Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Grey Templar wrote: At some point the possibility of those civilians being innocent of the crimes of ISIS ceases to outweigh the damage ISIS causes to the rest of the world. Lots of innocent people were killed to remove Hitler from power, it was still worth it.
ISIS actively uses "civilians" to protect themselves during firefights and even uses them as traps for soldiers.
Grey Templar wrote: At some point the possibility of those civilians being innocent of the crimes of ISIS ceases to outweigh the damage ISIS causes to the rest of the world. Lots of innocent people were killed to remove Hitler from power, it was still worth it.
True but in WWII we were fighting a pre-existing nation state. ISIS isn't recognized as a nation and all of the territory it currently occupies is still claimed as part of Syria and Iraq. We probably couldn't get permission from Syria or Iraq to drop nukes and irradiate swathes of their country in order to depopulate the area controlled by ISIS. I don't think Syria and Iraq have ceded their claim to the territory, I'm pretty sure they want it back and would prefer that it not become a radioactive wasteland.
Kilkrazy wrote: Are you arguing for mass killing of everyone who happens to live in an ISIL controlled area?
How would you achieve this aim?
Biological weapons of course. And napalm to make sure you got everyone.
Wait, that wasn't what you were getting at?
Bio weapons are a catastrophe just waiting for someone stupid enough to pull the trigger. Chemical weapons are where it's at, since they at least aren't the kind of flaming donkeycaves that mutate on you.
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
No, I am arguing that might be the price you have to pay to remove this insidious evil.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Kilkrazy wrote: Are you arguing for mass killing of everyone who happens to live in an ISIL controlled area?
How would you achieve this aim?
Hmm...
B-52s loaded with 10k tonnes of napalm, white phosphorus, and magnesium would be an option. If your assumption is that the civilian casualties are outweighed by the benefits of total war, then that will do the job without resorting to biological or nuclear weapons.
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
LethalShade wrote: "And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you."
But evil is a somewhat subjective notion if you ask me.
I have to disagree with that. Evil can be defined as acting in one's own selfish interest to some degree at the cost of others, while virtue is the exact opposite.
This actually sounds like a good subject for a new thread I might start up.
LethalShade wrote: "And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you."
But evil is a somewhat subjective notion if you ask me.
I have to disagree with that. Evil can be defined as acting in one's own selfish interest to some degree at the cost of others, while virtue is the exact opposite.
This actually sounds like a good subject for a new thread I might start up.
No, that's greed (or capitalism! ).
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Grey Templar wrote: At some point the possibility of those civilians being innocent of the crimes of ISIS ceases to outweigh the damage ISIS causes to the rest of the world. Lots of innocent people were killed to remove Hitler from power, it was still worth it.
ISIS actively uses "civilians" to protect themselves during firefights and even uses them as traps for soldiers.
This happens quite frequently in the Middle East. It's one of the things that Israel has had to contend with for decades. As soon as a "civilian" dies, the terroists send footage of that to the Associated Press or Reuters which gets played all over the world.
Grey Templar wrote: No, I am arguing that might be the price you have to pay to remove this insidious evil.
the price is to become more evil than those you fight against.
Collateral damage will never be as evil as beheading people and putting the footage on youtube or forcing civilians to remain in an area that is under attack so their accidental deaths can be used as propaganda. Its not even evil, its just an accident. Accidental deaths happen in war.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Grey Templar wrote: No, I am arguing that might be the price you have to pay to remove this insidious evil.
the price is to become more evil than those you fight against.
Collateral damage will never be as evil as beheading people and putting the footage on youtube or forcing civilians to remain in an area that is under attack so their accidental deaths can be used as propaganda. Its not even evil, its just an accident. Accidental deaths happen in war.
I'm sorry, bombing an area twice is not an accident. see the cases of double tapping, to not only kill the target but also kill those coming to help the victims. bombings are a deliberate attempt to kill lots of people and double taps are extremely evil.
killing 1 person is evil, killing 100 people with a bomb is 100 times more evil.
Just a nitpick here, but the crusades were not bad for Europe at all. The medieval islamic world was in many areas (in fact, in pretty much everything apart from warfare and agriculture) much more advanced than medieval Europe. The crusades brought many new ideas and innovations to Europe, which were essential for the eventual start of the renaissance. The crusades were also a period of relative peace and calm within Europe itself, as the nobility was more focused on fighting external foes rather than their traditional infighting.
Er we were getting most of that through legitamate (and otherwise) trade with the Islamic world - thats one of the ways that Venice and other Italian city states became so rich and powerful - trade with non Christians - from the near and far East. The extensive number of pilgrams for hundreds of years also brought hime bith the taste for and the actuality of the wonders of the near East.
