User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/8/2013 6:55:13 PM EDT
[#1]
Quoted:
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? Not if you want to "win the hearts and minds." |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2013 6:57:33 PM EDT
[#2]
Sometimes you have to kill everybody.
Japan.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2013 6:59:56 PM EDT
[#3]
What constitutes a child?
Ever seen the 10 year olds in the Congo carrying AKs? Also, why do you hate equal rights? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2013 7:00:58 PM EDT
[#4]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2013 7:01:19 PM EDT
[#5]
Carpet bombing was goog enough for grandpa so........
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2013 7:01:22 PM EDT
[#6]
Secret mandella thread? Awesome.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2013 7:01:33 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What constitutes a child? Ever seen the 10 year olds in the Congo carrying AKs? Also, why do you hate equal rights? You didn't read OPs post did you? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2013 7:02:11 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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". |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2013 7:03:16 PM EDT
[#9]
Short answer "no" with an "if." Long answer "yes" with a "but."
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2013 7:03:36 PM EDT
[#10]
Yes/No doesn't always fit.
Do you even LOAC, bro? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2013 7:03:57 PM EDT
[#11]
Quoted:
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? Are women and children more or less valuable than non-child males? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2013 7:03:59 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. This. Sometimes, collateral damage happens. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2013 7:04:16 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sometimes you have to kill everybody. Japan.... They were collateral damage... There were legitimate military targets. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2013 7:04:24 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted:
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? So, will you have a follow-on post or is this really a simple yes or no? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2013 7:04:25 PM EDT
[#15]
"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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2013 7:05:46 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sometimes you have to kill everybody. Japan.... Not quite, but as Curtis LeMay said, "If you kill enough of them, they'll give up." |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2013 7:06:28 PM EDT
[#17]
War is heck.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2013 7:07:33 PM EDT
[#18]
Does that include 13er women and children?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2013 7:07:35 PM EDT
[#19]
it appears that if we're talking about bombing, yes.
but real combat? apparently not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2013 7:07:36 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2013 7:07:50 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sometimes you have to kill everybody. Japan.... He said "exclusively target" women and children. We have never done that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2013 7:08:30 PM EDT
[#22]
Targeting? No. Not ever.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2013 7:08:33 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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". |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2013 7:09:15 PM EDT
[#24]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2013 7:10:13 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2013 7:11:29 PM EDT
[#26]
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...) |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2013 7:12:12 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2013 7:12:35 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He said "exclusively target" women and children. We have never done that. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2013 7:13:04 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2013 7:14:33 PM EDT
[#30]
So I guess you guys think 9/11 was pretty cool.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2013 7:15:00 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What about men who are not combatants and not supporting a war effort? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2013 7:15:14 PM EDT
[#32]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2013 7:16:46 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So I guess you guys think 9/11 was pretty cool. No. They did win, however. We are reminded of this every time somebody wants to fly somewhere, or somebody visits the wrong sites on the net, or whenever anybody is carrying more than 1 firearm and more than 10 rounds of ammo, or any time somebody wants to buy fertilizer for their garden. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2013 7:17:11 PM EDT
[#34]
You just don't lead them as much .
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2013 7:17:13 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Historically, Military aged men don't get a free pass. They should be fighting, either against their army or with them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2013 7:17:23 PM EDT
[#36]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2013 7:18:03 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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". Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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". |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2013 7:18:20 PM EDT
[#38]
Only when faced with extirpation
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2013 7:18:35 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2013 7:18:59 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sometimes you have to kill everybody. Japan.... that bomb killed a lot less people than the planned allied invasion would have Eta those bombs but you know what I mean |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2013 7:20:03 PM EDT
[#41]
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...)
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2013 7:20:50 PM EDT
[#42]
Depends if you win and get to write the history books.....
No |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2013 7:21:05 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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". 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2013 7:21:08 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Historically, Military aged men don't get a free pass. They should be fighting, either against their army or with them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2013 7:21:41 PM EDT
[#45]
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? No. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2013 7:21:42 PM EDT
[#46]
... exclusively target non-combatants ... 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2013 7:25:11 PM EDT
[#47]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2013 7:26:21 PM EDT
[#48]
Note, OP said targeting of women and kids as a strategy. NOT as collateral damage of a strategy.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2013 7:29:03 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Secret mandella thread? Awesome. Well, OP said simple yes or no. I knew it wasn't true. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2013 7:31:23 PM EDT
[#50]
Quoted: 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? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
