Intentionally killing civilians is wrong.
- Thread starter fuji
- Start date
That the Japanese committed war crimes (Nanjing) is indisputable. Equally, the Americans (Hiroshima) and the British (Dresden) committed war crimes as well.So we agree that the Brits (and Scots) and the WW II Japanese were terrorists.
It can't be OBL cuz nobody hurt his family.Oh I think I know this quote... is it from Osama bin Laden?
What about this proposition with Nazi Germany as an example: If the Nazis bomb civilians in major urban areas, is it not justified to retaliate the same way, so that the attacker suffers the same consequences, as a measured response and perhaps a deterrent?Every now and then I feel the need post this:
The intentional murder or mass murder of civilians is an atrocity.
It doesn't matter whether they're people going about their business in a New York office tower or a Japanese one. It doesn't matter whether they have family members in Al Qaeda, or in the US Marines. It makes no difference whether they are Armenian, Kurdish, Palestinian, Jewish, American, or Libyan. No matter whether they are involved in some sort of land dispute, fight over mineral resources, and no matter that they may have politically unpalatable views, intentionally killing civilians is wrong. Torturing them is wrong. Executing them is wrong.
Yes, civilians often die in war. It's unfortunate, and tragic, but we don't have weapons that can zero in on soldiers and leave the civilians alone. Maybe some day. Until then we will have to accept that sometimes civilians die when they are in or around legitimate targets, but we do not have to accept that anybody intentionally targeted them, that someone went out of their way to kill them, or to kill egregiously more of them than was necessary for any legitimate military purpose.
Those who torture, murder, and mass murder civilians should be brought to justice no matter which side they are.
I have absolutely no reservation in saying that those who do not see the murder of civilians as atrocity, as evil, as completely unacceptable behavior are themselves morally bankrupt and reprehensible individuals, the lowest form of life.
Nuclear war initially targets military sites, but if cities are destroyed, the response will be the same. Mutual-assured destruction (MAD) was/is a deterrent to nuclear war.
In either scenario, the counter-attack is a measured response, not a pre-emptive one with the prime intention being the mass murder of civilians. The counter-attack's objective is to force the aggressor to stop committing atrocities.
The legitimacy of the counter-attack of civilians presumes that the first-strike aggressor can't be easily or quickly neutralized in a single act, or in a reasonably short period of time. It also presumes that the response is proportionate. The U.S. did not launch ICBMs on Afghanistan, and it certainly did not carpet-bomb its cities.
One other thing to consider. If a nation is at war with another, then its citizens are at war too.
No, killing German civilians would not be justified, especially since in many cases they too were victims of the totalitarian regime. Killing them because of crimes by their government really just victimized them twice, for no good reason. You can't collectively punish an entire civilian population because of wrong done by a regime. Moreover you write as though the nazis were role models, that if they do some evil to our civilians that we should copy them. That's insane.
Note the error in your logic: "so that the attacker suffers the same", but the attacker was the German military, and the suffering you inflict in return is on civilians who did not attack. It's wrong.
The mutual annihilation of the human race must also be necessarily immoral, though our sself destruction raises existential issues that make normal moral reasoning problematic.
In any case aside from extremes like the simultaneous destruction of civilization itself attacks on civilians are both evil and illegal.
Note the error in your logic: "so that the attacker suffers the same", but the attacker was the German military, and the suffering you inflict in return is on civilians who did not attack. It's wrong.
The mutual annihilation of the human race must also be necessarily immoral, though our sself destruction raises existential issues that make normal moral reasoning problematic.
In any case aside from extremes like the simultaneous destruction of civilization itself attacks on civilians are both evil and illegal.
