Islam: a Plan for World Domination?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

My point was a more general one, that when you engage in war, decisions are taken for 'military reasons' that do target civilians. That you want to rationalise it is understandable, but the rationale for these decisions is, at best, questionable. The fact remains that these were civillian targets and to suggest that no one had any idea what might happen as an excuse is untennable. The idea was to put a stop to the war so clearly they had some clue that the effects would be catastrophic!

War is dangerous, bloody and kills the general population. Terrorism may target the general population beyond what some people see as 'legitimate collatoral damage' but that's just one point of view. Clearly, 'terrorists' see their actions as reasonable given their circumstances (they are often small units, not platoons, squadrons, whatever)

I know it's common practice to try to make out that terrorism is somehow worse than other forms warfare, but quite honestly, the lines are way to blurry for my liking.

[smoke20 0]

I know it's common practice to try to make out that terrorism is somehow worse than other forms warfare, but quite honestly, the lines are way to blurry for my liking.

help me to understand your statement more clearly. are you saying there is not much difference in a suicide bomber walking into an open market area or a bus terminal or whatever & intentionally killing innocent civilians-non military, woman, kids, peaceful people to make a statement. and a military strike that accidentally misses it target or hits the target that has taken refuge in an area that said target knows innocent civilians will be harmed?(basically using them as human shields)

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If the result is the same - I don't think the people affected by the terrorism/accident/military strike would much care for the reasoning behind it.

Even so - there is a process of rationalisation that takes place. Someone makes the decision that blowing up a marketplace to achieve their objectives is justified, just as someone makes the decision that the people living in a densely populated area are expendable when considering a military assault. Result is much the same - however much worse the former appears to be to your personal sensibilities.

As to accidents - noone in their right mind can drop a bomb into a densely populated area without considering and somehow rationalising that it will kill and maim very many people. The term "surgical strike" is very much a euphemism. You can't really call a bomb "surgical".

Edited September 13, 2007 by Number 6

[smoke20 0]

If the result is the same - I don't think the people affected by the terrorism/accident/military strike would much care for the reasoning behind it.

Even so - there is a process of rationalisation that takes place. Someone makes the decision that blowing up a marketplace to achieve their objectives is justified, just as someone makes the decision that the people living in a densely populated area are expendable when considering a military assault. Result is much the same - however much worse the former appears to be to your personal sensibilities.

As to accidents - noone in their right mind can drop a bomb into a densely populated area without considering and somehow rationalising that it will kill and maim very many people. The term "surgical strike" is very much a euphemism. You can't really call a bomb "surgical".

again please clarify. if the target is engaged in battle or recently was & retreats to a populated area(school,mosque,neighborhood,etc). are you saying it is basically the same thing? not only is it fault of the target the innocent people are harmed, it is incredibly chicken sh!t. please tell me you are not saying its the same thing.

[Peikko 1,575]

No, I am saying that during war, military decisions are made that do target civilians, it's not always a matter of them getting hit 'accidentally' because they are in the wrong place at the wrong time. Conducting urban warfare is difficult and dangerous and the 'enemy' don't conveniently wear badges or stick to 'war zones'

It's also a matter of opinion as to who is the terrorist and who is merely a 'guerrila'. It's a nice idea that we in the West conduct 'civilised' warfare, but that's just ridiculous to me. Yes, I can demonise the enemy in any way I choose to but objectively the lines between 'legitimate targets' and innocent civilians' are way more blurry than you are trying to suggest.

[BabyBlueSusie 1]

My point was a more general one, that when you engage in war, decisions are taken for 'military reasons' that do target civilians. That you want to rationalise it is understandable, but the rationale for these decisions is, at best, questionable. The fact remains that these were civillian targets and to suggest that no one had any idea what might happen as an excuse is untennable. The idea was to put a stop to the war so clearly they had some clue that the effects would be catastrophic!

War is dangerous, bloody and kills the general population. Terrorism may target the general population beyond what some people see as 'legitimate collatoral damage' but that's just one point of view. Clearly, 'terrorists' see their actions as reasonable given their circumstances (they are often small units, not platoons, squadrons, whatever)

I know it's common practice to try to make out that terrorism is somehow worse than other forms warfare, but quite honestly, the lines are way to blurry for my liking.

yupp....i just want to add that americans took to the streets when those bombs were dropped on japan

it was ok for us to do it, but not for others

this is a side note (isnt everything?), something i just thought of out of curiousity...why did they want to use two bombs? do you think japan would have retreated after one bomb was dropped?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If the result is the same - I don't think the people affected by the terrorism/accident/military strike would much care for the reasoning behind it.

