Its a war. My country's army is killing civilians; am I a "fair target?"

[IdaBriggs]

Poll question: Its a war. My country's army is killing civilians; am I a "fair target?"

Longer: War has been declared. My country's armies are killing civilians "somewhere else;" am I -- a civilian non-combatant far away from the main conflict -- a fair target?

Yes / No only, but please share your reasons below. You may also wish to meditate on views from different points of view -- American, Iraqi, British, Israeli, Native American, Japanese or Other -- when explaining your position.

NOTE: I am NOT advocating violence of any kind, but am curious about what it means to each of us individually when it comes to being a (potential) target.

ON EDIT: Spelling - doh!

Poll result (122 votes)
Yes. Civilians losses are expected in a war.	(51 votes, 42%)	Vote
No. The Geneva Convention prohibits targeting civilians PERIOD.	(71 votes, 58%)	Vote

[sniffa]

1. no, i'm white

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. ....

[rucky]

47. think again, LIBERAL

careful, you're leaving tracks.

[sniffa]

50. i don't do heroin

[LaurenG]

3. No

Thats why there is a Geneva convention. Rules of f'ing war. If however you are an asshole you might just figure the rules don't apply to you. (read **bush)

[Jara sang]

4. War is fought in any and all fashions.

Regular and irregular warfare. The terms are human constructs. War is war is war. The victors write the history books.

[justinsb]

5. Anyone involved in the killing of civilians

should be tried for war crimes, regarless of their level of involvement or nationality (includes US/British/other troops in Iraq)

[Jara sang]

7. So Roosevelt should be charged with war crimes?

Or Eisenhower? How many innocent civilians died at Dresden?

[justinsb]

13. Sure, I doubt they'll show up for court

but you can give it a shot. We can't fix history (North America would have to be given back) but we can certainly respond to what happens today.

[BurtWorm]

6. Civilians are not a "legitimate" target in war.

But unfortunately, there's no use telling governments and militias that.

[leftofthedial]

8. yes. thanks to "civilized" western europeans

who legitimized "total war."

[Benhurst]

9. The Geneva what? Oh, yeah, those silly things our new Attorney

General says we don't have to pay any attention to.

[GiovanniC]

16. Yes... They Are So "Quaint"

[liberalitch]

10. No, I abhor the fact my government has abandoned the geneva...

conventions and am hoping others don't stoop to our level....
40 year old white chick from virginia

[Ignoramus]

11. Neither. It's immoral to kill civilians you are not targeting

All people have equal value. We are all Iraqis. We are all Afghanis. We are all Englanders. People are not their government. A war is essentially a conflict between gangs. Under what circumstance would you fight gangs in your town by using WMD against your own town?

[mike_c]

12. I can't give so simple an answer as a yes or a no....

The most direct answer is "no, the Geneva Conventions prohibit killing civilians," but that answer doesn't fit the situation any longer. The U.S. and Britain are already doing that, so the question is flawed until THEIR behavior can be changed. Also, the Conventions were agreed to in the context of military conflict. Armies are prohibited from targeting civilians-- a statement that once again applies most directly to the U.S. led coalition in Iraq and the other military instruments of U.S. foreign policy around the world.

But what do civilians do when they have no army to fight for them? At what point do partisan militias and resistence movements become governed by rules that were not written with their particular tactical limitations in mind? A small cell of resistence fighters can sacrifice themselves against the guns of a brutal occupation to little or no effect under the terms of honorable combat set forth under the conventions-- in essence, wasting their lives in suicide by combat-- or they can strike at softer targets that result in much greater damage to their enemies. What would you do in their place?

Your question is a poor fit for the calculus of power in play around the world. People, oppressed to the point of desperation, often have no military solutions available, and therefore the Conventions-- while remaining the most honorable means of throwing off their oppressors-- impose an unworkable framework upon their struggle. Recall too that this is in the context of occupation forces and state governments that themselves routinely violate the Conventions when it suits their purposes.

[IndyOp]

15. Thanks for your reply...

I can't give a yes/no answer either.

