Pyrian on 25/9/2013 at 05:42
Does a civilian in a warmongering democracy even count as innocent?
Gryzemuis on 25/9/2013 at 10:07
Quote Posted by NuEffect
Let's take the cause of the war out of the equation.
OK.
Quote:
it was going to take him 6 months to get it ready before blowing up somewhere the size of Tanganyika.
Now then, we've got to go in and stop him but that pesky military is stopping us.
So you just put the war back into the equation ?
We're discussing *why* people get killed. Intent or not intent. I think it is important to understand why you throw bombs at targets. You take it as a given that bombs have to be thrown. And that the collateral damage is only a result of that given fact.
Quote:
I'm sure you'd agree that
unplanned collateral damage in this case is a lesser evil than planned collateral damage of setting a couple of car bombs off in a busy market.
Sure. It's like a juridical discussion (is that an English expression ?) whether a death was murder, manslaughter or neglect. It matters a lot to lawyers and judges. But the person who is dead cares a lot less.
It's like driving a car while drunk. And then killing someone. "Sorry mister judge, I couldn't help it, I was drunk. It was completely unplanned". It's similar to "sorry I hit a few dozen civilians, I was busy getting the bad guys. It was completely unplanned".
Suppose the Canadians said: "I think the USA has a problem with redneck extremists in the Mid-West. We think we should help them by bombing the rednecks". How do you think that would go with the Americans ? Now suppose the Canadians bomb a few weddings and funerals by mistake. And a few kindergartens. "He, sorry about those yankie toddlers, but we were trying to get the bad guys. We'll try to aim better next time. Have a nice day".
The fact that the civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq are mostly muslims helps a lot for the politicians to push their ways. If it were cute, white, christian kids that got killed, there would be no drones and no cruise-missiles and no bombings.
DDL on 25/9/2013 at 10:21
Those are some pretty tenuous analogies, there.
SubJeff on 25/9/2013 at 10:30
Quote Posted by LittleFlower
We're discussing *why* people get killed. Intent or not intent.
Actually I'm not.
Quote Posted by LittleFlower
The fact that the civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq are mostly muslims helps a lot for the politicians to push their ways. If it were cute, white, christian kids that got killed, there would be no drones and no cruise-missiles and no bombings.
I'm sure you're right.
You're still sidetracking this. Intent is exactly my point, though your drunk driving analogy isn't really useful as being drunk impairs judgement in a pharmacological manner.
The intent of a missile strike on enemy military it to destroy the military.
The intent of a terrorist bomb is to kill civilians.
Intentionally destroying the enemy military can be justified, specifically targeting civilians can not.
Gryzemuis on 25/9/2013 at 10:50
Quote Posted by NuEffect
The intent of a missile strike on enemy military it to destroy the military.
But you KNOW that things can go wrong.
You KNOW that civilians have died in the past.
You KNOW that you can make mistakes. And that the chances are pretty high.
When you continue the bombing then, are you still innocent ?
It is like DUI. Most of the time nothing happens. But you KNOW that DUI has a high(er) chance of killing someone. That's why it's immoral. When you start throwing bombs, you know there is a high chance things go wrong. When you know it, and you continue, is it not immoral ?
Now you might say that drunk driving has no purpose. And that bombing terrorists in Afghanistan does have a purpose. But I am not so sure.
SubJeff on 25/9/2013 at 10:54
If you're going down that route then isn't all war wrong?
We should just sit and smile as the enemy launches rockets at us, invades our streets and dominates our airspace. Because we know that when using military weapons might go wrong.
Gryzemuis on 25/9/2013 at 10:59
Quote Posted by NuEffect
The intent of a terrorist bomb is to kill civilians.
Of course it's not.
Terrorism is the systematic use of violent terror as a means of coercion. Wikipedia definition. My definition would be: Terrorism is the systematic use of violent terror as a means of coercion to reach a political goal. And yes, religious goals that pertain more than the individual are also political goals, imho.
Maybe terrorists try to achieve goals too ?
E.g. they want to establish a religious state.
Or they want to introduce sharia.
Or they want to throw occupiers out of their country ?
Or whatever.
They use violence and terror to achieve their goal.
Innocent civilians die.
I am sure they see them as collateral damage.
Or maybe they see them as the enemy anyway. So they might even feel justified in killing them.
I don't think even terrorists kill innocent people just for fun.
Supposedly the terrorists in Kenya went around asking people: "What is the name of the mother of Mohammed" ? Assuming that muslims would know the answer. And non-muslims would not. And then they killed the non-muslims. I suppose that was their way of assuring no innocent civilians got killed. Only the guilty ones. Weird maybe. We might not agree. But it seems they did have their own logic to prevent collateral damage.
DDL on 25/9/2013 at 11:00
Quote Posted by LittleFlower
When you continue the bombing then, are you still innocent ?
Wait, what? When did innocence come into this? Bombing people isn't ever a blameless activity. Even if you killed badguys(TM) and only badguys(TM) you'd still be guilty of killing people, and that guilt would be exactly as meaningless as your use of 'innocence' is. It's irrelevant to the issue at hand.
The difference being discussed here is "attempting to ensure a 'badguys killed per innocent life taken' ratio of greater than zero (which is what the coalition is aiming for), versus "actively aiming for a ratio of zero". The former approach is trying to kill badguys(TM) and may or may not also result in unwanted civilian casualties. If there were practical, manageble ways to take the strikes such that civilian casualties dropped to zero, they would take them, because killing civilians is not the point.
Terrorist approaches are to kill civilians, and only civilians. KILLING CIVILIANS IS THE ENTIRE POINT.
This is the difference.
Gryzemuis on 25/9/2013 at 11:02
Quote Posted by NuEffect
If you're going down that route then isn't all war wrong?
We should just sit and smile as the enemy launches rockets at us, invades our streets and dominates our airspace. Because we know that when using military weapons might go wrong.
That is a difficult question indeed.
Violence is not always the answer.
I am inclined to say: it is more often not the answer than that it is.
DDL on 25/9/2013 at 11:04
It's certainly a terrible answer to most exam questions.
