Are military attacks on civilians sometimes justified?

[MHz]

Need some 'men in green' to do some housecleaning? Call Boris and Krew @appropriate number at Kremlin.

Tripoli is said to be looking for some security for some schoolyard bullies that have taken over the neighborhood. The request comes with a signed surrender note from the rebels who immigrated from Syria recently. Blank passport available on demand is the only id they have.

Did the survey the Russians?

Journalists can travel to the 'freed places' in Syria. Drywall and plaster estimators would be less needed that demo experts. I would suggest s fleet of tanks with modern munitions. Do drone pilots for $50/hr and you get 4 consoles and beer holders for 1 hr in points competition.
Bring dinner for 6. (8 would attract the American drones)

 

[JLM]

*does not follow

Doesn't follow what?

 

[Jinentonix]

It took 6 months before the first targeting mistake made by Canadian jets, this last incident got out a lot faster. How many incidents by other 'partners' aren't reported at all of 'mislabeled' like ES's many references are?

WWII was the first war when it was military against civilians, before then it was soldier vs soldier.

Geez, you're sounding as silly as Cliffy sometimes. Go read up on the history of warfare. Civilians have ALWAYS been targets. For example, the populations of Jericho and Troy were massacred. History is replete with examples of cities being conquered and the population put to the sword.

 

[gerryh]

Geez, you're sounding as silly as Cliffy sometimes. Go read up on the history of warfare. Civilians have ALWAYS been targets. For example, the populations of Jericho and Troy were massacred. History is replete with examples of cities being conquered and the population put to the sword.

So that makes it ok?

 

[Jinentonix]

So that makes it ok?

Context, look up the definition. I was pointing out that despite what MHZ posted, WW2 was not the first war where it was military vs civilian. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[gerryh]

Context, look up the definition. I was pointing out that despite what MHZ posted, WW2 was not the first war where it was military vs civilian. Nothing more, nothing less.

Didn't answer the question.

 

[Johnnny]

finally, a country with the balls to solve the problem thoroughly!!! Russia is finally going to get this problem solved.

Look at what you replied with to what you replied too....

How do you soak up more attention than me?

 

[Jinentonix]

Didn't answer the question.

It was irrelevant to what I posted but if you're desperate for an answer, then sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't. As I said previously, which acts are "justifiable" depends entirely on who wins.
Using WW2 as an example, bombing industrial centers was justified on the premise that reducing the worker numbers reduces the production of war materiel.
Looking at a more contemporary example, the way Hamas operates is designed to force the Israeli military to inflict civilian casualties, unless Israel is supposed to just sit there and take the 67 years of near constant attacks against them like a bytch.


By the same token, simply killing civilians because you just really, really hate the guys you're at war with is not justifiable in any way shape or form. Deliberately targeting civilians that have absolutely no strategic or tactical value is not justifiable.


However, war is war and fact #1 of war is, civilians die. But asking if attacking civilians is ever justified is like asking if war is ever justified.
FYI, Sir Arthur Harris, the Commander of RAF Bomber Command was the only high ranking Allied commander that wasn't awarded for his leadership and service during WW2.

 

[CDNBear]

If done correctly, yes.

 

[Corduroy]

Doesn't follow what?

Your post doesn't follow from mine. You think there is some kind of logical connection but there isn't.

 

[MHz]

If done correctly, yes.

Got any recent examples of that? How about Dresden? How about the place in the vid? I don't think there can ever be a justificaytion for making a place look like this. (considering it was being done before it became deserted)

 

[darkbeaver]

US Made ‘Cold War’ Plans Wipe Out Much of Planet’s Population

Posted on December 23, 2015 by Robert Barsocchini
Given the US’s long history of wiping out huge numbers of people in the service of physical and hegemonic expansion, it may be unsurprising that the nation planned ‘a wholesale slaughter of much of the planet’s population’ during the Cold War, as newly declassified documents reveal.
Jason Ditz summarizes that the US goal was to first ‘prevent Soviet retaliation as much as possible’ then ‘eliminate the ability of the Soviets to fight,’ and finally expand ‘to places whose lone value was that a lot of people lived there.
…all-told there were some 1,200 cities to be targeted with nuclear strikes specifically to try to kill as many people as possible. Cities like Moscow and Leningrad, which also had military or government targets, were to be hit dozens of times.’
Analysts at George Washington University write:
‘The SAC study does not include any explanation for population targeting, but it was likely a legacy of earlier Air Force and Army Air Force thinking about the impact of bombing raids on civilian morale. For example, in a 1940 Air Corps Tactical School lecture, Major Muir Fairchild argued that an attack on a country’s economic structure “must be to so reduce the morale of the enemy civilian population through fear—of death or injury for themselves or loved ones, [so] that they would prefer our terms of peace to continuing the struggle, and that they would force their government to capitulate.”’
⇒ Keep Reading

