Is this terrorism?

[Aegis]

The nazis executed whole civilian villages becaus one of their soldier would be captured/killed by the resistance. That's a FACT, and they've been paying for it until today in courts.

Which is completely different from...

Bombed indiscriminately cities and villages, another war crime and crime against humanity, and they didn't care about the civilian casulaties,

The former is a war crime. The latter is not.

I reiterate a former statement of mine:

"Not caring if you kill civillians is not the same as targeting them specifically."

 

[nonconformist]

None of them are acts of terrorism, since they are all commited by a Western army comprised of white people

 

[King Alexander]

There's a big difference between 1) sending people to gas chambers, performing scientific experiments on them

What's this, a game? Do you think innocent lives don't count if they don't go on the gus chambers? A soldier must go after a soldier and not an unarmed civilian. The only difference is the way death comes: in a gas chamber comes from poisoning and from a bomb, if not immediately, from wounds caused by fragments.

and general ethnic cleansing

It may not be on purpose, but when one bombards without caring much of the civilian number of casulaties, some may suggest that indeed it's an ethnic cleansing, when the number of innocent killed is high.

and 2) civillian casualties of war due to collateral damage.
it's another thing to have a few civilians killed along with soldiers and another when mostly of them are civilians, and no soldiers, since you cannot possibly know who your "terrorist" target is(one cannot know for sure, and one has to proof to a third party the target indeed was a terrorist, and if possible, taken him to a court of law to have him judged ).

If you cannot understand the difference, there is no hope for you in this discussion.

Possibly so: I cannot understand the difference, because I'm someone who actually cares about war crimes and crimes against humanity, so my poor brain has no chance of seeing the light.

 

[King Alexander]

None of them are acts of terrorism, since they are all commited by a Western army comprised of white people

What are talking about? We're only talking hypothetically here. If that was what you meant, hypothetically, I'd certainly agree

Which is completely different from...




The former is a war crime. The latter is not.

I reiterate a former statement of mine:

"Not caring if you kill civillians is not the same as targeting them specifically."

Very correct: when someone is NOT targetting the civilians BUT some imaginery terrorist next to the civilian, is certainly not a war crime, since he couldn't actually know that a bomb can also kill people standing by and not just the one and only the soldier wanted to kill. I mean, it's very difficult to know and to imagine that unarmed civilians will be killed by the dozens to kill one "possible" terrorist, somewhere out there.
So, one should just take shots in blind, since civilian casulaties is not an issue.

 

[King Alexander]

Delete this: three posts in a row.

 

[EdwardTking]

Ah, but strategic sites do not have to involve "combatants" at all. Factories. Powerstations. Airports. Those are all strategic targets that do not necessarily have "combatants" there, yet nations are in their right to bomb the crap out of them, even though civillians can die.

Armaments factories, Yes.

Airports from which bombers or fighters are deployed from or
through which substantive quantities of munitions are moved , Yes.

Otherwise NO, they are not in their right to bomb the crap out of them.

 

[nc-1701]

I believe that in a true state vs state nationalist war (ww2 would make a good example) then none would be either terrorism or war crimes because I believe that civilians are valid military targets.

 

[King Alexander]

I believe that in a true state vs state nationalist war (ww2 would make a good example) then none would be either terrorism or war crimes because I believe that civilians are valid military targets.

Really, do you believe that? Then, the suicide mission should be continued by your logic, right? Civilians are valid military targets, you said it yourself.

btw: NO, poweplants that clean the water and produce electricity are NO valid targets since epidemies can spread out if they go out of function, and therefore have hundrends and hundrends of people deliberately dying/dead.

EDIT
I heard on the news there will be an invastigation from people representing organizations for "war crimes commited as well as crimes against humanity for destroying poweplants and water-cleaning factories": it's about a real life incident around the world, and I'm only mention it to show some posters how things are.

 

[Aegis]

What's this, a game? Do you think innocent lives don't count if they don't go on the gus chambers? A soldier must go after a soldier and not an unarmed civilian. The only difference is the way death comes: in a gas chamber comes from poisoning and from a bomb, if not immediately, from wounds caused by fragments.

The difference is whether or not there is an intention of killing the civillian.

It may not be on purpose, but when one bombards without caring much of the civilian number of casulaties, some may suggest that indeed it's an ethnic cleansing, when the number of innocent killed is high.

While I can agree that it can be suggested to be morally irresponsible, I can hardly define such an action as "ethnic cleansing".

and 2) civillian casualties of war due to collateral damage.
it's another thing to have a few civilians killed along with soldiers and another when mostly of them are civilians, and no soldiers, since you cannot possibly know who your "terrorist" target is(one cannot know for sure, and one has to proof to a third party the target indeed was a terrorist, and if possible, taken him to a court of law to have him judged ).

As long as there is a valid target, civillian deaths are acceptable, up to a point. You cannot nuke something, killing millions, in order to take out one bunker.

Possibly so: I cannot understand the difference, because I'm someone who actually cares about war crimes and crimes against humanity, so my poor brain has no chance of seeing the light.

Exactly

 

[Aegis]

Armaments factories, Yes.

Airports from which bombers or fighters are deployed from or
through which substantive quantities of munitions are moved , Yes.