Even so - there is a process of rationalisation that takes place. Someone makes the decision that blowing up a marketplace to achieve their objectives is justified, just as someone makes the decision that the people living in a densely populated area are expendable when considering a military assault. Result is much the same - however much worse the former appears to be to your personal sensibilities.

As to accidents - noone in their right mind can drop a bomb into a densely populated area without considering and somehow rationalising that it will kill and maim very many people. The term "surgical strike" is very much a euphemism. You can't really call a bomb "surgical".

again please clarify. if the target is engaged in battle or recently was & retreats to a populated area(school,mosque,neighborhood,etc). are you saying it is basically the same thing? not only is it fault of the target the innocent people are harmed, it is incredibly chicken sh!t. please tell me you are not saying its the same thing.

As I said - it depends very much on whose perceptions we're talking about. Given the end result of each scenario is death and dismemberment - I don't think a person much cares that their relative was killed by a terrorist bomb or by a stray bullet / bomb or was in the wrong place at the wrong time - and probably wouldn't be much comforted by the knowledge that it was "unintentional".

We can sit here and blame the 'enemy' for the collateral damage resulting from an air-strike, for example, but I think the point is quite clear - That war is a dirty business whose moral and ethical lines are rather shaky at the best of times. Clearly the pilot and military commanders make the ultimate decision whether a bomb should be dropped on an area where they know there is a good chance of killing civilians, and whether or not you want to adopt euphemistic terminology to describe it (the term 'collateral damage' is itself euphemistic) the result is still death.

Edited September 13, 2007 by Number 6

[smoke20 0]

No, I am saying that during war, military decisions are made that do target civilians, it's not always a matter of them getting hit 'accidentally' because they are in the wrong place at the wrong time. Conducting urban warfare is difficult and dangerous and the 'enemy' don't conveniently wear badges or stick to 'war zones'

It's also a matter of opinion as to who is the terrorist and who is merely a 'guerrila'. It's a nice idea that we in the West conduct 'civilised' warfare, but that's just ridiculous to me. Yes, I can demonise the enemy in any way I choose to but objectively the lines between 'legitimate targets' and innocent civilians' are way more blurry than you are trying to suggest.

please answer the question w/o changing it. are you saying there is not much difference in a suicide bomber walking into an open market area or a bus terminal or whatever & intentionally killing innocent civilians-non military, woman, kids, peaceful people to make a statement. and a military strike that accidentally misses it target or hits the target that has taken refuge in an area that said target knows innocent civilians will be harmed?

[smoke20 0]

If the result is the same - I don't think the people affected by the terrorism/accident/military strike would much care for the reasoning behind it.

Even so - there is a process of rationalisation that takes place. Someone makes the decision that blowing up a marketplace to achieve their objectives is justified, just as someone makes the decision that the people living in a densely populated area are expendable when considering a military assault. Result is much the same - however much worse the former appears to be to your personal sensibilities.

As to accidents - noone in their right mind can drop a bomb into a densely populated area without considering and somehow rationalising that it will kill and maim very many people. The term "surgical strike" is very much a euphemism. You can't really call a bomb "surgical".

again please clarify. if the target is engaged in battle or recently was & retreats to a populated area(school,mosque,neighborhood,etc). are you saying it is basically the same thing? not only is it fault of the target the innocent people are harmed, it is incredibly chicken sh!t. please tell me you are not saying its the same thing.

As I said - it depends very much on whose perceptions we're talking about. Given the end result of each scenario is death and dismemberment - I don't think a person much cares that their relative was killed by a terrorist bomb or by a stray bullet / bomb or was in the wrong place at the wrong time - and probably wouldn't be much comforted by the knowledge that it was "unintentional".

We can sit here and blame the 'enemy' for the collateral damage resulting from an air-strike, for example, but I think the point is quite clear - That war is a dirty business whose moral and ethical lines are rather shaky at the best of times. Clearly the pilot and military commanders make the ultimate decision whether a bomb should be dropped on an area where they know there is a good chance of killing civilians, and whether or not you want to adopt euphemistic terminology to describe it (the term 'collateral damage' is itself euphemistic) the result is still death.

so what do you suggest? bomb or shoot back only if the enemy is out in the open? allow them the use of innocent peoples lives as shields. they have already shone they don't care about civilians getting killed. thats what the pussies do kill innocent people.

