Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
This thread stems from a different one where someone commented about civilian deaths in the middle of battle and the high civilian death toll accumulated so far in Iraq.
The proponents of the war feel these deaths are necessary and reasonable because they ensure future safety and any reasonable civilian (without aggressive intentions) would be long gone by the time a battle erupted, so any civilians remaining must be involved in the insurgency in one way or another.
I just wanted to get to the logic behind this kind of reasoning, because I've looked for it, and it simply isn't there. What is there is inhumane actions that would never be defended by posters here if the people committing the actions were not American. This is a blatant double standard and obvious political American bias.
How would you expect a civilian to simply leave the designated battle zone? Walk? What do they tell AQ or the Taliban as they leave? They don't want to be killed in the upcoming assault? I bet they'd understand, right? As mentioned, every single time a civilian dies by American hands, it gives them and their cause justification and creates MORE people to kill. You guys really need to understand how that works because it's extremely important, especially regarding future safety and stability.
Further, how would you expect an insurgency of this type to fight the full force of the Coalition forces, made up mainly of American forces? This gets brought up a lot! "well the civilian casualties are the terrorists fault, if they dressed in soldiers uniforms and fought conventional war and didn't use civilians as shields, there wouldn't be so many deaths"... How can you reason that out with a straight face and not feel embarrassed about actually saying it and defending it?
Think it through, what would happen if all the terrorists put on soldiers uniforms? The coalition forces would INSTANTLY recognize them as a TERRORIST, right? They have a higher chance of getting killed, right? From the terrorists perspective, it is logical to dress in civilian clothing. It's a tactic a force of the size of the insurgency MUST use to be effective. You would do the exact same thing if it were you, if you wouldn't, you sir would not remain a terrorist for very long.
So do you finally see how killing innocent people, even in war, is not justified simply by propping up how the enemy wages war?
It's as if you guys are saying it would be totally OK to open fire on a group of men walking towards you carrying an AK47 in one hand and a 5 year old child in the other. It would be different if the man was walking into your house, but that's not the case at all.
Thoughts?
The proponents of the war feel these deaths are necessary and reasonable because they ensure future safety and any reasonable civilian (without aggressive intentions) would be long gone by the time a battle erupted, so any civilians remaining must be involved in the insurgency in one way or another.
I just wanted to get to the logic behind this kind of reasoning, because I've looked for it, and it simply isn't there. What is there is inhumane actions that would never be defended by posters here if the people committing the actions were not American. This is a blatant double standard and obvious political American bias.
How would you expect a civilian to simply leave the designated battle zone? Walk? What do they tell AQ or the Taliban as they leave? They don't want to be killed in the upcoming assault? I bet they'd understand, right? As mentioned, every single time a civilian dies by American hands, it gives them and their cause justification and creates MORE people to kill. You guys really need to understand how that works because it's extremely important, especially regarding future safety and stability.
Further, how would you expect an insurgency of this type to fight the full force of the Coalition forces, made up mainly of American forces? This gets brought up a lot! "well the civilian casualties are the terrorists fault, if they dressed in soldiers uniforms and fought conventional war and didn't use civilians as shields, there wouldn't be so many deaths"... How can you reason that out with a straight face and not feel embarrassed about actually saying it and defending it?
Think it through, what would happen if all the terrorists put on soldiers uniforms? The coalition forces would INSTANTLY recognize them as a TERRORIST, right? They have a higher chance of getting killed, right? From the terrorists perspective, it is logical to dress in civilian clothing. It's a tactic a force of the size of the insurgency MUST use to be effective. You would do the exact same thing if it were you, if you wouldn't, you sir would not remain a terrorist for very long.
So do you finally see how killing innocent people, even in war, is not justified simply by propping up how the enemy wages war?
It's as if you guys are saying it would be totally OK to open fire on a group of men walking towards you carrying an AK47 in one hand and a 5 year old child in the other. It would be different if the man was walking into your house, but that's not the case at all.
Thoughts?
