Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
12/6/2019 7:27:02 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 8
Posted: 12/8/2013 5:54:02 PM EST
Just a simple yes/no question.


is a cause ever worthy enough to exclusively target non-combatants such as women and children in order to achieve a military or political (revolutionary) goal?


Link Posted: 12/8/2013 5:55:13 PM EST
Originally Posted By Shockergd:
Just a simple yes/no question.


is a cause ever worthy enough to exclusively target non-combatants such as women and children in order to achieve a military or political (revolutionary) goal?


View Quote


Not if you want to "win the hearts and minds."
Link Posted: 12/8/2013 5:57:33 PM EST
Sometimes you have to kill everybody.

Japan....
Link Posted: 12/8/2013 5:59:56 PM EST
What constitutes a child?

Ever seen the 10 year olds in the Congo carrying AKs? Also, why do you hate equal rights?
Link Posted: 12/8/2013 6:00:58 PM EST
Intentionally shooting women and children is okay. They have to be combatants though.


Killing innocent women and children is okay as collateral damage, provided you're making an effort to go after combatants while minimizing that collateral damage. Not eliminating it, just minimizing it.


Otherwise, no.
Link Posted: 12/8/2013 6:01:19 PM EST
Carpet bombing was goog enough for grandpa so........
Link Posted: 12/8/2013 6:01:22 PM EST
Secret mandella thread? Awesome.
Link Posted: 12/8/2013 6:01:33 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TokerM:
What constitutes a child?

Ever seen the 10 year olds in the Congo carrying AKs? Also, why do you hate equal rights?
View Quote


You didn't read OPs post did you?
Link Posted: 12/8/2013 6:02:11 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By rayman70:
Carpet bombing was goog enough for grandpa so........
View Quote

This. We did it in WWII, so unless I'm willing to condemn Curtis LeMay and the USAAC then I'm going to say "yes".
Link Posted: 12/8/2013 6:03:16 PM EST
Short answer "no" with an "if." Long answer "yes" with a "but."

Link Posted: 12/8/2013 6:03:36 PM EST
Yes/No doesn't always fit.

Do you even LOAC, bro?
Link Posted: 12/8/2013 6:03:57 PM EST
Originally Posted By Shockergd:
Just a simple yes/no question.


is a cause ever worthy enough to exclusively target non-combatants such as women and children in order to achieve a military or political (revolutionary) goal?


View Quote


Are women and children more or less valuable than non-child males?
Link Posted: 12/8/2013 6:03:59 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Capt-Planet:
Intentionally shooting women and children is okay. They have to be combatants though.


Killing innocent women and children is okay as collateral damage, provided you're making an effort to go after combatants while minimizing that collateral damage. Not eliminating it, just minimizing it.


Otherwise, no.
View Quote


This. Sometimes, collateral damage happens.
Link Posted: 12/8/2013 6:04:16 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By robeans:
Sometimes you have to kill everybody.

Japan....
View Quote



They were collateral damage...

There were legitimate military targets.
Link Posted: 12/8/2013 6:04:24 PM EST
Originally Posted By Shockergd:
Just a simple yes/no question.


is a cause ever worthy enough to exclusively target non-combatants such as women and children in order to achieve a military or political (revolutionary) goal?


View Quote




So, will you have a follow-on post or is this really a simple yes or no?
Link Posted: 12/8/2013 6:04:25 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/9/2013 8:20:11 AM EST by 103]
"Ever?"

Yes. Borne out by history to be true.

ETA: someone just pointed out the "exclusively" language of your question. Answer is no unless it is only women and children engaging in combat.
Link Posted: 12/8/2013 6:05:46 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/8/2013 6:21:20 PM EST by tcrpe]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By robeans:
Sometimes you have to kill everybody.

Japan....
View Quote



Not quite, but as Curtis LeMay said, "If you kill enough of them, they'll give up."
Link Posted: 12/8/2013 6:06:28 PM EST
War is heck.
Link Posted: 12/8/2013 6:07:33 PM EST
Does that include 13er women and children?
Link Posted: 12/8/2013 6:07:35 PM EST
it appears that if we're talking about bombing, yes.

but real combat? apparently not.
Link Posted: 12/8/2013 6:07:36 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By aeroworksxp:
Secret mandella thread? Awesome.
View Quote



Exactly.

I have 2 people telling me the ANC's methods are completely justified (Necklaces and all) because the apartheid government was just that evil.
Link Posted: 12/8/2013 6:07:50 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By robeans:
Sometimes you have to kill everybody.

Japan....
View Quote


He said "exclusively target" women and children.

We have never done that.
Link Posted: 12/8/2013 6:08:30 PM EST
Targeting? No. Not ever.
Link Posted: 12/8/2013 6:08:33 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Shockergd:



Exactly.