Also the Crusades attacked all sorts of people. The 4th (IIRC) Crusade never went near anyone of islamic faith - it sacked a load of cities on the way to the middle east (as the behest of the Venetians to buid their empire) Constantanople itself and in fact the entire Crusade was excomunicated - but they ignored that.and went home with their spoils leaving the way open for the a united Islam to conquer the old Byzantine Empire and sail/march all the way to Venice.
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
Still only maybe .001% as evil as beheading hundreds of people, forcing women into sexual slavery, and deliberately trying to get civilians killed as propaganda/as human shields.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Grey Templar wrote: No, I am arguing that might be the price you have to pay to remove this insidious evil.
the price is to become more evil than those you fight against.
Collateral damage will never be as evil as beheading people and putting the footage on youtube or forcing civilians to remain in an area that is under attack so their accidental deaths can be used as propaganda. Its not even evil, its just an accident. Accidental deaths happen in war.
I'm sorry, bombing an area twice is not an accident. see the cases of double tapping, to not only kill the target but also kill those coming to help the victims. bombings are a deliberate attempt to kill lots of people and double taps are extremely evil.
killing 1 person is evil, killing 100 people with a bomb is 100 times more evil.
That's a ridiculous moral equivalency. Murder, rape, kidnapping, arson, robbery etc are all morally wrong. Preventing such actions from happening or continuing is good. Sometimes the people intent on committing such actions must be forcibly stopped because they can't or won't listen to reason, use of force in such situations is just and moral. Bombing Germany in WWII for instance was morally justifiable because it stopped the Nazis from conquering Europe. Forcibly stopping ISIS from committing atrocities is a justifiable and moral use of lethal force.
Grey Templar wrote: No, I am arguing that might be the price you have to pay to remove this insidious evil.
the price is to become more evil than those you fight against.
Collateral damage will never be as evil as beheading people and putting the footage on youtube or forcing civilians to remain in an area that is under attack so their accidental deaths can be used as propaganda. Its not even evil, its just an accident. Accidental deaths happen in war.
I'm sorry, bombing an area twice is not an accident. see the cases of double tapping, to not only kill the target but also kill those coming to help the victims. bombings are a deliberate attempt to kill lots of people and double taps are extremely evil.
killing 1 person is evil, killing 100 people with a bomb is 100 times more evil.
That's a ridiculous moral equivalency. Murder, rape, kidnapping, arson, robbery etc are all morally wrong. Preventing such actions from happening or continuing is good. Sometimes the people intent on committing such actions must be forcibly stopped because they can't or won't listen to reason, use of force in such situations is just and moral. Bombing Germany in WWII for instance was morally justifiable because it stopped the Nazis from conquering Europe. Forcibly stopping ISIS from committing atrocities is a justifiable and moral use of lethal force.
so you agree it's morally wrong, just not when you do it. You're not just targeting ISIS though, and you'd gladly target a wedding just to try and kill one guy. that is pretty morally reprehensible. you kill more innocent civilians than your targets and it does nothing to stop ISIS.
Prestor Jon wrote: Bombing Germany in WWII for instance was morally justifiable because it stopped the Nazis from conquering Europe.
Did ti though? Historians are still arguing about that and weight shifts back and forth every couple of years (current weight favors it didn't help that much, probably swing back next year for all I know).
On a related note, the ease with which people can find their absolutist view of good and evil in this thread disturbs me
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/11/24 01:33:51
I'm not referring to that. I'm referring to "bombing the evil guys is always good" kind of comments, as if any civilians killed in the cross fire are inconsequential and not our problem. A a gunman holds a child hostage, we tell SWAT not to shoot, because they could hit the child. Why then are we so quick to disregard the deaths of bystanders in bombings? War isn't law and order, but it's the ease and absolutism behind how people regard their unassailable moral justification that disturbs me.
What? We expect our enemies who couldn't possibly stand against us in a straight fight to fight us straight? I think ISIS is suicidal, but not outright brain dead. They want to fight us, so of course they're going to hide among civilians. They force our hand in this to a degree by doing so, but that doesn't make it right. The only moral good in war is the war's end. War itself is necessary evil driven by pragmatism and self-preservation (and not to be too 40k, but 'greater good' ).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/11/24 02:39:05
I'm not referring to that. I'm referring to "bombing the evil guys is always good" kind of comments, as if any civilians killed in the cross fire are inconsequential and not our problem. A a gunman holds a child hostage, we tell SWAT not to shoot, because they could hit the child. Why then are we so quick to disregard the deaths of bystanders in bombings? War isn't law and order, but it's the ease and absolutism behind how people regard their unassailable moral justification that disturbs me.
What? We expect our enemies who couldn't possibly stand against us in a straight fight to fight us straight? I think ISIS is suicidal, but not outright brain dead. They want to fight us, so of course they're going to hide among civilians. They force our hand in this to a degree by doing so, but that doesn't make it right. The only moral good in war is the war's end. War itself is necessary evil driven by pragmatism and self-preservation (and not to be too 40k, but 'greater good' ).
