An interesting read

[Stewbert 08]

OK, so I tell you, "Building X has terrorist leader Y and his cohorts in there. They'll be there for the next two hours. Also, there are about 20-30 civilians there."

You bomb the building. BUT YOU DIDN'T INTEND TO KILL CIVILIANS, THAT WAS JUST AN ACCIDENT HONEST, YOU'RE NOT A MONSTER!!!!

rofl. Get real.

 

[EdCase]

*creeps back into what he started*

The difference is : Terrorists choose to bomb and kill civilians. They are attempting to cause terror. There would be no discussion, no debate, no attempt to minimize collateral damage. In fact quite the opposite.
Any military operation would be planned to minimize civillian casualties. Alternative plans/strategies would be discussed.
Basic fact is though, terrorists use the general populace as a shield, inevitably someone will get hurt or die.
The alternative is to not act at all, giving free reign to said terrorists to act at will with impunity.

Best to remember there's no such thing as a "fair fight".

 

[CaptainF]

The OP, is by the way, bull.

 

[EdCase]

As I stated before, never said it wasn't . Simply said it was an interesting read.

I simply get tired of seeing the military being refered to as murderers. Hence I responded to Stewbert08.

 

[GinandTonic]

The op is indeed laughable.

Can someone explain the "they hate us for our freedom" angle. Never heard it before and on the face of it it simply makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

Cry me a river, Iran, because your people are going to need it (to drink from) after the US addresses our own grievances.

It's funny how the US has created so many of the problems it blames on other countries. Perhaps it was a bad idea to overthrow Mossadegh... or support the Shahs... or harass even the governments of Iran which are somewhat less confrontational, thus raising support for more wingy leaders such as Amadinejad.

 

[C~G]

You did not state the obvious, you invented new definitions for the word "intentionally".

Might be so.

1. A course of action that one intends to follow.
2.
a. An aim that guides action; an objective.
b. intentions Purpose with respect to marriage: honorable intentions.

My claim is that if your intent is to start to walk the path of war your intent is to reach the aim knowingly of also causing civilian deaths. Collateral damage is just nice word to escape the reality that your military aren't the bad guys causing deaths of young children.

The US does not intentionally kill civilians. The US does not target civilians. Terrorists do. By mixing "intentionally" with a dash of "proxy", you do not change the word "intention".

Well, yeah, but they do it knowingly.

You see, the word "intentionally" includes the word "intention" and it is not the intention of the US to kill civilians. The US does accept the reality of collateral damage, but that is not the intention. If that was the US's intention, the US could kill them all very easily.

When you start a war against country you sure do understand that your intent is to knowingly participate into action which leads to civilian killings?

In other words, there's the intent in one way or another.

Sorry to state the obvious.

Yes you stated the obvious what I waited from like you.

Anyone who believes that the difference between suicide bombers and the US military is "splitting hairs" is a terrorist sympathizer. Using words according to their ACTUAL definition is not splitting hairs.

I guess I'm terrorist sympathizer then.

I still happen to support the cause of fighting against terrorism, I just happen to acknowledge that in some way it doesn't make any better of people fighting against terrorism if the result is numerous dead civilians since that's what we are trying to prevent with fight against terror anyway, yes?

In the end it's total hypocrisy to call terrorist acts intentionally killing civilians while not calling war as intentional action when knowingly of civilian casualties still begin it and tries to reach the objective of defeating the enemy.

You know maybe terrrorists didn't target civilians of WTC but just the two towers and attacked enemy's infrastructure and the dead were just collateral damage?

It's nice to escape the reality to define your side of not being part of bloody conflict that causes grievances to numerous people and that there wouldn't be no "intent" to kill. This is just normal western hypocrisy about their policies which has been present for only god knows how long. In other side of the coin are those terrorist leaders that dehumanize the opponent and call them infidels so they can escape their problem of trying explain why these innocent people must be killed.

 

[Princeps]

Intended and expected civilian casualties are essentially the same. If not, then Hamas could just bomb a bus and say "oh, we were just trying to wreck the bus, but you know ... all those pesky civilians were inside. Sorry."

 

[aneeshm]

I pretty much agree with with guy.

When you start to think in terms of the consequences of actions instead of just the abstract morality of the actions themselves, you come to have a very different view of the world.

And the consequence of losing this war of civilisation will be complete and utter annihilation.

I know because it happened to us. We survived because of some very, very unique circumstance which do not apply anywhere else in the world, and thus the consequences would be even worse this time.

 

[EdCase]

You know maybe terrrorists didn't target civilians of WTC but just the two towers and attacked enemy's infrastructure and the dead were just collateral damage?

Quite possibly the most trite, insensitive sentence I have ever seen on these boards.

It's nice to escape the reality to define your side of not being part of bloody conflict that causes grievances to numerous people and that there wouldn't be no "intent" to kill. This is just normal western hypocrisy about their policies which has been present for only god knows how long. In other side of the coin are those terrorist leaders that dehumanize the opponent and call them infidels so they can escape their problem of trying explain why these innocent people must be killed.

No intent to kill ? Of course there is intent to kill. That is the purpose of war. There is no intentional targetting of bystanders. A huge difference.
Last time I checked the US military (as this is surely who this is aimed at) hasn't at any time...

Used suicide bombing as a delivery method. Taken hostages and then beheaded them "on air". Used children as cannon fodder.
War is unpleasant and people die. Terrorism is unpleasant and people die. Difference ?
Terrorists will strike anywhere at any time. War is conducted in a theater of operations..clearly stated and defined.

 

[Princeps]

Used suicide bombing as a delivery method.

Delivery method is irrelevant from moral perspective.

Taken hostages and then beheaded them "on air".

No, but they (meaning the military establishment) have attacked undefended civilian targets indiscriminately, massacred hundreds of thousands, dropped bombs on defenseless peasant communities, and so on.

War is unpleasant and people die.

Yes and an unprovoked war of aggression is colossal crime for which people should be hanged.

Terrorists will strike anywhere at any time. War is conducted in a theater of operations..clearly stated and defined.

You mean, like in Nicaragua, where US-bought contra mercenaries were ordered to attack "soft targets" (defensless civilian targets) and pillage, rape, mutilate and murder indiscriminately. Or when US dropped more bombs on a small country, than all the sides used in the second world war? Or when Israeli forces wiped out entire villages? Or when Turks waged open war against the Kurds with US weapons? You mean that these crimes were conducted in a "theater of operation..clearly stated and defined" and therefore are somehow morally correct?

Yeah, to jingoistic morons its morally correct because "we" did it, anything "we" do is by definition correct.