Civilians are legitimate targets

[Gawdzilla Sama]

People with guns aren't necessarily targets, But anybody with a gun AND funny accent could be considered a legitimate target.

We should begin bombing the southern states immediately, followed by a campaign through the mountain states. Paramilitary actions should be able to handle the rest.

Ya'll wanna start that shindig in these parts, ya'll bring plenty of heat, yuh hear?

[Ian]

People with guns aren't necessarily targets, But anybody with a gun AND funny accent could be considered a legitimate target.

We should begin bombing the southern states immediately, followed by a campaign through the mountain states. Paramilitary actions should be able to handle the rest.

Ya'll wanna start that shindig in these parts, ya'll bring plenty of heat, yuh hear?

We must not forget to re-educate all those New Yorkers and Bahstonians. And all those valley girls in southern California. Fortunately, they're not as well armed as the rest.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

People with guns aren't necessarily targets, But anybody with a gun AND funny accent could be considered a legitimate target.

We should begin bombing the southern states immediately, followed by a campaign through the mountain states. Paramilitary actions should be able to handle the rest.

Ya'll wanna start that shindig in these parts, ya'll bring plenty of heat, yuh hear?

We must not forget to re-educate all those New Yorkers and Bahstonians. And all those valley girls in southern California. Fortunately, they're not as well armed as the rest.

No, but their legs are usually pretty nice.

[Ian]

People with guns aren't necessarily targets, But anybody with a gun AND funny accent could be considered a legitimate target.

We should begin bombing the southern states immediately, followed by a campaign through the mountain states. Paramilitary actions should be able to handle the rest.

Ya'll wanna start that shindig in these parts, ya'll bring plenty of heat, yuh hear?

We must not forget to re-educate all those New Yorkers and Bahstonians. And all those valley girls in southern California. Fortunately, they're not as well armed as the rest.

No, but their legs are usually pretty nice.

And I fear General Bella. That campaign won't go too well.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The Battle of Bella's Belly. Sounds like northern Georgia or western South Carolina, yes?

[JimC]

So I'm thinking about how every one is throwing around the "terrorism" word and how "unsanctimoniously unholy" it is to target civilians in war or retaliation. The more that I think about it, the more that I think that this is bullshit and everyone is a legitimate target in an international conflict. You can't cry foul against someone for "terrorizing" you when you are bombing their country to shits and giggles. You can't just sit at home and completely absolve yourself of any involvement because you are still one of the citizens of the country. You are what enable the army, the bombs, and the war to happen. You reap the fruits of war. You are a legitimate target.

Admittedly, that was the argument used by the allies in WW2 in the bombing campaign aginst Germany...

Particularly the British night bombing of German cities. Destroy the civilian workforce, you destroy the war effort which was building the tanks and guns...

These days, we have moved further, one hopes. I don't think it is reasonable to criticise those actions in hinsight, given the realities of WW2, but it is harder to justify similar actions against anyone in the more evolved Zeitgeist of today... At least in theory...

But there is much more to the current argument than this...

[Atheist-Lite]

Put rats in a cage and they'll fight. Now we have nearly 7000 billion human rats and the earth isn't getting any bigger. What is to be expected? All love, peace and smiles?

[AnInconvenientScotsman]

So I'm thinking about how every one is throwing around the "terrorism" word and how "unsanctimoniously unholy" it is to target civilians in war or retaliation. The more that I think about it, the more that I think that this is bullshit and everyone is a legitimate target in an international conflict. You can't cry foul against someone for "terrorizing" you when you are bombing their country to shits and giggles. You can't just sit at home and completely absolve yourself of any involvement because you are still one of the citizens of the country. You are what enable the army, the bombs, and the war to happen. You reap the fruits of war. You are a legitimate target.

Admittedly, that was the argument used by the allies in WW2 in the bombing campaign aginst Germany...

Particularly the British night bombing of German cities. Destroy the civilian workforce, you destroy the war effort which was building the tanks and guns...

These days, we have moved further, one hopes. I don't think it is reasonable to criticise those actions in hinsight, given the realities of WW2, but it is harder to justify similar actions against anyone in the more evolved Zeitgeist of today... At least in theory...

But there is much more to the current argument than this...

You could rephrase that argument, though, by saying that the production means of the enemy are legitimate targets. If someone is actively contributing towards the war effort then they are indeed a legitimate target; on the other hand, Gawd, I find it hard to see how one could justify killing civilians who are not directly contributing towards a war effort - it's not like they have a choice: over a million people marched through London to protest the invasion of Iraq, but it changed nothing. Perhaps those people have benefited, but it doesn't make them legitimate targets.

