[mike777]

I hear this phrase often:

People who attack noncombatants are terrorists

Are not civilians who support a side with comfort or aid legal/moral targets in war?
Are not civilians who stand by and do nothing, I mean nothing, legal/moral targets?

I keep hearing this phrase innocent civilians but what the heck does innocent mean?

I seem to remember some Brits and Americans fire bombing cities and dropping the bombs at random, not on some military targets?

[hrothgar]

I want to make sure that I understand your position. From the sounds of things, you support

1. Hezbollah launching rocket attacks against Israeli population centers
2. Suicide bombings in Iraq
3. The 9/11 attacks
4. A hypothetical WMD dropped on Tel'Aviv

[mike777]

Wow of course I did not say I support any of that.

I just raised the question of the definition of the word terrorists.

If "they" whoever "they" are declare a war and "they" assume the war is legal and moral I just see very very few innocents.

Calling the Germans or Japanese in WW11 terrorists and then going around assuming we are innocent civilians seems well .....a waste of energy.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Aug 12 2006, 01:28 AM, said:

Wow of course I did not say I support any of that.

I just raised the question of the definition of the word terrorists.

If "they" whoever "they" are declare a war and "they" assume the war is legal and moral I just see very very few innocents.

Calling the Germans or Japanese in WW11 terrorists and then going around assuming we are innocent civilians seems well .....a waste of energy.

Sorry, I shouldn't have said "Support"...

Let me rephrase things: Is Hezbollah justified in targetting Israeli citizens?

[pigpenz]

From what I remember
1.US bombed Dresden World War II
2. firebombed Tokyo World War II
3. Nuked Hiroshima World War II
4. Nuked Nagasaki World War II

In all cases there were no military targets involved

[mike777]

pigpenz, on Aug 11 2006, 05:59 PM, said:

From what I remember
1.US bombed Dresden World War II
2. firebombed Tokyo World War II
3. Nuked Hiroshima World War II
4. Nuked Nagasaki World War II

In all cases there were no military targets involved

Well having just read a few Japanese(translated to English) books on the War from their point of view and I think saying no military targets is a bit too strong.

Is breaking the Will of the military and civilian population a military target? Is destroying infrastructure a military target?

I note that most of the generals and admirals did not want to stop fighting after we dropped 2 atomic bombs. They thought fighting to the death of 100 million or more Japanese(their estimate) a better option.

BTW I have clients who were there on the night of the Dresden firebombing. They lived in Dresden and to hear their stories of that night.....


To say no military targets is a bit of a stretch.

[jtfanclub]

mike777, on Aug 11 2006, 05:01 PM, said:

I hear this phrase often:

People who attack noncombatants are terrorists

Are not civilians who support a side with comfort or aid legal/moral targets in war?
Are not civilians who stand by and do nothing, I mean nothing, legal/moral targets?

I keep hearing this phrase innocent civilians but what the heck does innocent mean?

I seem to remember some Brits and Americans fire bombing cities and dropping the bombs at random, not on some military targets?

I think the answer is yes, attacking noncombatants is terrorism.

The next question should be, is terrorism a legitimate tactic in war?

I think the answer has to be yes. As we've found out, destroying an enemy's military is only a start. You have to destroy the ccivillians' will to fight to win a war. As long as the civillians are willing to have other people fight for them they'll find somebody to fight. Only by making war an unpalatable choice will a country sue for peace.

[luke warm]

mike777, on Aug 11 2006, 05:01 PM, said:

Are not civilians who support a side with comfort or aid legal/moral targets in war?

i'd say it depends... for example, let's say some native canadians, for whatever reason, support hezbollah and send money to them... i'd say it's a stretch to consider those people to be legitimate targets.. however, let's say that saddam's sons hide in the house of supporters during the iraqi invasion... they (the sons) are military targets... the ones in the house are hiding them because they want to... they have put themselves in harm's way, imo

Quote

Are not civilians who stand by and do nothing, I mean nothing, legal/moral targets?

not necessarily... as an example, look at the quakers in this country... they "stand by and do nothing" as a matter of concious (or i think they're supposed to do that, anyway)... but if they house and feed and arm those who make war then, by definition, they are doing something that can cause them bodily harm

Quote

I keep hearing this phrase innocent civilians but what the heck does innocent mean?

those who have no dog in that fight...

Quote

I seem to remember some Brits and Americans fire bombing cities and dropping the bombs at random, not on some military targets?

and bombs and rockets in london, etc etc... when countries declare war, or have war declared upon them, it's no longer the military or just the leaders - it's the country

richard said:

Let me rephrase things: Is Hezbollah justified in targetting Israeli citizens?

certainly, if they're in a war... but they are not justified in complaining when israel responds in like manner... however, i think that by launching the rockets it was hezbollah who is responsible for the repercussions

[kenberg]

pigpenz, on Aug 11 2006, 05:59 PM, said:

From what I remember
1.US bombed Dresden World War II
2. firebombed Tokyo World War II
3. Nuked Hiroshima World War II
4. Nuked Nagasaki World War II

In all cases there were no military targets involved

Looking back to WWII is, I believe, relevant since I think we indeed are in for a period of very great destruction. The Wikepedia gives the total number of WWII casualties, civilian and military, as sixty some million. We are barely getting started. My understanding of Dresden is that it was some sort of factory town making military supplies but the primary reason for the extensive destruction was in retaliation for the heavy German bombing of Coventry (so I think this was primarily a British operation. I am no expert and I may be wrong). I think both Hiroshima and Nagasaki had some military role, but no doubt (or at least I have no doubt) the purpose of the bombing was to cause sufficient destruction to bring the war to an end, without regard to the specific military targets. The fact is, war is Hell. The other fact is, if you are in one you need to win. You can still get an argument that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not necessary. Perhaps so, but before the bombing we were at war, shortly after the bombing we were not.

It would be very very wonderful if we could find a way out of this morass without all out war. I believe we cannot. The fact that the enemy is not specifically an organized state complicates matters, but it does not change the essentials.

[Codo]

1. There is a quite simple explanation for "terrorists": These are enemy forces, who do not wear uniforms and attack both civil and military targets.´

Of course, we don´t support terrorists ourself. We call them special forces, CIA Agents or freedom fighters.

Whatever is good or evil is mainly dictated by the winners of the war. They make the news and the history.

2. Nearly the same happens, if you have to judge "innocent" people. he winner decides, who is and was innocent.