The Famine, 1845-1852, had far-reaching consequences which would not only shape Irish History, but would end with over one million of the population dead and would influence the country's foreign relations for many years to come. Known as 'Black 47' and 'An Gorta Mór', the instigator of widespread starvation, disease, death and mass emigration was the failure of the potato crop in 1845; the instigator but not the sole cause. This article will examine the history of Ireland which led up to the Famine, the political climate at the time and the reasons why one crop - the simple potato - brought the country to its knees.Also just as a factual matter, blaming the potato famine on the British is stupid. The British did quite a few injustices to the Irish, but nobody intentionally starved them. The failure of the potato crop wasn't good for anybody--certainly if you were a landlord hoping to get rich off your farms in Ireland the failure of your crop isn't something you hoped for.
.
Historically, it could be persuasively argued that Ireland's problems began many years before the onset of the Famine; specifically, the invasion by the English at the end of the twelfth century. The invaders, led by King Henry II succeeded in claiming the eastern and southeastern coasts for England, possibly assisted by infighting among the Irish leaders themselves. Henry divided the land into ten regions, giving each region to ten of his principal followers. This meant that each part of the land now had two owners - the rightful, native owner and the English invader.
The English believed that the Irish were barbarians and as such they concurred that these 'wild men' had no right to the land. Laws were quickly drawn up in an overt attempt to bring the Irish natives 'into line' - subjugation was the early ploy by the English.
It was not however until Queen Elizabeth I's reign that Ireland was fully under British Rule. It was also at this time that British statesmen actively believed that the best way to bring the Irish natives into line would be through widespread starvation. Thus, the British were thinking that Famine would be an ideal way to tame the 'barbarian Irish' two centuries before their will became fact. During Elizabeth's reign they did more, however, than simply 'think about starving the Irish'; the military systematically went through the farmlands all over Ireland, destroying crops that had already been planted, preventing land cultivation and killing the old, native Irish landowners one by one.
Elizabeth's plan to colonize Ulster with English people fell to her successor - James I, who gave 'gifts' of Irish land to his ardent Scottish supporters. Historically, though, it was not until the reign of William III (famous for the Battle of the Boyne) that the English declared Ireland to be 'fully conquered'.
The agricultural system just before the outbreak of the Famine also had a major impact in what would happen. The land was now owned by British landlords (many absentee) who rented out plots to the native farmers. Most of the land was employed to produce crops for export, while the farmers, in order to provide food for their families, used tiny plots. The potato was the crop of choice because it could be grown in poor soil and because it produced a large yield even in a small area. The result was such that the native people of Ireland were, by 1845, dependent - for their food and to enable them to pay the rent for their living quarters - on the reliability of the potato crop.
There were, however, problems brewing on the horizon - a disease called 'blight' (caused by the fungus 'Phytophthora infestans') had already wiped out the potato crops in America (1843) and all across continental Europe (1845). It was only a matter of time before it reached Ireland, the spores of the fungus carried by the wind, rain and insects from England and mainland Europe. While the US and Europe had other foods on which to rely, the native population of Ireland was not so lucky.
By the summer of 1845, the first signs of the blight were apparent (brown patches and white mould on the leaves and in the tubers), and by autumn the entire crop across Ireland had failed. The Irish found that they could no longer pay the rent to their landlords and over the coming years many were evicted from their properties. A widespread crisis was imminent.
Six months after the failure of the potato crop people were beginning to starve. Meanwhile, in England, the Liberals were suggesting that the Famine was a sign from God - they saw it as an opportunity for the Irish to 'better themselves', that it was a 'lesson', that Ireland was a country with huge economic potential (plentiful fish, good land and terrific harbors) and that with the 'right instruction' (from the British government of course), Ireland could 'get itself out of this disaster'. The object now was to bring Ireland totally under English law.
The Penal Laws (passed initially in 1695) were now strictly enforced, making it illegal for Catholics (most of the Irish) to own land, illegal for them to have an education, illegal for the Irish language (Gaelic) to be spoken or taught, illegal to enter the professions, hold office, vote, deal in trade, join the army, or practice their religion.
