Is it all right to kill civilians in warfare?

[JAR]

My answer is yes.

When civilians pay taxes or benefit the enemy government in any way, then the civilians are the enemy. Therefore it is just as justifiable to kill them as it is to kill enemy soldiers.

You must kill the people of the enemy countries until the enemy countries surrender.

While Palestinians live under the rule of Yasser Arafat, who will stop at nothing to gain the land of Israel, killing them is justified.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by JAR
My answer is yes.

When civilians pay taxes or benefit the enemy government in any way, then the civilians are the enemy. Therefore it is just as justifiable to kill them as it is to kill enemy soldiers.

You must kill the people of the enemy countries until the enemy countries surrender.

While Palestinians live under the rule of Yasser Arafat, who will stop at nothing to gain the land of Israel, killing them is justified.

This is a good topic to discuss. A very important topic.

As US military doctrine has evolved and become more sophisticated, the term 'civilians' has been removed and replaced with 'combatants' and 'non-combatants'.

So folks that work inside enemy munition plants or other support structures for enemy military forces may traditionally be viewed as civilians but they are actually combatants and may be liquidated if their efforts aid the enemy.

The point I made above is part of a very complex military philosophy that could take reams of debate to sort through. War itself is a difficult subject--narrowing the combatants and categorizing the enemy can be the most difficult task of military planners.

JK

[JAR]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


This is a good topic to discuss. A very important topic.

As US military doctrine has evolved and become more sophisticated, the term 'civilians' has been removed and replaced with 'combatants' and 'non-combatants'.

So folks that work inside enemy munition plants or other support structures for enemy military forces may traditionally be viewed as civilians but they are actually combatants and may be liquidated if their efforts aid the enemy.

The point I made above is part of a very complex military philosophy that could take reams of debate to sort through. War itself is a difficult subject--narrowing the combatants and categorizing the enemy can be the most difficult task of military planners.

JK
Its nice to know that I'm not the only person who noticed the often arbitrary difference between combatants and non-combatants

[demon]

My answer is yes too.
When civilians pay taxes or benefit the enemy government in any way, then the civilians are the enemy. Therefore it is just as justifiable to kill them as it is to kill enemy soldiers.
Go Palestinians.

edited to add on JK`s point; "The point I made above is part of a very complex military philosophy that could take reams of debate to sort through. War itself is a difficult subject--narrowing the combatants and categorizing the enemy can be the most difficult task of military planners."
Yawn again.
Nothing at all complex about any military or political decison. The fact that it is ever allowed to be called so is because morons and apologists exist, who for a variety of reasons more sublime than a woo woo`s insistence that you can trap a ghost in a jar, have to have something to jabber on about over their inferiority complexes.

[Earthborn]

When civilians pay taxes or benefit the enemy government in any way, then the civilians are the enemy. Therefore it is just as justifiable to kill them as it is to kill enemy soldiers.Okay, according to that logic... What about civilians who do not pay taxes or do anything to benefit their gouvernment? Like children. What about civilians who are a burden to the enemy's gouvernment, like disabled people receiving benefits? Or rebels undermining that gouvernment?

And what about people who have no choice to benefit their gouvernment? Or are even unaware what their gouvernment does?

[Ian Osborne]

I hope Jedi and JAR have no problem with Palestinian suicide bombers taking out Israeli civilians. Or the World Trade Center attack, for that matter...

[Tony]

Only in extreme circumstances.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by JAR
My answer is yes.

When civilians pay taxes or benefit the enemy government in any way, then the civilians are the enemy. Therefore it is just as justifiable to kill them as it is to kill enemy soldiers.

You must kill the people of the enemy countries until the enemy countries surrender.

While Palestinians live under the rule of Yasser Arafat, who will stop at nothing to gain the land of Israel, killing them is justified.
Hmm, you just justified the 9/11 attacks there.:rolleyes:

If we're talking about regimes like that of Saddam or the Taliban, then people usually have no choice to pay their taxes, unless they want to be tortured or killed.

