Are military attacks on civilians sometimes justified?

[Jinentonix]

I think it depends entirely on the situation. When the civilian population is supporting their country's war effort through the manufacturing of war materiel as happened during WW2, they themselves become legitimate targets.


As for damngrumpy's WW2 examples, Coventry was a revenge bombing. Dresden was bombed because A)There really wasn't a German city left that wasn't wrecked bad enough to warrant dropping more bombs on them, and B) Dresden was still a strategic target in that it was a major transportation hub.

 

[JLM]

Hmmmmm.....However, if you target a military operation in a war type
situation, then as the bomb is falling, a Wedding is spontaneously
planned, organized, and locates itself directly under the whistling
sound of this bomb falling, popping up like a mobile fruit stand in
half of all movie chase scenes I've ever seen....(takes a quick breath)....

I was going somewhere with this and lost my train of thought.

No worries Ron, I do that all the time. That's why at the end of a day I find half a dozen things that are half done.

 

[Jinentonix]

If you are so hung up on killing them, then go in, in person, and get them.

Uh, yeah. Rapid response is usually required or else you miss your chance to get them. The IAF can have aircraft on target within seconds, literally. By the time you muster up some troops and transport them to where Hamas attacked from, your targets will already be at home having dinner.

 

[Colpy]

Gallup has released the results of a global study that measure, among other things, regional views of military violence against civilians.

***

Americans and Canadians Are Most Likely to Say Military Attacks on Civilians Are Sometimes Justified

While the majority of world citizens agree that military attacks targeting civilians are never justified, a decade after 9/11, there is a wide range in the level of support for this view. A clear majority in Asia and MENA [Middle East and North Africa] find military attacks against civilians unacceptable. This is not surprising considering the acute conflicts raging in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and other parts of the Middle East.

In contrast, regionally, residents of the U.S. and Canada are most likely to say that military attacks against civilians are sometimes justified. Americans are the most likely population in the world (49%) to believe military attacks targeting civilians is sometimes justified, followed by residents of Haiti and Israel (43%).

Europeans here break with their counterparts in the U.S. and Canada. The continent that fought two world wars and at one time used military conquest to colonize much of the Middle East, Africa, and Asia, now has citizens whose sentiments regarding military attacks on civilians tracks closer to those of their former colonies, than that of their modern ally.

Source: Views of Violence

***

This poll also contains information on religious tolerance and how religious affiliation affects views on violence (the poll concludes that it doesn't). The parts I quoted here have to do with military attacks on civilians, but "individual" attacks on civilians were separated and the results were different.

Targeting civilians is absolutely no different that terror bombings.

Which is different than ignoring civilian casualties in order to destroy a valid target.

I think it depends entirely on the situation. When the civilian population is supporting their country's war effort through the manufacturing of war materiel as happened during WW2, they themselves become legitimate targets.


As for damngrumpy's WW2 examples, Coventry was a revenge bombing. Dresden was bombed because A)There really wasn't a German city left that wasn't wrecked bad enough to warrant dropping more bombs on them, and B) Dresden was still a strategic target in that it was a major transportation hub.

It is very hard to argue that the massive targeting of civilian populations during WWII acheived anything other than lots of dead people.

 

[Cliffy]

There is never justification or an excuse for war. Period. Wars are about making the rich richer and the poor dead. Bankster finance both sides and reap the profit no matter who wins or who dies. Every excuse, without fail, is a false excuse and people just suck up all the fear mongering, because, heaven forbid, you are seen to be non patriotic. It is all manufactured BS and those who profit just see those who support it as suckers: lambs to the slaughter as they rake in the billions. They certainly don't give a sh!t about the innocents who get killed by the millions. No sweat off their nuts. All they can hear is "che ching! The real terrorists are those that profit.

 

[JLM]

There is never justification or an excuse for war. Period. Wars are about making the rich richer and the poor dead. Bankster finance both sides and reap the profit no matter who wins or who dies. Every excuse, without fail, is a false excuse and people just suck up all the fear mongering, because, heaven forbid, you are seen to be non patriotic. It is all manufactured BS and those who profit just see those who support it as suckers: lambs to the slaughter as they rake in the billions. They certainly don't give a sh!t about the innocents who get killed by the millions. No sweat off their nuts. All they can hear is "che ching! The real terrorists are those that profit.

Read post # 20, Cliffy!

 

[Jinentonix]

Targeting civilians is absolutely no different that terror bombings.

Which is different than ignoring civilian casualties in order to destroy a valid target.



It is very hard to argue that the massive targeting of civilian populations during WWII acheived anything other than lots of dead people.

Germany was in many cases, dispersing much of their arms and armaments production as the Allied bombing campaign intensified. At that point there's no sense in bombing the big factories because they're not being used anymore. But production was still going on and most of it, it was reasonably assumed, was being done by the population. Bombing the population decreases the workforce and thus, reduces production.
Having said that, quite a bit of armament production was carried out by slave labour in Germany and German occupied countries. Ironically, up until mid 1944 about half of Germany's manufacturing capacity was still being used to produce consumer goods so at least some of the workforce that got plastered were only making things like furniture, toys, jewelry, lamps, civilian vehicles, etc.