A comment about the graphic at the bottom of your posts, "How long until Bush kills as many people as Saddam?"

The US government has already killed far more Iraqis than Saddam. The deaths during the decade of sanctions that began under Bush I, continued under Clinton, and 'ended' after the invasion and occupation of Iraq under Bush II. The UN has estimated that as many/more than 1,000,000 Iraqi's - mostly children, elderly, and otherwise vulnerable died. Even very conservative estimates of deaths during sanctions is about 300,000 + 100,000 that have died since the invasion & occupation. The deaths that have resulted from the radioactivity of depleted uranium are uncounted and will continue to kill for a generation or more. Saddam did not kill over 400,000 Iraqis.

You probably already know this. I am bound by personal commitment to keep repeating this fact. I have encountered too many DU'ers - who I admire! - who just haven't faced the real, long-term, devastating results of US foreign policy under virtually every US president we have ever had including Clinton. We cannot let Dems off the hook. Facing the truth means facing the whole truth.

[mike_c]

21. yes, I know it....

I suppose it's time to change the graphic, since I'm receiving more and more comments like yours. It's probably misplaced here, where many ARE aware of the extent of America's crimes in Iraq during the last 30 years. Still, as you say, there remain many who are not. I originally began using it because the justaposition of Bush's and Saddam Hussein's names in the context of murdering Iraqi's was so gloriously ironic. I've already begun the search for another.

[IndyOp]

24. Good point...

"It's probably misplaced here, where many ARE aware of the extent of America's crimes in Iraq during the last 30 years. Still, as you say, there remain many who are not."

There are always many more lurkers than posters, too...

[geek tragedy]

49. What a stirring defense of terrorism. Please allow me to throw up all

over it.

[The Magistrate]

14. You Are Not A Fair Target, Ms. Briggs

The laws of war are quite clear on that....

[uncle ray]

44. whose "laws of war" do we follow

ours or theirs? what are their laws of war? why are we not following our own laws of war?

until we THROW OUT our bogus president, we are sadly all legitimate targets. it's high time we citizens write our own damn "laws of war".

[Kraklen]

17. As fair as their civilians.

We've killed a couple hundred thousand of them.

[CWebster]

18. war is always about targeting civilians

That is how you bring them to their knees.
You folks really have your heads in the sand.

[manic expression]

29. War can be many things

War is sometimes a fight against an entire group of people, and that does not stop when the army breaks the walls to the city.

War is sometimes a fight against a force, and the civilian population of that one force never comes into the equation.

War is always a fight, and in my experience, fights are not pretty, although they can be justified under some circumstances (for one side).

The question here is that if a country is targeting the civilians of YOUR country, is it justified to target the civilians of THEIR country (is an eye for an eye justified?)?

[CWebster]

31. Well, ideally no

But, of course it never works that way--no matter how much of a civilized patina you care to present it as.

[manic expression]

35. It usually works the worst way

Why? Because in desperate times, people resort to measures unthinkable under other circumstances. However, there have been armies that have restrained from such horrible doings, Saladin, Hannibal and Shivaji are all examples of leaders who have very little innocent blood on their hands.

I presented war as it is sometimes, and it is important to look at an entity from different perspectives. War is always violent and disturbing and horrible to those involved, but the slaughter of innocents is not inevitable, and injustice in war is not inescapable.

[kentuck]

19. Yes, but you get a taxcut...

so you don't have to sacrifice to fight the 'enemy'...

[mtnester]

20. War in general is not "fair"

War sucks, nothing is "nice" or "fair" about it.

If we were occupied here, and you happened to be out of country when the invasion took place, and YOU heard your family had been murdered....fair game now? Absolutely. You are not human if you do not consider revenge.

And denial of my above statement is also human. No one wants anyone to think they are a monster, but deep inside, we all are. Of course, you can deny that too :p

[SmokingJacket]

22. NO innocent civilians are EVER "fairly" targeted.

I'm not even sure why you're asking.

All peace-loving people are victims of the blood-thirsty minority.

