minty green, I’d appreciate it if you would be so kind as to fuck off, preferably sooner than later.
Your quoted post (shown above) contains almost the same exact number of caps as all of my posts in this thread combined. This sort of crap is noxious at best and immature at least.
Please grow the fuck up.
Ooooh. Catfight.
(They’re actually quibbling on caps! Call your friends!)
Um…Zen…I think that was the point. Be careful you don’t get whooshed there.
Yo, Dog,
Can Z actually get banned for that?
What planet are you from, pinhead?
How on this green earth does my occassional use of caps equate to a post composed almost entirely of caps?
minty has got his leaves all crushed about my use of emphasis?
Who the fuck is this guy, the Font Police[sup]™[/sup]?
>>>What planet are you from, pinhead?<<<
The Cynic apparently doesn’t like to be called “dog” in this incarnation.
…his minions are amok…
Wait a sec, you’re attempting to thrust a HUGE strawman into the debate. I am well aware of the “no true Scotsman” fallacy, what I am saying is that times and attitudes have changed ( for the better, IMHO ). Pointing to what the United States armed forces did 20 years ago, or 30, or 90 or 200 is immaterial. America’s soldiers are not “flawless moral specimens”, but they are a product of our culture. As I mentioned earlier, two million German women were raped during and after the fall of Berlin by the Russians. Such a tradgedy hasen’t happened, and won’t happen, in Bagdhad, because the average U.S. soldier dosen’t have the same attitude towards the population they have beaten as was present in the Russian troops of 1945. What is your point, exactly?
Well, yes, the winners write the history books, it has ever been so. Usually you have to dig deeper than that to really understand the core issues of the conflict. Nevertheless, I think your main point is that Al-Queda and their ilk view themselves as freedom fighters, utilizing whatever means necessary to achieve their goals, no? Unfortunately, I can’t give them a pass on their methods as you seem to be doing. ( for the sake of arguement, it seems, tell me if I’m wrong ) Terrorists use terror precisely because they don’t have a huge popular base from which to work. They are fringe players, trying to be big shots. They don’t have a country to work from, they don’t have majority support, so they resort to terrorist bombings and similar tactics. Should we ( The Civilized World ) give them a pass simply because they believe that they are “freedom fighters utilizing the only means available”? I say NO.
Finally, several people have brought up the point that I characterized terrorists as targeting civilian targets over military ones as some kind of divine law, and the fact that terrorists have attacked military targets as well as civilian ones as a flaw in my reasoning. Personally, I think you’re being delibertly obtuse, but I will elaborate for the sake of accuracy. The goal of a terrorist group is to make their oponent abandon a particular policy. To that end, they may attack military targets as well as civilian ones. The effect they wish to create dosen’t change, however. Soldiers have loved ones at home who don’t want them killed, just as civilians do. If enough random soldiers are killed, their relations may bring pressure on their government to change policy. In any event, the tactic is the same: A terrorist group is not strong enough to get it’s way, so they use whatever means necessary to try and make the oposing society change theirs. Is that simple enough for you?
Dave
then why should you point to what Saddam Hussein has done in the past? I know what Saddam has done has been terrible, but if we are going to condemn Saddam’s government, its only fair to point out that the U.S. (and the U.K. government) has done some things that it shouldn’t be proud of.
Ummmm…yummy. Waffles!!!
“targeting” civilians.
In battles where you have one army amassed on one hill and another on the other hill, civilian casualties would be minimal, assuming they got out of dodge.
However, when you’re dropping bombs from the air, fighting in a city, etc, civilians will in fact die. Everybody knows this. What happens is that the military target is deemed to be more important for the overall objective, and that you’ll attempt to ‘minimize’ collateral damage because you’re the good guys.
But when you’re dropping a bomb on a target and aware that there are civilians present, claiming that you’re not targeting civilians is arguing semantics. If they’re in the cross hairs, they’re literally targeted - even if your objective is behind them.
And yes, I understand that bad guys intentionally placing stuff in residential neighborhoods etc etc etc. The Anthrax vaccination lab is located next to a residential area, too, about two miles away from where I’m sitting. Had terrorists decided to blow that up, there’d be civilian deaths as well.
Point being - you (the collective military decision making body) have determined that the military objective is important enough to warrent (whatever) level of ‘collateral’ damage. I’m not quibbling with that process. Hopefullly you’ll understand that the civilians in question will most likely feel quite targeted and not appreciate the nuances of the characterization ‘acceptable collateral damage’ vs targeted.
But be aware that both sides make these assesments. And they may, indeed draw the line about ‘acceptable collateral damage’ in a different place. Yes, I’m glad that we draw it closer to ‘none’ vs. ‘any amount is ok’. but it’s shades, not black/white. Do I think that we are ‘better’ morally than the person who orders the Suicide bomber to attack a pizza parlor? Sure. but that’s not the point.
The point that was being made, was from the perspective of ** the civilian** in the crosshairs (even if the ‘real’ target was behind him)
Sounds like all those times we bombed Iraq and Yugoslavia during the 90s.
Ditto. Remember those trains and bridges we blew up in Serbia? The power plants in Iraq?
So then the ultimate difference between us and the terrorists is that we have the strength to get our way, and they do not?
Note: I am not saying that the American military engages in acts of terrorism. I’m just saying that your approach to distinguishing us from the bad guys doesn’t really distinguish a whole lot.
Minty:
A terrorist intentionally commits atrocities and maximizes damage and suffering for the purpose of bringing attention to the cause he/she espouses.
A conventional military does none of these things.
If you’re on the receiving end, it’s difficult to see much difference.
Not true. Terrorists don’t bring aid, and put themselves at risk to protect civilians. Our forces don’t target civilians. They don’t use them as hostages.
Any sane being would much rather be captured by a conventional military, signatory to the Geneva Accords than captured by terrorists.
The difference is extreme.
FWIW, I find Scylla’s explanation to be a great improvement over Weirddave’s, though there are still a number of terrorist and military acts (and goals) that don’t fit the paradigm very neatly.
Dude, what are you talking about? 
I din’t call you a pinhead, Demostylus did.
I can see exactly where you’re coming from, Scylla - my perspective is probably much the same as yours.
It’s when you try to see things from the other side that things get murky.
Our guys put themselves at risk, their guys sacrifice themselves.
Our guys don’t deliberately target civilians, but if it’s necessary for the military objective, it’s acceptable as a side effect. Their guys deliberately target civilians because it’s necessary for the military objective.
Our guys are nominally bound by the Geneva convention, but often fail to follow it. Their guys aren’t bound, and do the same.
The differences are in degree only.
Demo:
The differences between a butcher and a brain surgeon are in degree only, as are the differences between Hitler and the Terminex man.