Also how are soldiers in a combat zone able to identify which people pay taxes and which people don't?

Peter :)

[Frostbite]

How could it ever be "all right" for anyone to die? Do you actually believe that war is a solution to a problem? My answer is no, and there shouldn't be a war in the first place.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Frostbite
How could it ever be "all right" for anyone to die?

Everyone is going to die. Its not "all right", it just is.

Do you actually believe that war is a solution to a problem?

Yes

My answer is no, and there shouldn't be a war in the first place.

Of course there shouldn't be war. There also shouldn't be death, disease, famine, hate, poverty, and misery. But as long as we live in an imperfect world, these things will exist.

[Hazelip]

War is not a precise endeavor. It is not so much that it is ok to kill civilians, as much as it just plain happens, so get over it already...

[KelvinG]

Apparently it's OK to kill innocent civilians, but it's a horrible crime to photograph POW's (well, American POW's anyways).

But, since the US is very careful to make sure that images of dead civilians don't make it to the airwaves or in the papers, it's really not an issue.

[crackmonkey]

Deliberate killing of noncombatants is wrong. It's a crime, in fact.
Jedi makes a good point.

[Agammamon]

Of course once you accept that paying taxes makes you a combattant then you realize that there is no such thing as terrorism because none of those people you are killing are innocent.

One of the reasons we in the US don't make a habit of targeting civilians anymore is that since the end of WW2 we realized that the total war concept really doesn't work. We bombed and bombed and bombed Germany and it really didn't have any effect of the enemies morale or industrial capacity. Blow ine factory up and they rebuilt it a month later.
So I'd say that killing civilians should be avoided (especially if you want them to be friendly afterwards) but on the other hand if it comes down to a choice between me or them, its them.

[Pyrrho]

What you're talking about is the concept of total war, brought to maturity in Word War I:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwone/total_war_01.shtml


More than a century before, the French Revolution of 1789 had seen the first attempts to harness citizenship and patriotism to a national war effort. In the ideology of revolutionary France, young men were conscripted into the armed forces as part of their duty as citizens, but the remaining population was also expected to make personal sacrifices for the war, blurring the distinction between civilian and soldier.

Known at first as 'People's War', this idea developed in the 19th century as part of a growing sense of national identity. By the middle of World War One it was known as 'Total War' - the organisation of entire societies for war in a social, economic, and even spiritual sense. There were, of course, protests and debates, but the vast majority of people fought in World War One, or supported it with the 'Home Front' because they believed that victory for their own country was worth the cost.


It's an ancient tradition:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/stromberg/stromberg22.html


According to Russell F. Weigley’s The American Way of War (1977), the United States’ approach to military strategy has long rested on what is called total war. In a nutshell, total warriors make war on an enemy’s entire society – what the anthropologists might call its material culture – that is, on the enemy’s resources, food and other economic production, and on anything which might sustain the enemy’s ability to keep military forces in the field. Such war is not exclusively modern, but looks backward towards ancient warfare, which often entailed the slaughter of all enemy males, enslavement of enemy women and children, and eradication of the enemy’s whole existence as an independent political society. Rome’s triumph over Carthage comes to mind.

There are also Biblical passages which relate to total war.

But, to the question at hand: is it right to kill civilians in warfare? No. It is morally wrong to do so. Unfortunately that is what warfare is all about. In warfare, morality has already been cast aside. People who engage in warfare cannot honestly pretend to themselves that civilians will not be killed.

Now, as to whether Palestinians should be killed because they are Palestinians, I would vehemently disagree, just as I would disagree that Israelis should be killed because they are Israelis. If you justify the killing of civilians on side of the conflict, you automatically justify the killing of civilians on the other side of the conflict.

