What exactly is the difference between killing an enemy civilian and an enemy soldier?

[StageLeft]

It's commonly accepted not to target civilians in a conflict (unless you're a terrorist). So, the US or any other civilized nation will accept minimal collateral damage to civilians and target instead, as much as possible, an enemy military.

Of course, when the heat is on, things get a bit lazy. The allies in world war II would have found themselves at a loss if they didn't adopt carpet bombing. When it comes down to it if you're in a position of dominance you can afford not to target civilians, but if it's a pretty even match you unfortunately find yourself all but forced to.

But, since the military of a country represents only its strong arm, and the civilians and industry/economy back that up _directly_, what exactly is wrong with targetting civilians and not military?

Obviously the military is, presumably, voluntarily there and consists of fighting age adults who knew what they were getting into, whereas the civilian population consists not only of people who don't agree with the cause, but also others who have no say in the matter (like children), but what other reason is there?

 

[AvesPKS]

You don't have to lead the civilians so much?

 

[Electric Amish]

You get more sh!t for killing the civilian.

 

[TommyVercetti]

same reasoning used by terrorists.

 

[Brutuskend]

Combatant

Non Combatant

 

[sygyzy]

Is this some joke thread?

Isn't this the same thing?

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
But, since the military of a country represents only its strong arm, and the civilians and industry/economy back that up _directly_, what exactly is wrong with targetting civilians and not military?

In a total war situation, absolutely nothing. Those civilians are contributing to the war effort against you through manufacturing. Those hospitals also house scientists working on viruses to unleash on you. Etc, etc. Schools are probably where I'd draw the line, but countries like Syria and the like have been known to place SAM installations right beside buildings like that to deter their opponent.

 

[Electric Amish]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Skoorb
But, since the military of a country represents only its strong arm, and the civilians and industry/economy back that up _directly_, what exactly is wrong with targetting civilians and not military?

In a total war situation, absolutely nothing. Those civilians are contributing to the war effort against you through manufacturing. Those hospitals also house scientists working on viruses to unleash on you. Etc, etc. Schools are probably where I'd draw the line, but countries like Syria and the like have been known to place SAM installations right beside buildings like that to deter their opponent.

Also, many of the "Civilians" shoot back just as much as the "Soldiers" do in this current confrontation.

How do you tell them apart?

 

[amcdonald]

Originally posted by: Electric Amish

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Skoorb
But, since the military of a country represents only its strong arm, and the civilians and industry/economy back that up _directly_, what exactly is wrong with targetting civilians and not military?

In a total war situation, absolutely nothing. Those civilians are contributing to the war effort against you through manufacturing. Those hospitals also house scientists working on viruses to unleash on you. Etc, etc. Schools are probably where I'd draw the line, but countries like Syria and the like have been known to place SAM installations right beside buildings like that to deter their opponent.

Also, many of the "Civilians" shoot back just as much as the "Soldiers" do in this current confrontation.

How do you tell them apart?

The soldiers' camels have battle armor.

 

wrong forum

 

[cambre]

Also, many of the "Civilians" shoot back just as much as the "Soldiers" do in this current confrontation.

A civilian with a weapon is no longer a civilian.

 

[Legendary]

Originally posted by: cambre

Also, many of the "Civilians" shoot back just as much as the "Soldiers" do in this current confrontation.

A civilian with a weapon is no longer a civilian.

 

[AFB]

Originally posted by: Brutuskend
Combatant

Non Combatant

Yes people it is that simple

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: sygyzy
Is this some joke thread?

Isn't this the same thing?

Nope, this isn't a parody.

same reasoning used by terrorists.

But surely the Allies in WWII were not terrorists; so what's the difference?

I'm serious. People say it's just bad to kill civilians, but why is it bad to kill a civilian and not the military, which they _directly support_? Without civilians you have no military to contend with.

A civilian with a weapon is no longer a civilian.

Well, the weapon of the Iraqi civilian is the Iraqi military (used to be!). In essence it seems that differentiating the two is the same as not prosecuting a mobster who orders the hit on somebody. He didn't do the killing directly, but he ordered it, and as such will be prosecuted. The military represents the country's strong arm, but its will nonetheless.

 

[Feldenak]

Are you talking about bombing civilian centers or bombing industrial centers where civilians work?

 

So by your logic, Al Qaeda's slaughter of 3,000 civilians on September 11 was simply part of its war against America and shouldn't be thought of as anything extraordinary?

Al Qaeda is currently engaged in a jihad with the United States, though the U.S. doesn't choose to recognize it as a jihad...it's technically the War on Terror.

So essentially what you're saying is that September 11 was acceptable and was simply collateral damage in Al Qaeda's jihad? After all, American citizens are enemy citizens to Al Qaeda.

 

[Ronstang]

I'm to the point with the Middle East where I couldn't care any less who we have to kill to save the lives of Americans. That whole region is so backwards that common sense and reason have no value....so how do you fight an enemy using traditional Amercan values? Simple.....you can't. These people only understand, respect, and fear one thing....FORCE. If we would have prosecuted Viet Nam as a true war with the intentions of winning it would have been over in a few months, and once again we are trying to fight a war that is very politically polarizing and if we continue to pander to popular opinion on something the average person knows nothing about we will end up in another giant mess. Wars involve killing people and when you try too hard not to hurt anyone you lose your advantage.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
It's commonly accepted not to target civilians in a conflict (unless you're a terrorist). So, the US or any other civilized nation will accept minimal collateral damage to civilians and target instead, as much as possible, an enemy military.