I have 2 people telling me the ANC's methods are completely justified (Necklaces and all) because the apartheid government was just that evil.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Shockergd:
Originally Posted By aeroworksxp:
Secret mandella thread? Awesome.



Exactly.

I have 2 people telling me the ANC's methods are completely justified (Necklaces and all) because the apartheid government was just that evil.


I'm not surprised that ARFCOM (a very hypocritical place), is voting so high for "yes".
Link Posted: 12/8/2013 6:09:15 PM EST
It depends on how you view total war. Eg, when is firebombing or nuking a city ethical, moral, or just plain justified? Sometimes yes, sometimes no? What if that is your only option to inflict damage on the enemy? Hard questions I'm glad I don't have to answer.
Link Posted: 12/8/2013 6:10:13 PM EST
Link Posted: 12/8/2013 6:11:29 PM EST
The problem with saying 'no' to this question is that it rules out leveling an entire area that has military targets in it.

Blowing a whole city to hell because the place is chock-full of military targets is Kosher.

Using LGB's to specifically target elementary schools and day cares is not. (Unless people are launching, say, missiles off the roofs...)
Link Posted: 12/8/2013 6:12:12 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By brass:


I don't have a problem with Total War. I do have a problem with specifically targeting women and children who are not combatants and are not supporting the enemy war effort.

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By brass:
Originally Posted By Tony-Ri:
It depends on how you view total war. Eg, when is firebombing or nuking a city ethical, moral, or just plain justified? Sometimes yes, sometimes no? What if that is your only option to inflict damage on the enemy? Hard questions I'm glad I don't have to answer.


I don't have a problem with Total War. I do have a problem with specifically targeting women and children who are not combatants and are not supporting the enemy war effort.



What about men who are not combatants and not supporting a war effort?
Link Posted: 12/8/2013 6:12:35 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/8/2013 6:14:34 PM EST by GarandM1]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By LARRYG:


He said "exclusively target" women and children.

We have never done that.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By LARRYG:
Originally Posted By robeans:
Sometimes you have to kill everybody.

Japan....


He said "exclusively target" women and children.

We have never done that.

Neither did Mandela and the ANC....

ETA: Heck, even Al-Qaeda hasn't exclusively targeted women and children over men. Now they don't really mind if they kill a whole bunch of innocents but they want to kill everyone, not just women and children.
Link Posted: 12/8/2013 6:13:04 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Shockergd:



Exactly.

I have 2 people telling me the ANC's methods are completely justified (Necklaces and all) because the apartheid government was just that evil.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Shockergd:
Originally Posted By aeroworksxp:
Secret mandella thread? Awesome.



Exactly.

I have 2 people telling me the ANC's methods are completely justified (Necklaces and all) because the apartheid government was just that evil.


So they are okaying FO time?
Link Posted: 12/8/2013 6:14:33 PM EST
So I guess you guys think 9/11 was pretty cool.
Link Posted: 12/8/2013 6:15:00 PM EST
Link Posted: 12/8/2013 6:15:14 PM EST
Specifically target them? No...

...go ahead and bomb the fuck out of a city for strategic purposes even though you know there is going to be collateral damage? Sure.
Link Posted: 12/8/2013 6:16:46 PM EST
Link Posted: 12/8/2013 6:17:11 PM EST
You just don't lead them as much .

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Link Posted: 12/8/2013 6:17:13 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By brass:


Historically, Military aged men don't get a free pass. They should be fighting, either against their army or with them.

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By brass:
Originally Posted By bcw107:
Originally Posted By brass:
Originally Posted By Tony-Ri:
It depends on how you view total war. Eg, when is firebombing or nuking a city ethical, moral, or just plain justified? Sometimes yes, sometimes no? What if that is your only option to inflict damage on the enemy? Hard questions I'm glad I don't have to answer.


I don't have a problem with Total War. I do have a problem with specifically targeting women and children who are not combatants and are not supporting the enemy war effort.



What about men who are not combatants and not supporting a war effort?


Historically, Military aged men don't get a free pass. They should be fighting, either against their army or with them.



Ok. What if they aren't military age?
Link Posted: 12/8/2013 6:17:23 PM EST
Children no. Unless they are a direct threat to you such as the ten year olds with AK's.
I'd call that self defense not targeting.

In my opinion, unless the child is a combatant trying to kill you it is never OK to target or kill children.

Link Posted: 12/8/2013 6:18:03 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By GarandM1:

This. We did it in WWII, so unless I'm willing to condemn Curtis LeMay and the USAAC then I'm going to say "yes".
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By GarandM1:
Originally Posted By rayman70:
Carpet bombing was goog enough for grandpa so........