Men need to outgrow the need to wage war. I don't foresee that happening, though.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by demon
My answer is yes too.
When civilians pay taxes or benefit the enemy government in any way, then the civilians are the enemy. Therefore it is just as justifiable to kill them as it is to kill enemy soldiers.
Go Palestinians.

edited to add on JK`s point; "The point I made above is part of a very complex military philosophy that could take reams of debate to sort through. War itself is a difficult subject--narrowing the combatants and categorizing the enemy can be the most difficult task of military planners."
Yawn again.
Nothing at all complex about any military or political decison. The fact that it is ever allowed to be called so is because morons and apologists exist, who for a variety of reasons more sublime than a woo woo`s insistence that you can trap a ghost in a jar, have to have something to jabber on about over their inferiority complexes.


No, you want civilians (non-combatants) to keep paying taxes after the war is over so you don't kill them.

The first thing you have to do is understand the difference between combatants and non-combatants. Combatants are any person who complements the resource flows of the enemy military, ie.. munitions workers, ball bearing factories, missile and aircraft plants, etc. Those are acceptable targets in war.

Residential areas, schools, hospitals, museums, etc, are not and they are usually protected by international treaty in war.

The goal of war is to make the costs of having the war too high for the enemy and make it too difficult to continue with agressive behavior.

War that includes the systematic killing of percentages of civilians as well as enemy combatants is called Total War. The North used those tactics against the South during the American Civil War.

JK

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
No, you want civilians (non-combatants) to keep paying taxes after the war is over so you don't kill them.JK

This is why flat tax reform will never make headway in countries the US might invade.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Frank Newgent


This is why flat tax reform will never make headway in countries the US might invade.

Good point. Countries in need of restructuring are laden with debt and the citizens have to stand up and pay for it.

In war it is the enemy nation-state and their ideology vs. your nation-state and ideology. So while some may have sympathy for civilians living inside an enemy nation-state, the civilians are powerless to make the appropriate changes themselves and are generally guilty of allowing dictatorial regimes to seize power--that is not our fault.

It is a tricky philosophy--the moral war--but one we will never escape.

JK

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Good point. Countries in need of restructuring are laden with debt and the citizens have to stand up and pay for it.

In war it is the enemy nation-state and their ideology vs. your nation-state and ideology. So while some may have sympathy for civilians living inside an enemy nation-state, the civilians are powerless to make the appropriate changes themselves and are generally guilty of allowing dictatorial regimes to seize power--that is not our fault.


Could easily sound like an argument against the present US.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Agammamon
We bombed and bombed and bombed Germany and it really didn't have any effect of the enemies morale or industrial capacity. Blow ine factory up and they rebuilt it a month later.


I think it most certainly had an effect on their inductrial capacity. Sure they may have the factory running again in a month but during that month the factory hasnt produced anything. It also takes a lot of material and man hours to rebuild a factory- and instead of rebuilding bombed factories, they could have been building another factory. So there was a very definite effect on Germanys industrial capacity.

In addition, the Germans had to organise a complex defence organisation, 100s of 88mm guns that should have been shooting up russian tanks were pumping shells into the German skies. They had to expend enormous scientific capital to invent new DEFENSIVE instrumentation. Instead of producing bombers themselves they were forced to produce fighters to defend thier homeland. Nevermind the enrormous manpower used up in civil defence ie- firefighting etc...

[Gem]

In a total war setting, it's "ok" to kill civilians who work for the war effort. Like bombing factories, power plants workers. However, bombing cities for the mere goal of killing civilians is not ok. Because first it doesn't work, as was seen in world war 2 in both London and Berlin. Second, it doesn't help reduce their war effort.

Why not look at the Iran/Iraq war? Even chemical weapons used in cities did not help end the stalemate.

So when the palestenians blow themselves up in Isreal, not only are they not morrally justified, in my opinion, but it's also fruitless. Isreal has a more "wise" technique of aiming the organization leaders, but it doesn't help much either. They say for every leader killed, ten is ready to take his place. Also, so civilian bystanders are killed/hurt, helping the "Palestenian cause."