Got any recent examples of that? How about Dresden? How about the place in the vid? I don't think there can ever be a justificaytion for making a place look like this. (considering it was being done before it became deserted)

The required destruction justified the use of X number of bombs.

 

[gerryh]

But asking if attacking civilians is ever justified is like asking if war is ever justified.

The answer to both would be no.

 

[darkbeaver]

The answer to both would be no.

I think the original question is misleading as is the word (justified).

jus·ti·fied
ˈjəstəˌfīd/
adjective
adjective: justified
1.
having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason.

I think the original question is misleading


Define just: —usage, synonyms, more. ... 1 a : having a basis in or conforming to fact or reason : reasonable <a just but not a generous decision> b archaic ...


jus·ti·fy
ˈjəstəˌfī/
verb
verb: justify; 3rd person present: justifies; past tense: justified; past participle: justified; gerund or present participle: justifying
1.
show or prove to be right or reasonable.

The United States can never admit that the bombing of Japanese civilians by nuclear weapons was not justified, not justice and not just. Even in the theological sence they cannot admit to worship of an evil national God who gave his blessing to the righteous (in thier eyes) punishment.

 

[JLM]

Your post doesn't follow from mine. You think there is some kind of logical connection but there isn't.

Hmmmmmmmmm, sorry, I thought we were both discussing war and the ramifications of attacking civilians!

 

[Angstrom]

They are always justified if they are Muslim.

 

[JLM]

They are always justified if they are Muslim.

Geez, you better watch out you don't give Trump the idea you are going to make a run for the White House.

 

[Jinentonix]

The answer to both would be no.

Soooo Britain declaring war on Germany wasn't justified, both times?
The US declaring war on Japan wasn't justified?


The answer to whether war and/or civilian casualties are justified is still, sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't.
Examples of what isn't would be, manufacturing excuses to attack/invade another country, or getting involved in someone else's civil war, unless they ask and even then you might not want to rush a decision because sometimes both sides in a civil war are a$$holes and the only ones who will truly suffer will be the civilians. Another example would be greed for someone else's resources.


Unfortunately life isn't black and white, it has an awful lot of grey area. A mobilized workforce manufacturing war materiel is actually a warfront, hence the term "Home Front". When that home front is a vital part of the war machine that declared war on your country, at some point it becomes a valid strategic target, like it or not.


Today however, huge armies marching to war with the women and the unlisted left behind to work the factories just doesn't happen, for now. The US spent billions and billions of dollars developing more accurate conventional/smart munitions to put an end to the practice of sending hundreds of bombers over a target and plastering it hoping to get a 5% drop accuracy rate.
I can tell you with pretty solid assurance that no Western military's SOP today includes the indiscriminate killing of civilians. There might be individual a$$holes or small units of a$$holes that don't have a problem killing Brown people, civilians or not, but one would hope there's a mechanism in place to deal with that kind of crap.

 

[JLM]

Soooo Britain declaring war on Germany wasn't justified, both times?
The US declaring war on Japan wasn't justified?

Of course Britain and the U.S. were totally justified in declaring war, otherwise some of us might not be here today. Poor old Ger, as good intentioned as he is, sometimes lets emotions inundate reasoning and good sense!

 

[darkbeaver]

Of course Britain and the U.S. were totally justified in declaring war, otherwise some of us might not be here today. Poor old Ger, as good intentioned as he is, sometimes lets emotions inundate reasoning and good sense!

History through the victors eyes. Of course in that case the historys are not to be trusted. The published historys are 85.42% howling of victors over the vanquished enemies. The facts that those wars took place were in fact crippling defeats fo mankind and gave no victory to the masses whatever. A very small subset of humanity profited from enormous industrial murder.