Yeah, I get what you're saying...
The thing I'm sensing from your position is the idea that we can absolutely engage a "clean war", where collateral casualties can be kept at a minimum.
My point is, if we're going to war... stop pussy footing it. Make it happen Commisar Yarrick!
Grey Templar wrote: No, I am arguing that might be the price you have to pay to remove this insidious evil.
the price is to become more evil than those you fight against.
Collateral damage will never be as evil as beheading people and putting the footage on youtube or forcing civilians to remain in an area that is under attack so their accidental deaths can be used as propaganda. Its not even evil, its just an accident. Accidental deaths happen in war.
I'm sorry, bombing an area twice is not an accident. see the cases of double tapping, to not only kill the target but also kill those coming to help the victims. bombings are a deliberate attempt to kill lots of people and double taps are extremely evil.
killing 1 person is evil, killing 100 people with a bomb is 100 times more evil.
That's a ridiculous moral equivalency. Murder, rape, kidnapping, arson, robbery etc are all morally wrong. Preventing such actions from happening or continuing is good. Sometimes the people intent on committing such actions must be forcibly stopped because they can't or won't listen to reason, use of force in such situations is just and moral. Bombing Germany in WWII for instance was morally justifiable because it stopped the Nazis from conquering Europe. Forcibly stopping ISIS from committing atrocities is a justifiable and moral use of lethal force.
And knowingly murdering innocent children in bombardments is not morally wrong? Collateral damage is never accidental, it is just an euphemism for murder. When you drop that bomb on a populated area, you know it is going to kill innocents, and you accept that that is the price that must be paid. Don't make it look any better than it is, there is nothing just or morally justifiable about it. It needs to be done to combat the evil of ISIS, but that does not change anything about the inherent evilness of bombardments.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/11/24 03:05:32
The thing I'm sensing from your position is the idea that we can absolutely engage a "clean war", where collateral casualties can be kept at a minimum.
My point is, if we're going to war... stop pussy footing it. Make it happen Commisar Yarrick!
No. There is no 'clean' war. There's war and there's barbarism (gak choices that can't be avoided, and absolute inhumanity). We can't wash our hands of blood by saying "the other guy shouldn't have done x." We make the choice to drop bombs on a target. Anyone who dies is killed by us. Maybe dropping the bombs is the best choice we have towards achieving the the end of the war, but that doesn't mean that we're clean and that doesn't mean we're some kind of moral paragons for doing it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/11/24 03:12:04
and the irony of it all is, after all the bombings and killing of innocent people. Americans wonder why their so hated in the middle east. And can only conclude "it's because of our way of life"
well in a way that's true, your way of life now seems to be endless bombings and demonizing an entire religion, but no that probably has nothing to do with it.
The thing I'm sensing from your position is the idea that we can absolutely engage a "clean war", where collateral casualties can be kept at a minimum.
My point is, if we're going to war... stop pussy footing it. Make it happen Commisar Yarrick!
No. There is no 'clean' war. There's war and there's barbarism (gak choices that can't be avoided, and absolute inhumanity). We can't wash our hands of blood by saying "the other guy shouldn't have done x." We make the choice to drop bombs on a target. Anyone who dies is killed by us. Maybe dropping the bombs is the best choice we have towards achieving the the end of the war, but that doesn't mean that we're clean and that doesn't mean we're some kind of moral paragons for doing it.
There's a difference between being an angel and doing what's right.
And doing what's right doesn't mean it should weigh heavily on our conscience.
Take dropping the atom bomb on Hiroshima/Nagasaki for instance. Was it a horrible act? Absolutely. Was it the right thing to do? You betcha. I'm sure Truman was able to look himself in the mirror just fine.
sirlynchmob wrote: and the irony of it all is, after all the bombings and killing of innocent people. Americans wonder why their so hated in the middle east. And can only conclude "it's because of our way of life"
well in a way that's true, your way of life now seems to be endless bombings and demonizing an entire religion, but no that probably has nothing to do with it.
There's merit in what you say, but on the other hand, we'd just finished up preventing the genocide of Muslims in Bosnia not long before 9/11 happened.
And doing what's right doesn't mean it should weigh heavily on our conscience.
If something is going to weigh heavily on our conscience, maybe we shouldn't do it, instead of indulging in some fantasy that we didn't do anything wrong.
To quote the Sisko;
Can I live with it? Yeah. But I'm gonna need to sit down for a moment.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/11/24 03:49:34
And doing what's right doesn't mean it should weigh heavily on our conscience.
If something is going to weigh heavily on our conscience, maybe we shouldn't do it, instead of indulging in some fantasy that we didn't do anything wrong.
).
