A question of moral responsibility
-
Steve_Harris wrote:
In a time of war, does one's moral responsibility to try and avoid civilian casualties increase in proportion to the force one attacks with, or are any civilian casualties unacceptable under any circumstances? Alternatively, are civilian casualties an acceptable side-effect of war?
If morality is not real, then all such questions are meaningless. And, if we cannot discover and know the content of morality, then all such questions are pointless. AND, if morality is real and if we can discover and know its content, does it not behoove us all to see to our own selves and behaviors and attitudes first?
Out of curiosity, where did the OP anywhere say that morality was not real? I suspect that you're trying to prove Christianity correct, but how? From what I can see, it's possible to believe that religion can provide a moral framework, and adhere to that framework oneself without actually being a Christian, since a moral framework does not make someone a Christian - only belief in God and Christ does that
-
Out of curiosity, where did the OP anywhere say that morality was not real? I suspect that you're trying to prove Christianity correct, but how? From what I can see, it's possible to believe that religion can provide a moral framework, and adhere to that framework oneself without actually being a Christian, since a moral framework does not make someone a Christian - only belief in God and Christ does that
-
Computafreak wrote:
Out of curiosity ...
Why the dishonesty? Just because it's your habit is no *reason* to be dishonest.
-
Steve_Harris wrote:
civilian casualties unacceptable under any circumstances? Alternatively, are civilian casualties an acceptable side-effect of war?
Ahhhmmm... are you talking about Mumbai? :suss:
MrPlankton
Multicultural Diversity Training, the new Socialist Reeducation Camp-light.
MrPlankton wrote:
are you talking about Mumbai?
No...it was the Israeli attack on a UN-run school in Gaza which killed 40 people, including children, which made me ask what people here thought.
-
MrPlankton wrote:
On the other hand, they received allot less casualties then India did.
Israel is a country of only 7 million, India has over a billion. India's birthrate of over 22/1000 means India produces Israel's entire population in a little over 3 months.
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
What's your point?
MrPlankton
Multicultural Diversity Training, the new Socialist Reeducation Camp-light.
-
MrPlankton wrote:
are you talking about Mumbai?
No...it was the Israeli attack on a UN-run school in Gaza which killed 40 people, including children, which made me ask what people here thought.
Where I live, if it snows too hard schools out. When the local government starts missile attacks against a neighboring country, well I'd say schools out.... But hey, when you strap ordinance to your sons and daughters and send them to pizzerias to blow them selves up, you get no sympathy from me.
MrPlankton
Multicultural Diversity Training, the new Socialist Reeducation Camp-light.
-
Where I live, if it snows too hard schools out. When the local government starts missile attacks against a neighboring country, well I'd say schools out.... But hey, when you strap ordinance to your sons and daughters and send them to pizzerias to blow them selves up, you get no sympathy from me.
MrPlankton
Multicultural Diversity Training, the new Socialist Reeducation Camp-light.
Why should innocent children suffer because their parents are idiots?
-
I dunno, reading that little back-and-forth between you and oilf (actually, every single back and forth between you and oilf that I've ever read) makes me think that you just turn on your troll-poster script, then leave.
Like I said, I went overboard when I slammed the Catholic church for the dress-code. It apparently upset Oily no end, but whether he gets upset or not is hardly high on my list of considerations. You might want to look up any of the standard definitions of trolls before throwing the term around.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
blah blah blah................ how many here wading into this esoteric discussion have family / relatives actively putting their lives in harm's way? I need to start a poll....
Charlie Gilley Will program for food... Hurtling toward a government of the stupid, by the stupid, for the stupid we go. —Michelle Malkin
-
Actually that's a great point. And Hiroshima and Nagasaki are two large exclamation points on it. Most Japanese I've talked to (lived there for a while) think that those two bombs were probably the right thing to do. They recognize that the emporer was more than ready to throw every man woman and child at the war, and that many many more would have died on both sides had we not obliterated two cities in short order. At the same time, I'd like to carry a stick to use on the empty heads of war protesters. Those who just protest "war". WWII is a good example of a war that needed to happen, even without Japan attacking us. Hitler needed to be stopped one way or another, and I'm pretty sure deplomacy wouldn't have done the trick. Of course that's not an argument for Iraq, I have mixed feelings on it. I think it needed to happen sometime, but not necessarily us and almost definitely not when it did. But what the hell, I haven't seen the intelligence reports. Those at the top know far more about the situation that us peons, we just have to hope and pray we pick the right people to be at the top. (Which is harder to do when we don't actually do the picking)
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
Tokyo bombing killed more civilians than in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but Japan did not capitulate. Dresden bombing killed over 100,000, but it did not shorten war of one single day. The Luftwaffe bombed London, but UK did not capitulate. Alled bombings killed around 1,000,000 german civilians, but Germany's regime did not fall. On the contrary, most attacks on civilians had the opposite effect, creating a sense of national unity.