That's why, in my opinion, killing civilians is useless.

Gem

[JAR]

Originally posted by Earthborn
And what about people who have no choice to benefit their gouvernment? Or are even unaware what their gouvernment does?
Civilians are not the only people who have no choice to benefit their government. Soldiers also have no choice. When they kill our soldiers, they are just following orders. There are exceptions to the rule of it being okay to kill civilians but it is generally okay in my opinion.

Children don't pay taxes to the enemy government, but they are going to when they aren't children anymore.

The only downside to killing civilians is that there are so many of them that killing them until they are all dead or have surrendered requires a large amount of time and ammunition (the loss of ammuniton might not happen if you are killing them by starving them to death or some other method I haven't thought of).

It becomes more practical to attack the part of the enemy that can easily be attacked, that is most necessary for him to have to continue the war and that is small enough that it can be driven to extinction over a short period of time.

[LucyR]

Originally posted by Gem
In a total war setting, it's "ok" to kill civilians who work for the war effort. Like bombing factories, power plants workers. However, bombing cities for the mere goal of killing civilians is not ok. Because first it doesn't work, as was seen in world war 2 in both London and Berlin. Second, it doesn't help reduce their war effort.


Worked in Japan.

[Jon_in_london]

I think we are getting sidetracked. The question is whether killing civillians in a war is morally acceptable not wether it is economically viable in terms of a war effort.

[JAR]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
I think we are getting sidetracked. The question is whether killing civillians in a war is morally acceptable not wether it is economically viable in terms of a war effort.
Perhaps the two questions tie into each other.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by JAR

Perhaps the two questions tie into each other.

Perhaps the answer is yes, provided its economically beneficial to the war effort.

[rikzilla]

Lets get real for a min.

Whether it is moral, or acceptable,...or whatever is not the point. In war civilians are killed. A deliberate targeting of civilians without any strategic goal is a war crime.

However, there is only one real reason to engage in war. That reason is victory. There is no substitute for it. If victory rests on killing civilians you can rest assured those civilians will be killed. The only party really in danger of being charged with war crimes is ...wait for it now.... the loser!

Which brings us back to: "There is no substitute for victory!" Washington and his fellow "patriots" became the "founding fathers" why?? Because they won. Had they lost they'd have been taken to a long gallows ringed by many battalions of redcoats and done the gallows dance as traitors to the crown.

There's a reason Washington said he pledged his "life, fortune, and sacred honour" to the cause...simply because he'd have lost all those things had the American revolution failed.

IMHO the US and UK will continue to try and protect the lives of non-combatant civilians. It is not now a deciding factor between victory or failure. If, however, the US and UK have to fight for their very existence (ala WWII) then the gloves are off...and civilian deaths will take a distant second place to victory.....as has always been the case in past wars.... :(

-z

[King of the Americas]

Only if you win.

[Malachi151]

I didn't vote, but I'll say this. Traditionally civilian casualties have been much, MUCH higher than military casualties in war. Often in wars there would be 2 or 3 million civilians killed and only tens of thousands of socliers killed.

I'm pointing here to Indonesia, Vietnam, Phillipines, etc.

No, civilian casualties are not acceptable.

When civilians pay taxes or benefit the enemy government in any way, then the civilians are the enemy. Therefore it is just as justifiable to kill them as it is to kill enemy soldiers.

You're an idiot and this is exactly what Osama bin Laden says and how he justified the 9/11 attacks. The citizens have to tax taxes, they can't refuse, and they often are not even aware of what the government is doing and are just trying to live in peace. There are hundreds of examples of this. Civilians are not the enemy.

You must kill the people of the enemy countries until the enemy countries surrender.

[b]While Palestinians live under the rule of Yasser Arafat, who will stop at nothing to gain the land of Israel, killing them is justified.

Not all Palastinians take violent action. You can't just go into neighborhoods and start gunning civilians down while they walk the streets.