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

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Squisher
In any conflict the victorious side, so as to enjoy the fruits of its victory, will have to co-opt the citizenry. You can do this through total fear (or total destruction) or the hope that you will eventually becomes allies with the population.

If you kill too many of invaded country's citizens you will find it hard enjoy those fruits.

Invading Army 101

Yes, it was easy during WWII. We were liberating Europe from the evil Nazis. In Iraq we are 'liberating' a population that does not want to be liberated. The problem is identifying the enemy. During WWII it was easy, if they welcomed you with open arms they weren't the enemy. If they were shooting at you then they were the enemy. In Iraq if they are shooting at you they are the enemy, if they aren't shooting at you they may or may not be the enemy. I guess that means we need to co-opt through total fear then huh?

 

[BullsOnParade]

In Palestine, the Palistinians are directly targeting the Israelis. Why would they target the
Israeli Army. Isn't the Army supposed to be the will of the people. If you're fighting an ideology
shouldn't you attack those who maintain it, rather than the forces they have set up to protect them?
I mean that makes sense to me, if i believed in something enough to die for it or kill for, I wouldn't attack
the walls that protect those that opppose me ? Would you ?

 

[Atrail]

Is there no distinction between the Palestinians and Palestinian militants?
I have heard plenty of interviews with Palestinians who desire nothing but peace and
a place to live in peace and wish to achieve it through peaceful negotiations.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: BullsOnParade
In Palestine, the Palistinians are directly targeting the Israelis. Why would they target the
Israeli Army. Isn't the Army supposed to be the will of the people. If you're fighting an ideology
shouldn't you attack those who maintain it, rather than the forces they have set up to protect them?
I mean that makes sense to me, if i believed in something enough to die for it or kill for, I wouldn't attack
the walls that protect those that opppose me ? Would you ?

You articulated better my original post.

If the military represents the will of the people, as it generally would in a democratic society, then attacking its civilians is more reasonable than attacking civilians who live under a dictator's yoke, if he represents a small minority of public opinion.

Is there no distinction between the Palestinians and Palestinian militants?
I have heard plenty of interviews with Palestinians who desire nothing but peace and
a place to live in peace and wish to achieve it through peaceful negotiations.

In this case yes there are distinctions, but in the case where a civilian population in great part or almost entirely backs up their military I don't see much of a distinction between the two.

I think a lot of people aren't touching this topic because there is, at least from what I've thusfar read, little logical basis to deny killing a country's civilians but wholeheartedly killing its military, which is directly an inexitricably supported by those same civilians - willingly, being the key factor here.

 

[BullsOnParade]

I understand what your getting at Skoorb. Only a few hundred years ago warring nations would set a time and meet in the morning lined up in conspicuous uniforms and fire at each other in orderly fashion.
It was the American Indians that taught us Guerilla warfare and we who used it against the British.
Weren't the Boston Tea partiers labled Terrorists. Our opponents in this age aren't paid, well trained,
well equipped disinterested soldiers. They are impassioned, improverished, zealots. They care little for convention and treaties. They are fighting for something in which they believe, and believe with utter
mental discipline. They believe the US and west is against all they stand for, and what's more is that they feel threatened that we will act to disestablish their culture and beliefs. Our policies and history fighting the communist ideology certainly favors their fears. So they are takign the fight to us. "They" aren't all Muslims, "They" aren't all Palestinians however "They" are certainly not being condemned by these groups, and often are condoned. Read Steinbeck's The Moon is Down, it may not be right on the mark and perhaps a bit out of context, however the pathos is describes of occupied people is on the money.

 

[TitanDiddly]

The civilian is usually standing around, and the soldier is usually tryingto kill you.

 

[cambre]

I think the problem with Iraq is that the United States is trying to instill a government that will provide a better way of life for its citizens. Well, what good is a government if there are no citizens? Personally, I feel no remorse for civilians getting killed, especially those who intermingle with the insurgents. Killing civilians makes you look bad in world opinion. Even if you accept civilian casualties as collateral damage, it's still hard to justify things like Nanking or My Lai.

 

[BullsOnParade]

The glaring folly of all of this is Bush and his cabinet are ardently oppposed to allowing the Iraqi's to establish a nonsecular, clerical run Theocracy. I mean i'm opposed to religious rule and that would undoubtedly create a huge rift between Iraq and the US a la Iran in the 80's. What I find despicable is that Bush was all set to send his own Church Pastor to Iraq on a Missionary type delegation, but was obviously restrained by his advisors. There's such evident confict of interest in all of this.

Cambre, you're spot on about the conflict of interest that the US has with Iraq and the Middle East
in general. It's no wonder the people there are skeptical. It would make much more sense to have the UN handle the establishment of an new Iraqi government and take the spot light away from the US on this whole matter as we are already rather unpopular in all of this. But yet America demands that its stamp be placed on the final product, stating to the Middle East that its vision for progress in the region is the one to be followed.

 

[Sahakiel]

The reasoning behind the noncombatant distinction is the assumption that civilians are defenseless. Shooting or pillaging civilians is akin to taking candy from a baby. Given that assumption, involving civilians is therefore immoral, dishonorable, unsportsmanlike, etc.
During the events of World War II, the US found itself as the world's first superpower. With the rise of the Soviet Union and the Cold War, the US needed to maintain face and moral superiority. Based on the previous assumption of civilians in general, the US started to crack down on collateral damage. Precision munitions were developed primarily to counter the massive numbers the Soviet Union could field, but they also offer a side benefit of decreased collateral damage, which is great for PR purposes.