This. We did it in WWII, so unless I'm willing to condemn Curtis LeMay and the USAAC then I'm going to say "yes".
The technology of WWII wasn't capable of 1 meter accuracy like today's JDAMs and laser guided bombs. Even using the H2S/H2X ground mapping radar, bombers were lucky to get their inaccurate free fall bombs within 2 blocks of a target.
Link Posted: 12/8/2013 6:18:20 PM EST
Only when faced with extirpation
Link Posted: 12/8/2013 6:18:35 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Towely:
Specifically target them? No...

...go ahead and bomb the fuck out of a city for strategic purposes even though you know there is going to be collateral damage? Sure.
View Quote


That's different.

Collateral damage is a different story.

You wouldn't bomb the city because there is kids in it, you'd bomb in spite of that sad fact.

Link Posted: 12/8/2013 6:18:59 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/8/2013 6:19:32 PM EST by Pony151515]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By robeans:
Sometimes you have to kill everybody.

Japan....
View Quote

that bomb killed a lot less people than the planned allied invasion would have
Eta those bombs but you know what I mean
Link Posted: 12/8/2013 6:20:03 PM EST
There is a difference is deliberately targeting children for an attack (Sandy Hook), and launching an attack in which children will undoubtedly be killed (The Blitz, Hiroshima, etc...)
Link Posted: 12/8/2013 6:20:50 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/8/2013 6:23:34 PM EST by juslearnin]
Depends if you win and get to write the history books.....

No
Link Posted: 12/8/2013 6:21:05 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/8/2013 6:21:46 PM EST by GarandM1]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DnPRK:
The technology of WWII wasn't capable of 1 meter accuracy like today's JDAMs and laser guided bombs. Even using the H2S/H2X ground mapping radar, bombers were lucky to get their inaccurate free fall bombs within 2 blocks of a target.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DnPRK:
Originally Posted By GarandM1:
Originally Posted By rayman70:
Carpet bombing was goog enough for grandpa so........

This. We did it in WWII, so unless I'm willing to condemn Curtis LeMay and the USAAC then I'm going to say "yes".
The technology of WWII wasn't capable of 1 meter accuracy like today's JDAMs and laser guided bombs. Even using the H2S/H2X ground mapping radar, bombers were lucky to get their inaccurate free fall bombs within 2 blocks of a target.

Still doesn't change the fact that our bombing strategy allowed for the killing of women and children.

Now, as LARRYG pointed out we didn't target them exclusively over MAMs. But we accepted it as an unavoidable cost of winning the war.
Link Posted: 12/8/2013 6:21:08 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By brass:


Historically, Military aged men don't get a free pass. They should be fighting, either against their army or with them.

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By brass:
Originally Posted By bcw107:
Originally Posted By brass:
Originally Posted By Tony-Ri:
It depends on how you view total war. Eg, when is firebombing or nuking a city ethical, moral, or just plain justified? Sometimes yes, sometimes no? What if that is your only option to inflict damage on the enemy? Hard questions I'm glad I don't have to answer.


I don't have a problem with Total War. I do have a problem with specifically targeting women and children who are not combatants and are not supporting the enemy war effort.



What about men who are not combatants and not supporting a war effort?


Historically, Military aged men don't get a free pass. They should be fighting, either against their army or with them.



Can't really see a difference between non combatant males and non combatant females.

The trick is figuring out if they are truly non combatants..
Link Posted: 12/8/2013 6:21:41 PM EST

is a cause ever worthy enough to exclusively target non-combatants such as women and children in order to achieve a military or political (revolutionary) goal?
View Quote


No.
Link Posted: 12/8/2013 6:21:42 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/8/2013 6:42:48 PM EST by crux]
... exclusively target non-combatants ...
View Quote




That's pretty much the definition of the counter value strategy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countervalue

ETA: International law is somewhat vague where countervalue ends and "proportional collateral damage" begins for nukes, but in general, civilian targeting is criminal.
Link Posted: 12/8/2013 6:25:11 PM EST
It is if you're one of the nut jobs on here that plays make believe thinking that if gun confiscation ever happens it makes targeting police and militarily families a viable strategy.

But if you're sane and rational, no.
Link Posted: 12/8/2013 6:26:21 PM EST
Note, OP said targeting of women and kids as a strategy. NOT as collateral damage of a strategy.

Link Posted: 12/8/2013 6:29:03 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By aeroworksxp:
Secret mandella thread? Awesome.
View Quote



Well, OP said simple yes or no. I knew it wasn't true.
Link Posted: 12/8/2013 6:31:23 PM EST
Originally Posted By Shockergd:
Just a simple yes/no question.


is a cause ever worthy enough to exclusively target non-combatants such as women and children in order to achieve a military or political (revolutionary) goal?


View Quote
No. All targets must have a military or direct political nature, in my view, and must be as focused in their execution as possible.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 8
Top Top