Lewis Perry Curtis Jr., an historian, believes the English treated Ireland in a superior, arrogant way, and that this attitude influenced policy at the time and made the disaster much worse than it needed to be. Famine relief for the starving and homeless in Ireland was slow in coming. Eventually, the then British Prime Minister, Robert Peel, ordered 100,000 pounds to be spent on American corn and shipped to Ireland. The amount was pitifully inadequate.
Other ministers in the British government took an even harder line - they believed the Irish should be 'left alone' to deal with the problems themselves. They also sent more military personnel to Ireland to ensure the exports of grain out of Ireland would not be tampered with. The irony is that at the height of the Famine, Ireland was producing food, but the vast majority of it was exported, landlords seeking a better market price, and the native Irish were too poor to buy the food they themselves were farming. Money was clearly more important to the British government than human lives.
The following year (1846) there was a second potato failure, the Irish were pawning everything they had to buy food and the winter of 1846-'47 was very severe. Soup kitchens, workhouses, jails and run-down hospitals were overcrowded, disease-ridden and people were beginning to die in their thousands. At the height of the Famine exported goods worth $25-30 million annually left Irish shores bound for England and the Continent. Many of the Irish were emigrating - to the US, Australia and Britain, believing the land to be cursed. Unfortunately, they took the diseases with them and, on overcrowded, ancient ships (referred to as 'coffin ships') many more died. They were not even guaranteed passage to the destination country when the ships finally arrived - many were turned away.
By 1847 too, English opinion was changing, fueled by the tabloids of the day. The English public had stopped donating to Famine relief, many questioned why they had to feed the Irish, there were stories abounding that the Irish were buying guns with the relief money and the new English Prime Minister, John Russell, cut off all aid. Racism abounded; Irish emigrants to Britain were faced with fear and violence. By 1850 many racist books and literature began to appear depicting the Irish as 'biologically inferior'.
The failure of Britain to substantially help the Irish during the Famine while at the same time systematically profiting from her crops, has been perceived by many to be evidence of Genocide; and recently the Irish government demanded an apology from the English government.
The facts remain however that the Potato Famine in Ireland had devastating and wide-reaching effects; many died from starvation and diseases (including typhus, fevers, dysentery, dropsy, scurvy etc.), the population dropped from 8 million (before the famine) to 5 million (after), resentments against the English grew eventually leading to outright rebellion and the formation of the IRA, and, widespread emigration shaped the cultural and societal makeup of many other countries (including the US).
The situation in the past has often not been black and white.
Let's say that towards the end of WWII the Germans are developing the A-bomb and we are confident that they will use it if they develop it.
Let's say that to stop that development we have to kill 10 purely civilian scientists, and we do.
Is anyone going to claim that is terrorism? Or a war crime?
Let's say that towards the end of WWII the Germans are developing the A-bomb and we are confident that they will use it if they develop it.
Let's say that to stop that development we have to kill 10 purely civilian scientists, and we do.
Is anyone going to claim that is terrorism? Or a war crime?
Given the number of U.S. military members who have been prosecuted and found not guilty over actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, it seems that if there is any sort of problem it is more in the commands desire to appeal to people like you, rather than a general attitude of let's engage in cover-ups.And if we can just get you to remember that just because the attacker was American that doesn't mean they weren't.
Last edited:
Oh good Lord not again! :frusty:Equally, the Americans (Hiroshima) and the British (Dresden) committed war crimes as well.
I don't think there's any error in my logic since you ignored my conditions about such civilian counter-attacks, including one that retaliation against the aggressor's cities in kind presumes that you cannot neutralize their military in a considerably short period of time.No, killing German civilians would not be justified, especially since in many cases they too were victims of the totalitarian regime. Killing them because of crimes by their government really just victimized them twice, for no good reason. You can't collectively punish an entire civilian population because of wrong done by a regime. Moreover you write as though the nazis were role models, that if they do some evil to our civilians that we should copy them. That's insane.
Note the error in your logic: "so that the attacker suffers the same", but the attacker was the German military, and the suffering you inflict in return is on civilians who did not attack. It's wrong.
