3 ms·

Obligatory pedantic reply: Palestinians who blow up busses in Israel are hitting military targets (all israeli citizens undergo compulsory military training an

by cup 13y ago

Obligatory pedantic reply: Palestinians who blow up busses in Israel are hitting military targets (all israeli citizens undergo compulsory military training and are part of a reserves contingent ergo are legitimate military targets. Or: Flying a plane into the pentagon. I mean its not as clear cut as you want it to be. The dresden bombings didnt clearly target military objects. Its not as simple as classification when the one doing the classifying is so willing to act in a hypocritical grey zone.

srean 13y ago
I cant see why this comment is getting downvoted.
- crdoconnor 13y ago
  Mob mentality.
- res0nat0r 13y ago
  Probably because he purposefully ignored mentioning the two non military buildings in NYC that were also hit.
  - itchitawa 13y ago
    "part of the support network either through willful ignorance or" this includes all Americans who pay taxes, vote for the government, etc. Ultimately everyone shares some blame but when we see someone who's more directly responsible than ourselves, we tend to blame them and forgive ourselves. As a non-America, I see Obama voters as responsible because he told them he would attack Pakistan with drones as part of his first election campaign.
    - calbear81 13y ago
      I agree that as an American who voted for those in power that I am partially responsible and would be a fair target. Living in a democracy means accepting that collectively we have chosen someone to make decisions on our behalf and even if we disagree we have chosen to operate under a set of rules that govern how we disagree and how we change things (election, etc.)
      - res0nat0r 13y ago
        So it sounds like both of you advocate both US civilians being valid targets to kill, and also that the USA should be OK with killing foreign civilians yes?
        calbear81 13y ago
        It's a bit more nuanced. It depends on who we're at war with. If it's a nation, then sure, the nation and it's support system (workers, factories, etc.) should be valid targets. For non-state sponsored actors (terrorists, etc.), it becomes a lot more muddy. For example, in Pakistan, the general population isn't actively supporting terrorism and it's not advocated by the state so they are not valid targets. However, in areas where the Taliban have control and are supported and aided by the villages, the target list should expand. At the end of the day, my original argument was that the delineation of military vs. civilian targets allows us to ignore our roles as citizens of a nation-state at war. I also think that many conflicts get dragged out and result in a lot more pain and suffering than if we had more flexibility.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
calbear81 13y ago
I actually don't really understand why there's some type of "rule" of war. It's WAR, following rules seems to make something inherently savage into something we can feel okay about because there appears to be some type of logic that makes it less horrifying than it really is. cup has a great point. We think that the Twin Towers were civilian targets but to those flying the planes, everyone in the West was probably fair game and the "enemy" even if we don't think so. Similarly, those people at weddings that were bombed probably thought they weren't fair game but we thought since they decided to host some terrorists at their wedding that they are complicit in their activities and thus are fair game. How do we classify "civilians" that may not be actively waging war but are part of the support network either through willful ignorance or by becoming human shields (like in Mogadishu, etc.)?

by cup 13y ago

srean 13y ago

I cant see why this comment is getting downvoted.

crdoconnor 13y ago
Mob mentality.
res0nat0r 13y ago
Probably because he purposefully ignored mentioning the two non military buildings in NYC that were also hit.
- itchitawa 13y ago
  "part of the support network either through willful ignorance or" this includes all Americans who pay taxes, vote for the government, etc. Ultimately everyone shares some blame but when we see someone who's more directly responsible than ourselves, we tend to blame them and forgive ourselves. As a non-America, I see Obama voters as responsible because he told them he would attack Pakistan with drones as part of his first election campaign.
  - calbear81 13y ago
    I agree that as an American who voted for those in power that I am partially responsible and would be a fair target. Living in a democracy means accepting that collectively we have chosen someone to make decisions on our behalf and even if we disagree we have chosen to operate under a set of rules that govern how we disagree and how we change things (election, etc.)
    - res0nat0r 13y ago
      So it sounds like both of you advocate both US civilians being valid targets to kill, and also that the USA should be OK with killing foreign civilians yes?
      - calbear81 13y ago
        It's a bit more nuanced. It depends on who we're at war with. If it's a nation, then sure, the nation and it's support system (workers, factories, etc.) should be valid targets. For non-state sponsored actors (terrorists, etc.), it becomes a lot more muddy. For example, in Pakistan, the general population isn't actively supporting terrorism and it's not advocated by the state so they are not valid targets. However, in areas where the Taliban have control and are supported and aided by the villages, the target list should expand. At the end of the day, my original argument was that the delineation of military vs. civilian targets allows us to ignore our roles as citizens of a nation-state at war. I also think that many conflicts get dragged out and result in a lot more pain and suffering than if we had more flexibility.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]

calbear81 13y ago

I actually don't really understand why there's some type of "rule" of war. It's WAR, following rules seems to make something inherently savage into something we can feel okay about because there appears to be some type of logic that makes it less horrifying than it really is. cup has a great point. We think that the Twin Towers were civilian targets but to those flying the planes, everyone in the West was probably fair game and the "enemy" even if we don't think so. Similarly, those people at weddings that were bombed probably thought they weren't fair game but we thought since they decided to host some terrorists at their wedding that they are complicit in their activities and thus are fair game. How do we classify "civilians" that may not be actively waging war but are part of the support network either through willful ignorance or by becoming human shields (like in Mogadishu, etc.)?