[QUOTE=me]
[/QUOTE]
Before you say it, yes this was a poor choice of words. I don’t want to make light of what a big fuck up Iraq in particular was, and the massive loss of life that resulted.
They were necessary to win WWII.
Uh yes, he did use it. It’s because he saw Obama not intervene, and never imagined Trump with all his past statements, to intervene either.
You think it was the rebels?
The day that those sentiments become the majority opinion among the civilized peoples of the world would be the day that you see the phoenix of the 3rd Reich rise from the ashes and rebirth itself in new and uglier form.
Can not make it to the gas chamber? Do not worry, we shall bring the gas chamber to you.
The death of non combatants is never acceptable, there is no acceptable number of loss regardless of the fact that it is inevitable that there will be some.
And they sure as hell are not to be used as leverage towards a victory by killing them off until the other guy gives in out of pity for them.
War is an ugly and hideous beast when tended by the best of men.
It is only the ideas you probably find silly and outdated that keep that beast chained and somewhat obedient, the moment you loose the chains it will consume all with no discretion.
Is this a fact or an opinion? Because I sometimes see people stating personal morality as some kind of objective truth extending beyond time
I do see your point of view, but to say that it’s immoral to kill ‘innocent civilians’ in all situations is a bit ridiculous. Even things like terrorist attacks e.g 9/11 have some justification. It was a stern message from OBL about what America had been doing in the middle east the previous decades.
If one does decide to kill civilians, I think that a clean and painless death is the way to go. I absolutely condemn sarin gas as it bring unnecessary pain.
[QUOTE=femmejean]
Is this a fact or an opinion?
[/QUOTE]
It’s pretty obviously an opinion, and one not shared by most nation states who engage in any sort of combat. In the US the goal is usually to minimize non-combatant casualties. We often go through elaborate hoops to try and do that…and sometimes it fails spectacularly. But even when we are jumping through hoops they have to figure that some people are just going to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, no matter what we do…or that the target is simply worth the risk of collateral casualties. Russia does the same thing when they plan strikes in Syria. Obviously, their criteria are a bit more, um, loose, than ours…but they still have them. Same with the UK. Same with every country that does combat operations. Where you set the bar might be different, but even Assad sets a bar somewhere…just a hell of a lot higher than most other countries do (‘you can use barrel bombs on civilians, of course…but make sure you don’t drop them and damage any of MY houses!’).
Depends on what country/dictator/leader you are asking i suppose.
Unless you are talking scientific absolutes a fact in one place is an opinion in another.
You may say that it is a fact that it is illegal and inhumane and many other things to kill children by beating their heads on the ground and then eating them.
Someone who lived in a place that did that would tell you that it was your stupid opinion.
When the majority begin thinking it is a stupid opinion, you still know that it isn’t right, correct?
Israel seems like a fair counterexample to this; they seem to be more concerned with an eye for an eye and/or the big stick mentality than protecting the lives of civilians (so long as they’re not their civilians).
I don’t think this is a ‘counterexample’…I think it’s an example of them setting the bar differently (even if we accept your narrative, which I disagree with but no need to hijack this thread). The original question was from Weisshund asking ‘The death of non combatants is never acceptable’, to which femmejean asked ‘Is this a fact or an opinion?’. It’s obviously not fact since every day countries who engage in combat make the call on whether non-combatant deaths are acceptable, and what level of casualties IS acceptable to the country in question.
Countries that don’t engage in combat operations and people who don’t have to worry about it can obviously have the opinion that the deaths of non-combatants is never acceptable, but the real world simply doesn’t work that way. What separates a country with values and standards with countries who act in a brutal or barbaric fashion is basically where they set the bar, and how hard they try and stay under that bar.
This is incorrect. I posted the link earlier. There have only been four confirmed uses of sarin, with two being in Syria by Assad, one by Saddam Hussein at the end of the Iran-Iraq war, and one by Aum Shinrikyo in the Tokyo subway. If you have other information showing where or when else sarin has been used, I’d be very interested to see it.