BoneSoft wrote:
Hitler needed to be stopped one way or another, and I'm pretty sure deplomacy wouldn't have done the trick
Then why didn't the US ever declare war to Hitler?
The most wasted of all days is that on which one has not laughed Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
In a time of war, does one's moral responsibility to try and avoid civilian casualties increase in proportion to the force one attacks with, or are any civilian casualties unacceptable under any circumstances? Alternatively, are civilian casualties an acceptable side-effect of war?
Steve_Harris wrote:
are any civilian casualties unacceptable under any circumstances?
" Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: (a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; "
Steve_Harris wrote:
are civilian casualties an acceptable side-effect of war?
No, they never are.
Jouir et faire jouir sans faire de mal ni à toi ni à personne, voilà je crois le fondement de toute morale Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
MrPlankton wrote:
One wonders how much bitch slapping has to occur before "enough!" is heard.
That's the question the Israelis were asking themselves until a week an a half ago. Well we hear as much wailing and gnashing of teeth from Europe, do you think, when India decides it has had enough - or is that level of opprobrium reserved for the Jewish state?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
I have no doubt that if India attacks Pakistan (and that's a might big if) it will get less support from the West than Israel currently does.
Cheers, Vıkram.
Stand up to be seen. Speak up to be heard. Shut up to be appreciated.
-
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Tough to say, given I don't have a military background.
Fair answer, but then, is it possible for a civilian to decide whether any soldier is immoral when he shoots someone who might have done him harm? Can anyone other than the soldier know?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Jon, are you playing Ilion today? Question after needling question, on a very particular point. FWIW, the civilian will look upon the occupying soldier as an enemy, irrespective of whether the soldier actually kills other civilians or not. Also, I did not downvote your posts.
Cheers, Vıkram.
Stand up to be seen. Speak up to be heard. Shut up to be appreciated.
-
Why should innocent children suffer because their parents are idiots?
Steve_Harris wrote:
parents are idiots
Southern Israel has children. India has children. There were children in the World Trade Center. Children on the UK buses. Children on Spanish trains. Lots of attention paid to Israel in the media on this issue. :suss:
MrPlankton
Multicultural Diversity Training, the new Socialist Reeducation Camp-light.
-
Tokyo bombing killed more civilians than in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but Japan did not capitulate. Dresden bombing killed over 100,000, but it did not shorten war of one single day. The Luftwaffe bombed London, but UK did not capitulate. Alled bombings killed around 1,000,000 german civilians, but Germany's regime did not fall. On the contrary, most attacks on civilians had the opposite effect, creating a sense of national unity.
BoneSoft wrote:
Hitler needed to be stopped one way or another, and I'm pretty sure deplomacy wouldn't have done the trick
Then why didn't the US ever declare war to Hitler?
The most wasted of all days is that on which one has not laughed Fold with us! ¤ flickr
Ka?l wrote:
Tokyo bombing killed more civilians than in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but Japan did not capitulate.
Japan did capitulate. Whether one speaks Japanese or English, to assume that the atomic bombings were the only reason rather than merely the proximate cause is bad history.
Ka?l wrote:
Dresden bombing killed over 100,000, but it did not shorten war of one single day.
No-one has ever denied that Dresden had by this time become the main centre of communications for the defence of Germany on the southern half of the Eastern front. In case you aren't aware of this, destruction of command and control centers is essential to the war effort. One might maintain that helping the Russian Army was not in the long-range interests of the West, but Churchill was always blind to Stalin's true nature. But to claim that the bombing of Dresden didn't help is incorrect.
Ka?l wrote:
The Luftwaffe bombed London, but UK did not capitulate.
Because Hitler diverted his armies to fight Stalin in the east. Had he backed up the blitz with boots on the ground, the Battle of Britain might have been a very different story. Thankfully, this is merely one of a number of strategic blunders that Hitler made throughout WWII.
Ka?l wrote:
Alled bombings killed around 1,000,000 german civilians, but Germany's regime did not fall.
At 2:42 on 7 May 1945, at the SHAEF headquarters in Reims, France, the Chief-of-Staff of the German Armed Forces High Command, Colonel General Alfred Jodl, signed the German Instrument of Surrender. Hitler, of course, had been dead for a week. That was a fall if ever there was one. One of the reasons that Germany and Japan were easy to control during the occupation after their fall was that the population itself was demoralized; incapable and unwilling to harbor any insurrection. Compare that to the results of the more 'humane' approach the US took in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
I have no doubt that if India attacks Pakistan (and that's a might big if) it will get less support from the West than Israel currently does.