Of course, when the heat is on, things get a bit lazy. The allies in world war II would have found themselves at a loss if they didn't adopt carpet bombing. When it comes down to it if you're in a position of dominance you can afford not to target civilians, but if it's a pretty even match you unfortunately find yourself all but forced to.

But, since the military of a country represents only its strong arm, and the civilians and industry/economy back that up _directly_, what exactly is wrong with targetting civilians and not military?

Obviously the military is, presumably, voluntarily there and consists of fighting age adults who knew what they were getting into, whereas the civilian population consists not only of people who don't agree with the cause, but also others who have no say in the matter (like children), but what other reason is there?

actually the history of warfare any civilians that didn't get out of the way (and most of them did when they could, espcially before 'total war' started in napoleon's day) were pretty much fair target for pillaging by either army. it is only recently that anyone has been able to discriminate that well between targets. so now, of course, when the discrimination isn't used or use is attempted and doesn't work right there is a lot of bitching. it is sorta like how when a treatment isn't invented for a disease no one bitches but then when one is invented people complain about how much it costs.

of course, part of the thing is that precision munitions lower the cost of war, makes it easier to rebuild and less resentment towards whoever is doing the bombing (the US, for the most part). at least, in theory. so everyone wants to leave as much intact as possible.

 

Originally posted by: Ronstang
I'm to the point with the Middle East where I couldn't care any less who we have to kill to save the lives of Americans. That whole region is so backwards that common sense and reason have no value....so how do you fight an enemy using traditional Amercan values? Simple.....you can't. These people only understand, respect, and fear one thing....FORCE. If we would have prosecuted Viet Nam as a true war with the intentions of winning it would have been over in a few months, and once again we are trying to fight a war that is very politically polarizing and if we continue to pander to popular opinion on something the average person knows nothing about we will end up in another giant mess. Wars involve killing people and when you try too hard not to hurt anyone you lose your advantage.

If they're backwards to us, aren't we backward to them? Just because we're the almighty Americans, it doesn't give us ANY right to commit genocide just to make the world the way we want it.

Hell, your little manifesto there sounds a lot like what Hitler would have said. A world full of American values would be a little boring now, wouldn't it?

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: jumpr
So by your logic, Al Qaeda's slaughter of 3,000 civilians on September 11 was simply part of its war against America and shouldn't be thought of as anything extraordinary?

Al Qaeda is currently engaged in a jihad with the United States, though the U.S. doesn't choose to recognize it as a jihad...it's technically the War on Terror.

So essentially what you're saying is that September 11 was acceptable and was simply collateral damage in Al Qaeda's jihad? After all, American citizens are enemy citizens to Al Qaeda.

I'm not saying anything - I'm asking a question for people to think about. It seems that this topic is a no-no, but it seems patently illogical to me.

Are you talking about bombing civilian centers or bombing industrial centers where civilians work?

Both are supporting the military, though one more directly than the other, right?RonstangIt kind of seems that way...

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: jumpr
So by your logic, Al Qaeda's slaughter of 3,000 civilians on September 11 was simply part of its war against America and shouldn't be thought of as anything extraordinary?

Al Qaeda is currently engaged in a jihad with the United States, though the U.S. doesn't choose to recognize it as a jihad...it's technically the War on Terror.

So essentially what you're saying is that September 11 was acceptable and was simply collateral damage in Al Qaeda's jihad? After all, American citizens are enemy citizens to Al Qaeda.

Hmm, I question your logic here. Al qeada isn't a country and we aren't at war with a group of lunatics, or we weren't when 9/11 happened anyway. Are there any countries in the world that would recognize their "war"? That's the sort of stupid logic that terrorists use. Are you a terrorist?

 

[StageLeft]

If they're backwards to us, aren't we backward to them? Just because we're the almighty Americans, it doesn't give us ANY right to commit genocide just to make the world the way we want it.

Hell, your little manifesto there sounds a lot like what Hitler would have said. A world full of American values would be a little boring now, wouldn't it?

I think what he's saying, and forgive me if I'm putting words in his mouth, is that there is an unbridgable gap, and so to the victor go the spoils. I mean seriously israel and palestine, for instance, can go on and on like they are now for a long time, but it's kind of like a little dog nipping at your feet. There comes a point where you just kick the thing into a wall, doesn't there? In nature the stronger survive and thrive.

 

[Ness]

A soldier has pledged their life to the defense of their country, whether it means dying or shooting another person.

A civilian chooses not to fight but to accept what conditions may come as a result of the soldiers.

 

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Hmm, I question your logic here. Al qeada isn't a country and we aren't at war with a group of lunatics, or we weren't when 9/11 happened anyway. Are there any countries in the world that would recognize their "war"? That's the sort of stupid logic that terrorists use. Are you a terrorist?

We weren't at war with them, but they were certainly at war with us. Nation-state or not, they're a sizable entity, and as such, shouldn't their attacks on American civilians be regarded as battles in their jihad against America?

I'm not supporting Al Qaeda in the least, I'm just playing devil's advocate based on Skoorb's question.

 

[virtuamike]

When you're losing, there is no difference