Shalom, Mr Ahmadinejad

[Banquo's Ghost]

In that case Tuff, we differ so much, a dialogue would be pointless.

[ICantSpellDawg]

In that case Tuff, we differ so much, a dialogue would be pointless.

Oh stop being so dramatic . I'm just arguing with you for arguements sake.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Oh stop being so dramatic . I'm just arguing with you for arguements sake.

I know. But having lost someone to terrorism, it's not a subject I can easily treat with levity. Sorry.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

TSM:

Targeting the uniformed military personnel of the political actor with whom you are in conflict =
legitimate act of war.

Targeting the uniformed military personnel of the political actor with whom you are in conflict, but despite using all reasonable precautions to avoid harm to bystanders and civilians =
legitimate act of war with a regrettable loss of innocent life.

Targeting the uniformed military personnel of the political actor with whom you are in conflict, but failing to take reasonable precautions to minimize or avoid harm to bystanders and civilians =
wrongful action. Should be punishable/viewed as criminal to the extent that the perpetrators are culpable through their negligence.

Targeting the uniformed military personnel of the political actor with whom you are in conflict, knowing that their will be significant civilian/bystander casualties and making no effort to minimize or prevent such casualties =
Wrongful act. Only possible justification for such action is as a quid-pro-quo for previous action of like kind by opponent and even then ONLY when the quid-pro-quo is done as a means of curtailing like actions in future. NOTE: many, perphaps most, people around the world would actually view actions of this kind as having no difference from the category below.

Targeting civilians or bystanders in order to create the greatest possible harm on the softest target (terrorism) =
Criminal Act

There is a HUGE moral difference between guerilla war and terrorism. If you conflate the two completely, you are starting down a path towards what I would define as evil.

[ICantSpellDawg]

TSM:

Targeting the uniformed military personnel of the political actor with whom you are in conflict =
legitimate act of war.

Targeting the uniformed military personnel of the political actor with whom you are in conflict, but despite using all reasonable precautions to avoid harm to bystanders and civilians =
legitimate act of war with a regrettable loss of innocent life.

Targeting the uniformed military personnel of the political actor with whom you are in conflict, but failing to take reasonable precautions to minimize or avoid harm to bystanders and civilians =
wrongful action. Should be punishable/viewed as criminal to the extent that the perpetrators are culpable through their negligence.

Targeting the uniformed military personnel of the political actor with whom you are in conflict, knowing that their will be significant civilian/bystander casualties and making no effort to minimize or prevent such casualties =
Wrongful act. Only possible justification for such action is as a quid-pro-quo for previous action of like kind by opponent and even then ONLY when the quid-pro-quo is done as a means of curtailing like actions in future. NOTE: many, perphaps most, people around the world would actually view actions of this kind as having no difference from the category below.

Targeting civilians or bystanders in order to create the greatest possible harm on the softest target (terrorism) =
Criminal Act

There is a HUGE moral difference between guerilla war and terrorism. If you conflate the two completely, you are starting down a path towards what I would define as evil.

I understand the moral arguement and agree, but who cares about all of that in war. People die and you kill them - so what?

I understand why someone wouldn't want their loved ones to be killed because it would hurt them and disrupt their lives - but you have to see the practical sense in destroying the economic and social stability of your enemy. As awful as civilian loss during a conflict is, we all die - some will die more slowly and painfully without being nailed by a ricochet/hit with an IED. Who knows who will die in war before they lose a child in peace or come down with a painful or debilitating ailment.

The blanket of morality and ethics are great and I use them and get why the US military uses them, but for arguements sake lets discuss why, practically we shouldn't kill civilians for its own sake.

I get the moral arguement, but that is a philosophical arguement, not a military one. Whether you send people to heaven/hell or nothingness i'm not sure it matters to them after the fact. Step outside of yourself and your fears.

I'm just making arguement- stop being so sensitive. I lose people, but that's part of life. I guess I have never lost someone important enough to me - mother/father/wife/children. I don't really see why it matters whether a loved one is killed by disease, wild animals or another human. The death is the same and the life was the same.

I have completely hijacked this thread. I digress. Why would you two mods let me do that!

[Subotan]

Your argument would make sense if a nation was engaged in a hypothetical total war against a terrorist organisation, in which all resources are deployed to destroying this particular group, including labour. But of course, that would never happen, so your argument sounds incredibly cold blooded.