Otherwise NO, they are not in their right to bomb the crap out of them.

A valid target can be anything that can hinder the enemy's military.
That includes:

Airports
roads
power stations
communication stations
factories (food, ammunition, vehicles, equipment)
Supply depots in general
Resources (oil, coal mines)

Even goverment facilities, such as government HQ.

All are fair game.

 

[King Alexander]

The difference is whether or not there is an intention of killing the civillian.

So, you don't think there indeed is an intention if you drop a bomb in a house to kill someone who you cannot prove he's *anything* without evidence, and with him, you take out a whole family. That's completely acceptable by you. Ok...

As long as there is a valid target, civillian deaths are acceptable, up to a point. You cannot nuke something, killing millions, in order to take out one bunker.

Civilian casualties are acceptable up to a point, as you've said, and above all, taking any possible measures to avoid them: now, if, in order to succed your goal, you're transformed into a life-butcher, you're out beyond any excuses.

 

[Tulkas12]

Infrastructure has aways been fair game guys. It is a fundemental part of war. As for civiians? Yea, they are legit targest if your at war, the problem is terrorists don't "declare" their wars. See the point?

 

[nc-1701]

I'm talking about a war between nation states supported by their populations not Iraq or Lebanon but a war as I said like world war II where bombing civillians and firebombing of cities will bring the war to a quicker end with fewer lives lost. (on your side) I know it's not pretty but such is the nature of war.

 

[zulu9812]

I reiterate a former statement of mine:

"Not caring if you kill civillians is not the same as targeting them specifically."

Well, in that case, you've rather missed the point of this thread. Are the two really that different? If State A intentionally targets and kills 50 civilians, is that really morally superior to State B intentionally targetting 50 soldiers and killing 500 civilians as a 'side effect'?

 

[Aegis]

So, you don't think there indeed is an intention if you drop a bomb in a house to kill someone who you cannot prove he's *anything* without evidence, and with him, you take out a whole family. That's completely acceptable by you. Ok...

In the case of the Israelis, is it intentional? No. Is it Apathetic? Yes. That's what I've gathered, at least.

 

[Tulkas12]

Well, in that case, you've rather missed the point of this thread. Are the two really that different? If State A intentionally targets and kills 50 civilians, is that really morally superior to State B intentionally targetting 50 soldiers and killing 500 civilians as a 'side effect'?

I think you misworded this. State B has the moral high ground. Yes, huge difference.

 

[Sidhe]

Personally I think if you consider what Israel is doing unlawfull, arbitrary and designed soully to induce fear and thereby political change it is terror. If you think it is justified in it's use of force then it is not. It's entriely subjective at this stage and even the criteria produced here are open to question, unless the UN is allowed to call for a cease fire then it's academic, if it did and Israel broke them, then it would be terror. Since with Americas protecting every action Israel commits at the moment under it's veto power, there is nothing terrorist in Israels actions(although you really can see the irony here, it could be terrror but the US wont let that happen) War crimes, well we'll have to see how it plays out.

We can't know Israels true objectives but obviously 4 and 5 are terror attacks and 3 is border line. In reality Israel is not setting out to deliberatley target civillians IMO.

 

[Aegis]

Well, in that case, you've rather missed the point of this thread. Are the two really that different? If State A intentionally targets and kills 50 civilians, is that really morally superior to State B intentionally targetting 50 soldiers and killing 500 civilians as a 'side effect'?

This isn’t about who has the moral high ground. This is about “what is a war crime?”

 

[King Alexander]

I think you misworded this. State B has the moral high ground. Yes, huge difference.

Then, why not start using nukes to end any war before it begins(of course, I mean those cases ONLY that the situation allows someone to play it a bully to another party and not when the first wets hims pants out of equal fear...) What's the difference in this case compared to massive killings inside gas chambers?

What would YOU say, if that happened to your country and the enemy didn't give a damn about the civilian casualties?

It doesn't matter, anyway, because what I was discussing with Aegis at an early post, holds true: above a certain point of civilian loses, war crimes begin to emerge(and in accordance to laws that, people were convicted at the past, but other people, today, cannot be convicted because their countries they haven't signed to protect justice and freedom around the world --- that goes for Eastern-Asian as well as for Western countries): thing is, for someone to be judged and trialed for crimes against humanity and for war crimes, his country MUST have signed the treaties/protocol. Right now, many people are happy not ending up behind bars, but someday, in the future, they'll pay, and if not they directly, then their children(revenge doesn't care about how many years passsed, if justice wasn't given, that's the harsh truth).

@Aegis: why do you bring specific cases into our discussion? There're other threads for that.
As for a word you used, the word "apathetic", I'd like to commnet on: I leave it to you to find out if someone described as such is innocent or not. Common sense dictates that someone apathetic to a crime is also a criminal, an instigator. One can be apathetic for caring if he wears shoes or not, but when it comes to a human life, another factor is to be considered, that of not harming others in any way, actively or not.

EDITED

 

[warpus]

Infrastructure has aways been fair game guys. It is a fundemental part of war. As for civiians? Yea, they are legit targest if your at war, the problem is terrorists don't "declare" their wars. See the point?

Al Qaeda has pretty much declared war on the U.S. Are they free to target civilians?