Of course it's easy to look at it in hindsight and say, "That was a bad thing". It may have been, but it was also total war and both Germany and Japan had decided that's the kind of war it was going to be.

 

[lone wolf]

There is never justification or an excuse for war. Period. Wars are about making the rich richer and the poor dead. Bankster finance both sides and reap the profit no matter who wins or who dies. Every excuse, without fail, is a false excuse and people just suck up all the fear mongering, because, heaven forbid, you are seen to be non patriotic. It is all manufactured BS and those who profit just see those who support it as suckers: lambs to the slaughter as they rake in the billions. They certainly don't give a sh!t about the innocents who get killed by the millions. No sweat off their nuts. All they can hear is "che ching! The real terrorists are those that profit.

I can think of some damned good reasons for that which might get close. Media would make it a war anyhow. I live in rural Northern Ontario. I'd like to see the Toronto Government out of there. I was picked clean by one Revolution. I don't have much left to lose.

Justified?
;-)

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

There was a time when it was always justified, WWII for example ended up a
total war that killed civilians in Britain (Coventry) and in Germany (Dresden) for
for no good reason both had large centers of senior populations with little to
no military value.
I think we are hung up on myth. Yes myth, the rules of war are an illusion
unless you lose the war of course. My dad a WWII vet on a lot of front lines told
me don't believe the bull sh*t they hand you about rules of war

Not just your dad. Churchill said if the Germans had won the war, he, Roosevelt, and Stalin would have hanged as war criminals.

 

[Locutus]

Churchill said if the Germans had won the war, he, Roosevelt, and Stalin would have hanged as war criminals.

Please provide a link for that. Thanks.

 

[Angstrom]

There is never justification or an excuse for war. Period. Wars are about making the rich richer and the poor dead. Bankster finance both sides and reap the profit no matter who wins or who dies. Every excuse, without fail, is a false excuse and people just suck up all the fear mongering, because, heaven forbid, you are seen to be non patriotic. It is all manufactured BS and those who profit just see those who support it as suckers: lambs to the slaughter as they rake in the billions. They certainly don't give a sh!t about the innocents who get killed by the millions. No sweat off their nuts. All they can hear is "che ching! The real terrorists are those that profit.

Sinse we no longer have natural selection, it's a fairly good way of getting rid of our less productive useless members of society. I can see why you would be worried.

 

[TenPenny]

Funny how Europe says 'never justified', yet, if not for attacks on civilians, how would WW2 have turned out?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Sinse we no longer have natural selection, it's a fairly good way of getting rid of our less productive useless members of society. I can see why you would be worried.

Especially now that the "best and brightest" avoid military service.

Funny part is I've seen some folk make the opposite argument: that by sending our best and brightest to war at a young age, we're degrading the species.

Fortunately, we've solved that problem. By giving the best and brightest a pass on military service, we're only killing the middle and poorest third.

All this, of course, is based on the fallacy that Dad having a lot of money makes you the best and brightest, but hey, all evolutionary arguments are crap.

 

[Angstrom]

Especially now that the "best and brightest" avoid military service.

Funny part is I've seen some folk make the opposite argument: that by sending our best and brightest to war at a young age, we're degrading the species.

Fortunately, we've solved that problem. By giving the best and brightest a pass on military service, we're only killing the middle and poorest third.

All this, of course, is based on the fallacy that Dad having a lot of money makes you the best and brightest, but hey, all evolutionary arguments are crap.

They still hold a fundamental truth, That you can take ownership of your life, And that's as good of a start as any of the other ideology I've seen. The idea is don't take your life for granted.

 

[Locutus]

Churchill said if the Germans had won the war, he, Roosevelt, and Stalin would have hanged as war criminals.

Please provide a link for that. Thanks.

 

[Locutus]

Churchill said if the Germans had won the war, he, Roosevelt, and Stalin would have hanged as war criminals.

Please provide a link for that. Thanks.

 

[Johnnny]

Targetting... No , Collateral... No..... But those who voted yes see their destruction as a means to an end. Probably the same kind of people who would stab their grandmother for a "hit" :lol:. Jk

 

[darkbeaver]

Bomb unprepared, unprotected civilians and invariably innocent children will get caught in the cross fire. This is intolerable.

Not to put too fine a point on this but in all my adult life I have watched repeated bombing of civilians by men and women who have and will tolerate any sin or crime to win.

 

[MHz]

I can think of some damned good reasons for that which might get close. Media would make it a war anyhow. I live in rural Northern Ontario. I'd like to see the Toronto Government out of there. I was picked clean by one Revolution. I don't have much left to lose.

Justified?
;-)

Bombing them would only have worked if it happened before you got cleaned out.

Not to put too fine a point on this but in all my adult life I have watched repeated bombing of civilians by men and women who have and will tolerate any sin or crime to win.

Might I add that war is more expensive than just buying the wanted resource.

 

[Corduroy]

Targeting civilians is absolutely no different that terror bombings.

Which is different than ignoring civilian casualties in order to destroy a valid target.

How different is it? Is it different from thinking something is a valid target but it turning out to be a hospital? How much do intentions factor into terror bombings? If you don't bomb a place to terrorize civilians, but you constantly ignore civilian casualties and civilians live in terror does it make a difference?