The mutual annihilation of the human race must also be necessarily immoral, though our sself destruction raises existential issues that make normal moral reasoning problematic.
In any case aside from extremes like the simultaneous destruction of civilization itself attacks on civilians are both evil and illegal.
The ruling Nazis are indeed a good example (just like the Soviet Union would be for a retaliatory nuclear strike) because they were a nation that supported their government for the most part. Their military HQ resided in major urban centers, and their HUGE armed forces were spread out all over continental Germany & abroad. We are not dealing with Iraq or Afghanistan where the U.S. easily demonstrated their air superiority and destroyed military infrastructures, and avoided civilian targets if they could help it.
If a nation wishes to wage war against another, and it attacks innocent civilians, then it COULD cost them the same. Sometimes, that's the only way to get at the enemy. I believe England notified the Germans that if attacked, they would retaliate in kind. So the leaders of that nation knew what to expect, and planned for it with air raid sirens and anti-aircraft batteries, not to mention fighter aircraft responses.
Apart from global nuclear war, we live in an age now where large-scale bombings of major urban centres or civilian populations are far and few between. If a nation demonstrates that it supports its military and bombs foreign cities, it is not illegal in my view to retaliate in kind under those circumstances.
The Germans were hoping to force England to surrender with it's civilian bombardment. England or the Allies responded in kind only as a means to stop such bombings. It's as logical as an Allied soldier killing a charging German soldier, but on a larger scale, just like retaliating against the Soviets in a nuclear confrontation. Killing is immoral and illegal, but in war, it may be the only way to defend yourself or stop the attacks.
War is complex, and IF we're talking about an entire nation at war with another, then civilians may be part of the equation UNLESS you can compartmentalize civilian populations from their military in such a way that you can stop large-scale civilian attacks easily with precision counter-attacks against their military alone. Today, that seems more possible. It didn't so much before, and it presumes that the defending nation has miltary/technological superiority that permits such precise counter-attacks.
Think about this. If Japan or Germany were successful, do you really think their citizens would've revolted against their leaders?
Last edited:
Generally considered the most detailed and best written book on the topic is Cecil (née FitzGerald) Woodham-Smith's: The Great Hunger: Ireland: 1845-1849.The Famine, 1845-1852, had far-reaching consequences which would not only shape Irish History, but would end with over one million of the population dead and would influence the country's foreign relations for many years to come.
Fuji's single-issue argument can't address the complexities of full-scale war.Oh good Lord not again! :frusty:
The only way the Japanese would believe in the might of the A-Bomb was to demonstrate it (those cities weren't even the most heavily populated). That saved over a million lives relative to a conventional land invasion.
The bombing of Dresden imposed upon the higher-ranking German officers than perhaps that lunatic Hitler, and maybe diminished attacks against Allied cities if not resulted in planned assassinations to oust their Fuhrer, if not disloyalty within top brass, if not low morale within their troops. In each case, you plant the seeds of defeat.
You forget, FUJI is a single issue argument, himself. He will argue something to death even when it's clear he's way off and no one else will back him, just to keep his name inn print. His Irish famine post was a good example. He will circle the wagon and mule and argue until nobody listens/cares any more and walk a way shaking their collective heads.Fuji's single-issue argument can't address the complexities of full-scale war.
The only way the Japanese would believe in the might of the A-Bomb was to demonstrate it (those cities weren't even the most heavily populated). That saved over a million lives relative to a conventional land invasion.
The bombing of Dresden imposed upon the higher-ranking German officers than perhaps that lunatic Hitler, and maybe diminished attacks against Allied cities if not resulted in planned assassinations to oust their Fuhrer, if not disloyalty within top brass, if not low morale within their troops. In each case, you plant the seeds of defeat.
In my view, intentionally killing innocents is only wrong if you're the weaker party. Justice is the right of the stronger. And if it isn't just, if one's morality demands the death of innocents, then they die. That's it, that's all.
in my view, intentionally killing innocents is only wrong if you're the weaker party. Justice is the right of the stronger. And if it isn't just, if one's morality demands the death of innocents, then they die. That's it, that's all.
next!!!