[Ian]

on the other hand, Gawd, I find it hard to see how one could justify killing civilians who are not directly contributing towards a war effort - it's not like they have a choice: over a million people marched through London to protest the invasion of Iraq, but it changed nothing. Perhaps those people have benefited, but it doesn't make them legitimate targets.

You're trying to reason with someone who is determined to make us think he's a sociopath (or, if he truly believes what he writes, actually is). By Gawd's reasoning, any US citizen who had the nerve to file a tax return was essentially a war criminal and thus made themselves a legitimate target on 9/11, and they deserved what they got. I'm not sure what he thinks about the kids and non-Americans who got killed that day.

[Gawd]

on the other hand, Gawd, I find it hard to see how one could justify killing civilians who are not directly contributing towards a war effort - it's not like they have a choice: over a million people marched through London to protest the invasion of Iraq, but it changed nothing. Perhaps those people have benefited, but it doesn't make them legitimate targets.

You're trying to reason with someone who is determined to make us think he's a sociopath (or, if he truly believes what he writes, actually is). By Gawd's reasoning, any US citizen who had the nerve to file a tax return was essentially a war criminal and thus made themselves a legitimate target on 9/11, and they deserved what they got. I'm not sure what he thinks about the kids and non-Americans who got killed that day.

Collateral damage? That's the reason you always hear from US killers.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I blame Darwin.

[sandinista]

So I'm thinking about how every one is throwing around the "terrorism" word and how "unsanctimoniously unholy" it is to target civilians in war or retaliation. The more that I think about it, the more that I think that this is bullshit and everyone is a legitimate target in an international conflict. You can't cry foul against someone for "terrorizing" you when you are bombing their country to shits and giggles. You can't just sit at home and completely absolve yourself of any involvement because you are still one of the citizens of the country. You are what enable the army, the bombs, and the war to happen. You reap the fruits of war. You are a legitimate target.

Admittedly, that was the argument used by the allies in WW2 in the bombing campaign aginst Germany...

Particularly the British night bombing of German cities. Destroy the civilian workforce, you destroy the war effort which was building the tanks and guns...

These days, we have moved further, one hopes. I don't think it is reasonable to criticise those actions in hinsight, given the realities of WW2, but it is harder to justify similar actions against anyone in the more evolved Zeitgeist of today... At least in theory...

But there is much more to the current argument than this...

You could rephrase that argument, though, by saying that the production means of the enemy are legitimate targets. If someone is actively contributing towards the war effort then they are indeed a legitimate target; on the other hand, Gawd, I find it hard to see how one could justify killing civilians who are not directly contributing towards a war effort - it's not like they have a choice: over a million people marched through London to protest the invasion of Iraq, but it changed nothing. Perhaps those people have benefited, but it doesn't make them legitimate targets.

With that reasoning though, anyone defending their own country is a legitimate target. Who wouldn't defend their country from invaders? So, when I hear that the "terrorists" are worse than the amercian terrorists the reasoning often given is that "the US doesn't target civilians", of course they do. If the definition is "anyone with a gun".

on the other hand, Gawd, I find it hard to see how one could justify killing civilians who are not directly contributing towards a war effort - it's not like they have a choice: over a million people marched through London to protest the invasion of Iraq, but it changed nothing. Perhaps those people have benefited, but it doesn't make them legitimate targets.

You're trying to reason with someone who is determined to make us think he's a sociopath (or, if he truly believes what he writes, actually is). By Gawd's reasoning, any US citizen who had the nerve to file a tax return was essentially a war criminal and thus made themselves a legitimate target on 9/11, and they deserved what they got. I'm not sure what he thinks about the kids and non-Americans who got killed that day.

I'm not sure what most americans think of the kids and civilians murdered by US bombs either.

[Ian]

I'm not sure what most americans think of the kids and civilians murdered by US bombs either.

I'll tell you exactly what Americans think of them: they're not legitimate targets.

[Ian]

By Gawd's reasoning, any US citizen who had the nerve to file a tax return was essentially a war criminal and thus made themselves a legitimate target on 9/11, and they deserved what they got. I'm not sure what he thinks about the kids and non-Americans who got killed that day.

Collateral damage? That's the reason you always hear from US killers.

Who's the collateral damage? Only the kids and foreigners, or the civilians inside the buildings as well?

*Turning on my Psycho Geiger Counter as I await Gawd's response*

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'm not sure what most americans think of the kids and civilians murdered by US bombs either.

I'll tell you exactly what Americans think of them: they're not legitimate targets.

Don't bother, we're soulless werewolves and irredeemably evil.