Happy Nuke Day

Really any war, a government owes its citizens the quickest route out of armed confict so they can live their own lives (at least representative governments...) Like I said earlier in this thread, "rules of war" only make it easier for our style of government to persue armed conflict.

That was all media hype! Mama says they were killed by the dehydration!

:rofl3:

So I'm not wrong, and it's therefore not ridiculous?

We aren't talking about differences...I believe you asked what was wrong (in my opinion) with terroism. Stay on topic or be silent, for your random changed in scope do not facilitate discussion.

However; in the interest of humoring you, terrorists are more likely to use violence, less likely to communicate, and less likely to have any sort of attainable goal than governments...which should lead one to the conclusion that destroying their popular support (by pistol or pen) the most viable option to use against them.

It is indeed ridiculous that you continue to believe there is such a thing as wrong in an absolute sense

So governments can't be terrrorist now?

Back in the real world, terrorism is the deliberate targetting of civilians, by state or non-state entities. It is wrong by its very nature, not just because of who is responsible.

Am I wrong to believe that?

Is it more or less wrong than coincidental targeting of civilians by state entities engaged in war?

Here's your disconnect.

I don't think it is wrong at all, and I think history backs me up far more than your modern rosy philosophy. You end conflict, become a stronger nation, and offer prosperity to the constituents of your nation by winning so completely that the other nation cannot possibly continue to fight.

Call it terrorism if you want to, I call it the way to use violence to ensure the health of your nation and of your people. However, that being said, I think there's much better methods of ensuring health and prosperity for a nation other than warfare - free and open trade is good, mutual understanding better - but there are cases where neither can apply, and your options become more limited...in such a situation I'd rather it be me and mine who come out on top rather than you and yours; that is how the Real World works, and not based on some loose definition of what is "right" and "wrong"

Not at all. As I just finished saying...you are ridiculous to believe that

So, it's ridiculous...but not wrong. Gotcha.

"wrongness" is only a failure of ideology to reach a desired goal, hell your concepts of "wrong" only apply where other people believe in them, and none of them can be said to accurately predict future outcomes.

ie. They are ridiculous, much better to understand that what works in one situation is not necessarily going to work in another situation. That is wisdom in my book, trying to force reality to conform to your expectations is foolishness.

What do you mean by "conincidental targetting"? That appears to be a contradiction.

Alright, sorry about the confusion. I'm talking about civilians who are coincidentally in the line of fire for what your rules of war might otherwise deem a legitimate target.

No, "wrongness" is when something is not true.

i.e. 1+1=3 is wrong.

marathon is saying that "there is no wrong".

He's off his rocker. Completely nuts.

It's obviously less wrong than outright terrorism, all other things being equal.

However, that's not to say that killing 100 civilians through negligence in targetting isn't a major problem.

There is no wrong as a universal constant or concept.

Wrongness, and all morality for that matter, is a fabricated human concept whose strength and whose truth is artificially constructed from the building blocks of consensus

Let me throw this out there:

The main reason Americans were so upset about Pearl Harbor was because the declaration of war from Japan reached our government late, due to clerical difficulties.

This fucked up Japan's plan, which was to hit America with one hard punch and then work out a settlement.

When Yamamoto found out the declaration of war was late, he knew Japan was fucked...because the outrage in America would not permit a negotiated end to the war. A slow secretary, in effect, changed Pearl Harbor from an admittedly brilliant tactical move to a "day of infamy" that had to be avenged.

Anyhoo - I'm wondering what the effect on the American psyche would have been if the targets had been different on 9/11 - instead of the World Trade Center, what if the terrorists had focused on the Pentagon alone? Would the anger that swept America been different?

That you seemingly can't comprehend how this line of reasoning is self-defeating is absolutely hilarious!

Hence our continuing effort to produce more and more accurate weapons and targeting capabilities. Carpet bombing Baghdad on the first night of GW1 was unnecessary thanks to an LGBs that could be directed down air vents of strategic buildings and onto specific bridge spans. Nuking a whole city to get a strategic target is, probably, now an obsolete tactic (I hope!).

Who fabricated morality, if not humanity? :flow2:

Why is it more wrong?

In one case, you have a strong country with a conventional military intentionally selecting military targets in spite of a likely nearby civilian presence.

In the other, you have a weak organization with no means to attack a military target, targeting civilians instead.

Both share the strategic aim of weakening an enemy through violence. Both use the best means available to the respective actor. Both result in civilian deaths. I'm hard pressed to see much difference morally. It seems to me that your rules are designed to prevent the poor and weak from any means to use violence as a tool, while preserving such means for the wealthy and strong.

Ah, so morality is a science now.

I await with breathless anticipation your proof demonstrating that targetting civilians = wrong.


Who am I kidding, you're a fucking moron.

Ah, but 1+1=2 is wrong too, in base 2

I believe that specifically targetting civilians is wrong. However, that doesn't mean they should be allowed to be used as shields by enemy forces. I also believe that civillians caught in the crossfire are accidental deaths and should not be considered a crime, just repugnant.

Well, Kira Nerys touched upon this in "When It Rains..."

However, it is entirely true. If civillians are allowed to be used as shields then the enemy has won for they will protect themselves with the civillians. To me that is more morally repugnant that and accidental civillian death.

Let me put it like this.

Suppose a soldier is being approached by a kid. The kid has a vest of dynamite and it becomes obvious that the kid's goal is to kill himself and the soldier. Should the soldier allow himself to die or should he be allowed to shoot and kill the kid in order to defend himself?

Added:

I've asked this question before and some have stated that the soldier should die rather than shoot a kid, even though the kid is going to kill himself when he activates the explosive vest.

Japan was fucked anyway. Even if the declaration of war had arrived earlier, it would've made little difference.

The Japanese miscalculation was thinking that the U.S. would simply negotiate after their fleet was destroyed. Sneak attack or no, this just wasn't the case. Japan misunderstood its opponent.

It would've enabled more people to find excuses for not responding to Islamic terrorism, probably. We would've had more assholes like Ward Churchill applauding the event...

Not at all - and you'll note my vehement opposition to the war in Iraq as evidence of that.

It's just that intentions need to be taken into account. Unless you think that manslaughter is as heinous a crime as murder?
The outcome might be the same, but morally the act itself is different.

Right back at you.

But FYI, the debate had tangentically gone off into other areas, and we were no longer speaking about only morality.