I would disagree with you here and side with Fuji.In my view, intentionally killing innocents is only wrong if you're the weaker party. Justice is the right of the stronger. And if it isn't just, if one's morality demands the death of innocents, then they die. That's it, that's all.
Don't worry, I haven't forgotten but thanks for your support.You forget, FUJI is a single issue argument, himself. He will argue something to death even when it's clear he's way off and no one else will back him, just to keep his name inn print. His Irish famine post was a good example. He will circle the wagon and mule and argue until nobody listens/cares any more and walk a way shaking their collective heads.
There is absolutely an error in logic, GPIDEAL. It is a well established principle of international humanitarian law that you cannot punish the civilian population of a country for the actions of its government. It's called collective punishment, and it's illegal. You punish those individuals in government who are responsible for atrocity, not everyone else. The problem is when you use phrases like "the aggressor's cities" as if all the people in those cities are the aggressors.
As a result when we look at WW2 strategic bombings we need to look at them case by case. Some of those bombings were the ONLY effective way to attack some legitimate targets, like weapons factories. Other times, such as at Dresden or Hamburg, the evidence is that there was no military target of significant value that was being attacked, that the military "targets" were put up as an excuse, and that the real intent was to annihilate the civilian populations. Thus in some cases the attacks are legitimate, while in other cases they are criminal.
Again, intentionality matters, and mattered just as much in WW2 bombings of Germany, as in modern Israeli bombings of Gaza. If Israel strikes a target there with the intention of taking out a rocket launcher, and that strike is the only effective way to take out that launcher, so be it. On the other hand were Israel to carry out the exact same strike, but with no launcher present, intent on taking out a civilian building--well that would be a war crime.
That was Al Qaeda's justification for 9/11. It's no justification for atrocity. You cannot argue that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were valid because they turned the civilian population against the government, but then turn around and argue that 9/11 was somehow wrong, even though it was carried out with the exact same motivation. They were both wrong, for the exact same reason.presumes that you cannot neutralize their military in a considerably short period of time.
Absolutely it is acceptable to attack a military HQ, and when that military HQ is in a major urban center there is likely no way to attack it without inflicting perhaps severe civilian casualties. If the civilian casualties are unavoidable and the target is the military HQ then there is no crime in the attack. It is when the civilians THEMSELVES become the target that it becomes a war crime. Intentionality matters. Plainly if there were an effective way to attack the military HQ *without* inflicting the civilian casualties then that's what you should do--but convention recognizes and accepts that it isn't always possible.Their military HQ resided in major urban centers, and their HUGE armed forces were spread out all over continental Germany & abroad.
The plain problem with this is that you are punishing the German civilians, rather than the enemy. You are, once again, promoting illegal collective punishment against a civilian population rather than going after the actual enemy, which is the government and military regime. It is clear in humanitarian law that the population of a country is not the enemy, even when the government is.If a nation wishes to wage war against another, and it attacks innocent civilians, then it COULD cost them the same. Sometimes, that's the only way to get at the enemy.
This is terrorist ideation and it is morally bankrupt and wrong. It is not OK for us to go and carry out terrorist attacks against Arab cities. It was not moral for us to respond to Nazi evil by committing equally evil acts against innocent German civilians.The Germans were hoping to force England to surrender with it's civilian bombardment. England or the Allies responded in kind only as a means to stop such bombings. It's as logical as an Allied soldier killing a charging German soldier, but on a larger scale, just like retaliating against the Soviets in a nuclear confrontation.