Cheers, Vıkram.
Stand up to be seen. Speak up to be heard. Shut up to be appreciated.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
I have no doubt that if India attacks Pakistan (and that's a might big if) it will get less support from the West than Israel currently does.
Israel gets little support from the West. However, the US and Israel are indeed, close allies. Nonetheless, I suspect that if you had attacked right after the Mubai massacre, you would have recived much support from both the US and from Israel.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Jon, are you playing Ilion today? Question after needling question, on a very particular point. FWIW, the civilian will look upon the occupying soldier as an enemy, irrespective of whether the soldier actually kills other civilians or not. Also, I did not downvote your posts.
Cheers, Vıkram.
Stand up to be seen. Speak up to be heard. Shut up to be appreciated.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Jon, are you playing Ilion today?
Nope. I'm just asking uncomfortable questions. I don't necessarily have the answers, though when I hear a bullshit answer (not yours) my detector goes off.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Also, I did not downvote your posts.
I may be the only guy in here who balances downvotes given to the guys I am discussing things with (I don't discuss things with Ilion, of course.) I find the whole idea of downvoting in a forum like the Soap-box to be childish.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
What's your point?
MrPlankton
Multicultural Diversity Training, the new Socialist Reeducation Camp-light.
You seemed to pooh-pooh Israel's losses compared to India's but as a percentage of the population, they were considerably more. India could lose an Israel every year and their population would still grow.
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
-
Ka?l wrote:
Tokyo bombing killed more civilians than in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but Japan did not capitulate.
Japan did capitulate. Whether one speaks Japanese or English, to assume that the atomic bombings were the only reason rather than merely the proximate cause is bad history.
Ka?l wrote:
Dresden bombing killed over 100,000, but it did not shorten war of one single day.
No-one has ever denied that Dresden had by this time become the main centre of communications for the defence of Germany on the southern half of the Eastern front. In case you aren't aware of this, destruction of command and control centers is essential to the war effort. One might maintain that helping the Russian Army was not in the long-range interests of the West, but Churchill was always blind to Stalin's true nature. But to claim that the bombing of Dresden didn't help is incorrect.
Ka?l wrote:
The Luftwaffe bombed London, but UK did not capitulate.
Because Hitler diverted his armies to fight Stalin in the east. Had he backed up the blitz with boots on the ground, the Battle of Britain might have been a very different story. Thankfully, this is merely one of a number of strategic blunders that Hitler made throughout WWII.
Ka?l wrote:
Alled bombings killed around 1,000,000 german civilians, but Germany's regime did not fall.
At 2:42 on 7 May 1945, at the SHAEF headquarters in Reims, France, the Chief-of-Staff of the German Armed Forces High Command, Colonel General Alfred Jodl, signed the German Instrument of Surrender. Hitler, of course, had been dead for a week. That was a fall if ever there was one. One of the reasons that Germany and Japan were easy to control during the occupation after their fall was that the population itself was demoralized; incapable and unwilling to harbor any insurrection. Compare that to the results of the more 'humane' approach the US took in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Whether one speaks Japanese or English, to assume that the atomic bombings were the only reason rather than merely the proximate cause is bad history.
You forget what happened August, 8 1945
Oakman wrote:
No-one has ever denied that Dresden had by this time become the main centre of communications for the defence of Germany on the southern half of the Eastern front. In case you aren't aware of this, destruction of command and control centers is essential to the war effor
BS. Dresden was a cultural landmark of little or no military significance, a "Florence on the Elbe," as it was known, and the attacks were indiscriminate area bombing and not proportional for the commensurate military gains[^]
Oakman wrote:
At 2:42 on 7 May 1945, at the SHAEF headquarters in Reims, France, the Chief-of-Staff of the German Armed Forces High Command, Colonel General Alfred Jodl, signed the German Instrument of Surrender
The Wehrmacht was militarily defeated at this time, mostly destroyed by the Red Army. There was no collapse of the German morale as it happened in 1918, the 'civilian front' was strong till April, 1945, even if all German cities, militarily significant or not were destroyed. Targetting cities was an inefficient and counterproductive war crime.
If you kill a whale, you get Greenpeace and Jacques Cousteau on your back, but wipe out sardines and you get a canning subsidy! Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
You seemed to pooh-pooh Israel's losses compared to India's but as a percentage of the population, they were considerably more. India could lose an Israel every year and their population would still grow.
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
Tim Craig wrote:
You seemed to pooh-pooh Israel's losses
Sorry, didn't mean to give that impression.
MrPlankton
Multicultural Diversity Training, the new Socialist Reeducation Camp-light.