Edited September 13, 2007 by smoke20

[Caladan 19]

Another way to put PH's point is this: would you feel better about the destruction on 9/11 if 3,000 in New York had died while al-Qaeda also targeted a military complex? (wait, does the Pentagon count...uh...?) Or if the Towers had collapsed due to bombing that also hit a military target?

It is very hard to draw a clear distinction between terrorism and conventional warfare that stands up in practice, not just in theory. In theory it's pretty easy. Terrorists intentionally kill civilians for shock value (the deaths aren't as important as the fear), armies only kill them accidentally.... But especially in urban warfare we don't have a policy of avoiding civilian casualties. We try to keep the casualties low, sometimes, if it's feasible. But if you want to avoid civilian casualties, you don't do it with air superiority.

Plus, there's a very good jus in bellum question about what a small power is supposed to do if it wishes to fight a larger power. Were the French resistance immoral because they used bombs and guerilla tactics?

There is a difference of intent... but there's a good practical question of how much that comes to at the end of the day.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If the result is the same - I don't think the people affected by the terrorism/accident/military strike would much care for the reasoning behind it.

Even so - there is a process of rationalisation that takes place. Someone makes the decision that blowing up a marketplace to achieve their objectives is justified, just as someone makes the decision that the people living in a densely populated area are expendable when considering a military assault. Result is much the same - however much worse the former appears to be to your personal sensibilities.

As to accidents - noone in their right mind can drop a bomb into a densely populated area without considering and somehow rationalising that it will kill and maim very many people. The term "surgical strike" is very much a euphemism. You can't really call a bomb "surgical".

again please clarify. if the target is engaged in battle or recently was & retreats to a populated area(school,mosque,neighborhood,etc). are you saying it is basically the same thing? not only is it fault of the target the innocent people are harmed, it is incredibly chicken sh!t. please tell me you are not saying its the same thing.

As I said - it depends very much on whose perceptions we're talking about. Given the end result of each scenario is death and dismemberment - I don't think a person much cares that their relative was killed by a terrorist bomb or by a stray bullet / bomb or was in the wrong place at the wrong time - and probably wouldn't be much comforted by the knowledge that it was "unintentional".

We can sit here and blame the 'enemy' for the collateral damage resulting from an air-strike, for example, but I think the point is quite clear - That war is a dirty business whose moral and ethical lines are rather shaky at the best of times. Clearly the pilot and military commanders make the ultimate decision whether a bomb should be dropped on an area where they know there is a good chance of killing civilians, and whether or not you want to adopt euphemistic terminology to describe it (the term 'collateral damage' is itself euphemistic) the result is still death.

so what do you suggest? bomb or shoot back only if the enemy is out in the open?

What I 'suggest' in hypothetical situations is irrelevant to that point. Merely pointing out that its easy to fall back on ideology to rationalise the combat death of civilians in war.

[Peikko 1,575]

Your question isn't objective, my observations were tying to be. If you are asking do I believe that it's ok to go around killing people who are not military personnel, the answer is an unequivocal no. However, nor am I prepared to draw lines in the sand as to who is and isn't a 'legitimate' target and who is an 'innocent bystander' particulary when engaging in an urban conflict.

[smoke20 0]

Another way to put PH's point is this: would you feel better about the destruction on 9/11 if 3,000 in New York had died while al-Qaeda also targeted a military complex? (wait, does the Pentagon count...uh...?) Or if the Towers had collapsed due to bombing that also hit a military target?

that is my point exactly. the towers were not a result of an attack on a military complex. it was an attack on innocent people. no way are the two even comparable. regardless of the number of civilians harmed. two different things.

[The_dip_sticks 0]

Wondering if the people on the ground see much difference between a terrorist attack and ‘collateral damage’…. Best intentions don’t really cut it if the result is the same… That’s part of the challenge of this sort of conflict IMO.

You can't completely eliminate civilian casualities during war, but they can and have been greatly reduced. The US is fighting this by the book. Geneva Conventions, LOAC, ROE. Do the insurgents follow even the most basic rules of warfare? Well, they don't even wear a uniform distinguishing themselves as combatants.

Back to the original discussion....

Does the destruction differ between a hellfire missile and a carbomb? No. But again, we are not directly targeting civilians, they are.

