those supporting acts of terrorism make similar rationales. No one buys it in that case, and I think we should be highly skeptical when our leaders seek to justify it in ours. > I am sorry, but I must say that you write simplified propaganda. Please increase quality, I want a better HN. :-( I'm not sure how to respond to such hyperbole. Everything I've stated is factually true. You can disagree with my interpretation, or the implicit conclusions I've drawn, but labeling it as simplified propaganda is just silly.

by berntb 14y ago

freshhawk 14y ago

> To explicitly target civilians is serious because it breaks the laws of war, etc. Democracies generally don't do that. Democracies generally try not to publicize doing that. Unless it's done with drones apparently, then you brag about it.

Turing_Machine 14y ago
Link to a democracy bragging about intentionally targeting a civilian?
- freshhawk 14y ago
  That was a reference to the fact that the election related PR is focused around Obama being tough, having a kill list that he oversees and the successful drone strikes against "militants". Because the definition of militant explicitly includes civilians in the area surrounding the targets and this was recently highly publicized I tied the two together in a flippant comment. But I suspect you knew that already and now want to argue about the US use of drones. I'll save you the time, it's terrorism dressed in Orwellian doublespeak and it's pointless to have internet arguments about it.
  - berntb 14y ago
    The war laws are specifying when/how you can risk civilians -- there will always be dead civilians in a war, you are required to try to minimise that. If you would want to be serious (somehow I doubt it), either (a) argue against the war laws or (b) argue that usa breaks them. Note that in this case, the terrorists target civilians and seem to use their own civilians as shields. You have no problem with that?

Cadsby 14y ago

You are leaving out a rather glaring example. Neither atomic bomb, dropped by the one and only country ever to use them, were dropped on military targets. The "Democracies" of the world kill many innocent civilians, an order of magnitude in fact than any terrorist related event if you really want to compare the two. Not because the people running them are cartoonishly evil or anything, it simply reflects the massive imbalance of military power between us and whoever the terrorist are supposed to be. It's cloaked in talk of noble intentions and euphemistically referred to as collateral damage. I doubt it makes a difference to the populations affected whether they were an intentional target, or the gps on the smart bomb that just leveled your house glitched out.

berntb 14y ago
I wrote: To explicitly target civilians is serious because it breaks the laws of war Got the answer: "kill many innocent civilians" Sigh, it is illegal to target. In a war, civilians will die. My point was that some sides do try to avoid civilan casualities. You didn't argue against my point, you made a spin. Then, someone isn't morally right by being weaker, so different strength have nothing to do with it. The nuclear bombs over Japan was 1: a long time ago, 2: a complex choice (e.g. military production in cities, different standards in WWII, the target selection process, etc, etc). You condemn without discussing that. And so on. I am sorry, but I must say that you write simplified propaganda. Please increase quality, I want a better HN. :-(
- Cadsby 14y ago
  > Sigh, it is illegal to target. In a war, civilians will die. My point was that some sides do try to avoid civilan casualities. You didn't argue against my point, you made a spin. You place a lot of emphasis on intentionality. While it's an aspect worth considering, I don't find it as nearly as persuasive as you seem to. Many military actions are undertaken knowing full well the result with be civilian causalities, often many, and they are done anyway. Like I said earlier, I don't think your distinction means much to the victims whether they were intentional targets or not. > The nuclear bombs over Japan was 1: a long time ago, Uh, not really. It's still within living memory for many. And I think highly pertinent when discussing current issues of nuclear weapons/proliferation. > 2: a complex choice (e.g. military production in cities, different standards in WWII, the target selection process, etc, etc). You condemn without discussing that. I didn't get into those aspects in the interest of brevity, and because it veers a bit too off topic. I have considered them all at length, and ultimately find them unconvincing from a moral standpoint. Also notice how any actions taken by our society, or those representing it, immediately become complex and a hundred shades of grey. I'm sure those supporting acts of terrorism make similar rationales. No one buys it in that case, and I think we should be highly skeptical when our leaders seek to justify it in ours. > I am sorry, but I must say that you write simplified propaganda. Please increase quality, I want a better HN. :-( I'm not sure how to respond to such hyperbole. Everything I've stated is factually true. You can disagree with my interpretation, or the implicit conclusions I've drawn, but labeling it as simplified propaganda is just silly.