Human Shields. Is it OK to Kill them?

Discussion in 'World Events' started by Captain Kremmen, May 29, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. nirakar ( i ^ i ) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,383
    I think Hiroshima and Nagasaki were as much about sending a message to the Soviets as they were about defeating Japan.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    Well, for one, the simple answer is: they were ours. Which moves on to the next answer: the Towers were primarily a civilian target, the vast majority of (if not all) who were killed were innocent civilians, many from other countries who were intentionally hit in order to kill as many as possible. The target, itself, was chosen because of a failed attempt 1993.

    On the other hand (and barring a number of popular, and deservingly publicized incidents where malice was shown) when soldiers are chasing a specific group, the rule is to only target them and not the civilians, and when civilians are hit, the reaction forthwith is markedly different than the reaction from terrorists when they strike innocents. (i.e. elation at the death toll in the Towers & subways [Europe], versus genuine remorse and compensation for the death of innocents in Afghanistan and Iraq)

    Can I state that there aren't American troops who don't kill out of joy or that wrongs on the battlefield are righted as they should? No. I'm not omniscient. But, looking at the billions upon billions that the USA and NATO are spending on rebuilding two countries, for whatever number of complex reasons, is stark when compared to what was offered by Al Queda to the thousands killed on September 11th, March 11th and July 7th.

    ~String
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2009
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    Possibly. I've recently read a few things stating as much.

    ~String
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. nirakar ( i ^ i ) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,383
    Honor in War? Let the politicians fight each other hand to hand then maybe their would be honor but the politicians send other people's boys to die.

    One side hides behind it's armored tanks, and it's satellites, and it's Jets while the other side hides behind civilians. Neither side has any honor.
     
  8. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061
    Both sides hide behind civilians, calling lives and fortunes to the sacrifice.
     
  9. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    NO! the Attacks against the Twin Towers was not war.

    Because there was no military significance to the Towers, there were no military bases or soldiers in either tower.

    And There was no State to declare war, their was no declaration of War, only the Fundamentalist of Islam murdering on Jihad.

    The Towers were specifically targeted because it was civilian, and was intended send a message of terror to the Civilians of this country, Submit and Convert or Die.

    Are you really that Obtuse, there is a world of difference between the direct murder of innocent civilian as the intended target, in suicide bombings, and the collateral damage from open combat or the targeting high value enemy leadership which purposely uses civilians as shields and for propaganda value.

    You love to split hair when it favors your condemnations, but the hair splits the other way to, and in the end the Soldier has no problem in a stand up fight, on a neutral field of battle with civilians out of the way, can the same be said of the Terrorist? Look at Terrorist targets and targeting, civilians are the primary targets, they keep their families on the bulls eye with themselves, and then use their deaths as propaganda of how evil the West is.

    Yes, now how evil is it to deliberately keep your wife, sons, daughters. grandchildren, babies, friends children, next to you when you know you are and will be targeted for you actions in terrorist attacks against other civilians as primary targets, yes how evil is it to conduct murder and then hide behind the bodies of you children and grand children.
     
  10. StrawDog disseminated primatemaia Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,373
    How evil is it to ILLEGALLY invade a sovereign nation, and murder over 1 million INNOCENT citizens, on the basis of LIES?
     
  11. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Where are people supposed to go when their countries are invaded? Were the Japanese people targeted by the A-bombs hiding among civilians? If an invader breaks into your house and you pull out your weapon to defend your family and property, do you jump out of the window first, leaving your family to themselves in the hope that the invader will only attack the one with a gun? Especially when the invader has a million count of collateral damages in the neighborhood?
     
  12. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    About as evil to bomb a whole apartment building or a block consisting of several houses or units full of innocent civilians to try to kill one target, even though you have no sure way of knowing your target is even there..
     
  13. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    Yes, and who choses to live there? They do, and yes We know if they are there.

    Now how many innocent civilians had that Target murdered?, and guess what, those innocents weren't acting as human shields, they were just out for a pizza, going to school, on a date with some friends, they were targeted independent of any Military High Value Target, they were just murdered.

    Again, look at the propaganda that comes out when the High Value Target is taken out, again, it is a fact that the Palestinians act as shields, and are used as shields just for the propaganda.
     
  14. nirakar ( i ^ i ) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,383
    Nobody acts as human shields with the exception of a few people like Rachael Corrie. People live their lives as best they can in war zones.

    Should not fleeing your home just because fighters sometimes fire rockets from there legitimize you being murdered. Should living in a land were people pay taxes to and vote for murderers legitimize you being murdered because you stood next to a person who paid taxes to and voted for murderers.

    War would be so much more civil without projectile weapons and armor. A code of honor would be possible and civilians could be spared. I blame the technology.
     
  15. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061
    Nirakar: "People live their lives as best they can in war zones."

    That's so true, and so obscured within societies that are deep in militaristic denial about the realities of the wars they support.

    I don't agree with your suggestion that technology is our problem, and the root cause of why so many people are still forced to try to make the best of impossible situations, and caught up in wars against their will. There has never really been an age of chivalry, when the dehumanization of victims was unheard of. It's true that we're gaining exponentially in power to destroy, but we're also making the simpler but more profound evolutionary step of really seeing who we are. If we glorified violence today as it was glorified in generations past, our civilizations would lie in ruins. The accelerating advance of technology, along with the finite dimensions of our planet are forcing us all into higher awareness, and we're learning to confront and control primitive and self-destructive aggression. Why? Because we're slowly all becoming aware (and technology is enhancing our awareness) that in a shared and interdependent environment, we must overcome regressive collective aggression to survive.

    Human shields/collateral casualties are nothing new. But in proportion to our power to kill each other, reason is making progress over aggressive pack instincts. Scenes like today's Gaza and Darfur are now (for most people) an unacceptable anomaly, and it's getting harder for aggressors to maintain the support they need in an irreversibly integrating world. Even in the USA, where Israeli aggression has always been funded and forgiven, things are changing. Don't blame the technology. Keep the blame focused on ignorance, and keep ignorance in retreat.
     
  16. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    bah
    what a waste of .....
     
  17. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    And?
     
  18. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,423
    The fault lies in whoemever intends to use civilians for any aspect of warfare before the fighting begins.
     
  19. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575

    its evil
    very very evil
     
  20. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575

    i would have liked to tap that ass before it got blown up to kingdom come
     
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2009
  21. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    People will not of their own volition kill a group of men, women and children, just to eliminate one enemy.
    It's a product of training.
     
  22. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    Really? Logic Assesment and Threat has a lot to do with it.

    The Logic of the Assesment level of future Threat.
     
  23. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    So you would kill many civilians including women and children to get one enemy?

    What kind of "logic" and "assessment level of future threat" would justify this?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page