First of all the usa started an ILEGAL war or have you forgotten that, over lies proclaiming sadam Hussain had WMD's. The link to al queda was a lie too, infact sadam and Osama hated each other because sadam was too unislamic. It's because of the ILEGAL invasion that has caused the chaos and the civil war in that country. The child mortality rate is now as it was in the 60s due to the lack of medical care and babies are being born deformed because of the spread of Uranium from US weapons. So maybe not all bombs are hitting civillians but you sure the hell get the medal for the cause. Also it is not INSURGENTS that are fighting the US but the IRAQI people themselves are fighting to get you US out of their country. The massacre in Fallujah testified to that, they found only 120 foreign fighters out of the 50,000 that stayed in the city before the US flattened the whole city. US fighting this by the book is a joke, they are in an ILEGAL war according to the UN how can they be fighting by the book. Abu Gharaib was not by the book, Chemical weapons used in Fallujah with 50,000 civillians in there was not by the book, rapes of Iraqi girls is not by the book.

You destroyed a sovereign country, the people testify themselves they are worse off now then they ever were with Sadam. No running water, no electricity, no real medical care, the economy is destroyed, mortality rate for children is up. Is the world safer... give me a break, this done nothing but fueled Radical islam Alqueda is stronger because of the war in Iraq, they have more men and a more reason to take revenge on the US, you idiots played right in the hands of Osama, he couldnt have planned it any better.

You occupied a country with no plan, did you people pay no attention to history Algeria, vietnam, ireland... hellooooo, did you think you will go in there without the Iraqi people fighting back, you tried to take a land thats unpredictable and highly intolerant of americans and the more people you kill the more you will inspire!

The US has no where near enough men to take control of a country with 25 million people, standard militry doctrine will tell you that, you need half a million soldiers at least after 4 years you still only control 40% of Baghdad with the fighters just moving around when you move in their area. You take out lone gunmen with bombs from 40,000 feet, the US has never ever won a gorilla warfare and you just dont have the stomach for it. This will be another shameful defeat just like vietnam only this time they wont stop as you have inspired Al Queda with more men and more reason, you will get payback and you have put the world in a more dangerous place.

[smoke20 0]

If the result is the same - I don't think the people affected by the terrorism/accident/military strike would much care for the reasoning behind it.

Even so - there is a process of rationalisation that takes place. Someone makes the decision that blowing up a marketplace to achieve their objectives is justified, just as someone makes the decision that the people living in a densely populated area are expendable when considering a military assault. Result is much the same - however much worse the former appears to be to your personal sensibilities.

As to accidents - noone in their right mind can drop a bomb into a densely populated area without considering and somehow rationalising that it will kill and maim very many people. The term "surgical strike" is very much a euphemism. You can't really call a bomb "surgical".

again please clarify. if the target is engaged in battle or recently was & retreats to a populated area(school,mosque,neighborhood,etc). are you saying it is basically the same thing? not only is it fault of the target the innocent people are harmed, it is incredibly chicken sh!t. please tell me you are not saying its the same thing.

As I said - it depends very much on whose perceptions we're talking about. Given the end result of each scenario is death and dismemberment - I don't think a person much cares that their relative was killed by a terrorist bomb or by a stray bullet / bomb or was in the wrong place at the wrong time - and probably wouldn't be much comforted by the knowledge that it was "unintentional".

We can sit here and blame the 'enemy' for the collateral damage resulting from an air-strike, for example, but I think the point is quite clear - That war is a dirty business whose moral and ethical lines are rather shaky at the best of times. Clearly the pilot and military commanders make the ultimate decision whether a bomb should be dropped on an area where they know there is a good chance of killing civilians, and whether or not you want to adopt euphemistic terminology to describe it (the term 'collateral damage' is itself euphemistic) the result is still death.

so what do you suggest? bomb or shoot back only if the enemy is out in the open?

What I 'suggest' in hypothetical situations is irrelevant to that point. Merely pointing out that its easy to fall back on ideology to rationalise the combat death of civilians in war.

lets try cowards using humans as shields.

Your question isn't objective, my observations were tying to be. If you are asking do I believe that it's ok to go around killing people who are not military personnel, the answer is an unequivocal no. However, nor am I prepared to draw lines in the sand as to who is and isn't a 'legitimate' target and who is an 'innocent bystander' particulary when engaging in an urban conflict.

thank you so much for the clarification.