Again, you are confusing technology with morality. You are correct that in the past it was only possible to carry out attacks on, say a military HQ, in a way that inflicted larger casualties than today. In the future it will be possible to do it with even fewer casualties than today. But yesterday, today, and tomorrow the principle is the same--if you have several effective ways to attack a target, you must choose the method that results in the least civilian casualties. What that method is will change with technology, but the principle does not change.War is complex, and IF we're talking about an entire nation at war with another, then civilians may be part of the equation UNLESS you can compartmentalize civilian populations from their military in such a way that you can stop large-scale civilian attacks easily with precision counter-attacks against their military alone. Today, that seems more possible. It didn't so much before, and it presumes that the defending nation has miltary/technological superiority that permits such precise counter-attacks.
As a result when we look at WW2 strategic bombings we need to look at them case by case. Some of those bombings were the ONLY effective way to attack some legitimate targets, like weapons factories. Other times, such as at Dresden or Hamburg, the evidence is that there was no military target of significant value that was being attacked, that the military "targets" were put up as an excuse, and that the real intent was to annihilate the civilian populations. Thus in some cases the attacks are legitimate, while in other cases they are criminal.
Again, intentionality matters, and mattered just as much in WW2 bombings of Germany, as in modern Israeli bombings of Gaza. If Israel strikes a target there with the intention of taking out a rocket launcher, and that strike is the only effective way to take out that launcher, so be it. On the other hand were Israel to carry out the exact same strike, but with no launcher present, intent on taking out a civilian building--well that would be a war crime.
That is often claimed, but it is not in evidence. There are two problems:The only way the Japanese would believe in the might of the A-Bomb was to demonstrate it (those cities weren't even the most heavily populated). That saved over a million lives relative to a conventional land invasion.
1. The Japanese WERE willing to surrender in any case. They were seeking surrender terms through the Soviets. The only question was whether it would be an unconditional surrender or not. The question is then this: Is the genocidal annihilation of a civilian population justified merely to accomplish better terms of surrender?
2. It's far more likely that they surrendered because the Soviets entered the war and routed their army in Manchuria. This happened between the two bomb drops. With their asian positions crumbling they (a) had very little to negotiate for, beyond an unconditional surrender, and (b) the allies would gain air bases in china neighbouring Japan and gain air superiority over the Japanese homeland, drastically altering the logic of an invasion (making it much easier).
So in short I don't believe it is factually correct that the bomb forced surrender, and secondly even if it did, I question whether even still it actually justifies genocide.
Again, that is the logic Al Qaeda applied in attacking on 9/11, their idea was to turn the American population against the American government through acts of terror. That is what you are advocating here. It is morally bankrupt and wrong. You are no better than an Al Qaeda supporter if that is your view--just on the other side of the fight.The bombing of Dresden imposed upon the higher-ranking German officers than perhaps that lunatic Hitler, and maybe diminished attacks against Allied cities if not resulted in planned assassinations to oust their Fuhrer, if not disloyalty within top brass, if not low morale within their troops. In each case, you plant the seeds of defeat.
I would dispute your factual contention that a) the Japanese were in the process of surrendering and b) Dresden targeted civilians.That is often claimed, but it is not in evidence. There are two problems:
1. The Japanese WERE willing to surrender in any case. They were seeking surrender terms through the Soviets. The only question was whether it would be an unconditional surrender or not. The question is then this: Is the genocidal annihilation of a civilian population justified merely to accomplish better terms of surrender?
2. It's far more likely that they surrendered because the Soviets entered the war and routed their army in Manchuria. This happened between the two bomb drops. With their asian positions crumbling they (a) had very little to negotiate for, beyond an unconditional surrender, and (b) the allies would gain air bases in china neighbouring Japan and gain air superiority over the Japanese homeland, drastically altering the logic of an invasion (making it much easier).
So in short I don't believe it is factually correct that the bomb forced surrender, and secondly even if it did, I question whether even still it actually justifies genocide.
Again, that is the logic Al Qaeda applied in attacking on 9/11, their idea was to turn the American population against the American government through acts of terror. That is what you are advocating here. It is morally bankrupt and wrong. You are no better than an Al Qaeda supporter if that is your view--just on the other side of the fight.
I should also add I dispute your assertion that the atomic bomb use against Japan constitutes genocide.