[in_cog_ni_to]

23. NO. n/t

[DireStrike]

25. Yes - because that is the way people think

Especially people who have lost an innocent family member to my country's army.

Personally I still think it's wrong, but I think I'm in the minority. From a tactical standpoint, killing civilians wouldn't accomplish much anyway.

[Goldmund]

26. Of course not.

[Jacobin]

27. If you start a war, you can expect that the other side will fight back

I don't know what's so hard to understand about that.

In WWII, we firebombed German cities and nuked Japanese cities, where civilians were the targets. War is ghastly and not a fun video game for Smirking Idiot Pretzledents. Before you go to war, you better make damn sure you are ready to relentlessly and mercilessly kill people and destroy property of the enemy until it is over. Because if you don't, they will keep fighting until they win.

This half assed invasion of IraqNam to steal its oil is going to be the cause of unmitigated hell for the west for decades to come.

[KG]

28. unfortunately, the sad truth is the answer is yes

[GeekMonkey]

30. only if you are flying a W the President sticker on your SUV

[geek tragedy]

32. The results of this poll are VERY disturbing.

50% of DU thinks murdering civilians is legitimate.

That means 50% of the folks here are lower than Bush & Rumsfeld.

[SmokingJacket]

36. Yeah, I don't get it!

The only explanation I can come up with is that people answering this poll are interpreting it to mean, "Well, if our government is bombing people, we have to EXPECT that we'll be attacked, too."

Yeah, we can expect it, but killing innocent people is NEVER all right.

(BTW, 50% of the people here are NOT lower than Bush and Rumsfeld. 50% of people here are not actively sending armies to kill innocent people.)

[geek tragedy]

40. Even Bush and Rumsfeld don't maintain that it's perfectly legitimate

to target civilians.

I just hope that the people voting "Yes" don't identify themselves as Democrats.

[Bouncy Ball]

67. Yeah because voting NO on this poll will totally convince

al-Queda to stop targeting civilians!

[KG]

41. i don't see the word 'legitimate' anywhere in the original post.

seems the thrust here is dealing with the realities of whats going on in the world, not what the actual rules are.

[geek tragedy]

42. A yes vote meant that you and I are "fair targets." A no vote meant

that we still believe in the Geneva Convention.

Quite honestly, every single yes vote is absolutely disgusting and indicative of a lack of moral reasoning.

[mike_c]

55. if our country is engaged in the murder of civilans "over there..."

...on an institutionalized scale, then we are indeed "fair game" over here. Moral reasoning? Let's start with the Golden Rule....

[geek tragedy]

58. Well, you can justify terrorism all you want.

Just please make it clear you're not a Democrat when you do so.

Civilians aren't fair targets.

And, for the last time, Al-QAEDA IS NOT A NATIONAL RESISTANCE MOVEMENT. THEY ARE THEOCRATIC IMPERIALISTS.

Anyone who thinks that Al-Qaeda's victims are fair targets is a complete fucktard and is "on the other side."

[Bouncy Ball]

65. No one is defending or justifying terrorism, you are jumping to some

REALLY weird conclusions here.

Do you think al-Queda would hesitate for a SECOND to kill you? If you were in a civilian area they were targeting, do you think they'd say "wait a second, geek tragedy is there, better not."

Seems all mike and anyone else on this thread is saying is that TERRORISTS see civilians as fair game. And they do! If they didn't, they wouldn't ATTACK civilians, now would they???

For the people in London caught in today's explosions, this isn't just an academic question, I might remind you of that.

Stop reading what you want to see in people's words here. You've been doing it all morning.

[geek tragedy]

72. The question is whether DU'ers think American civilians are fair

game. A number have said "Yes."

[Bouncy Ball]

74. IN THE TERRORIST'S EYES.

ARE WE FAIR GAME IN THE TERRORIST'S EYES?

You think you aren't?

LOL!

I've got some swamp land to sell ya!

[Bouncy Ball]

73. A yes vote did NOT mean that someone doesn't believe in the

Geneva Convention. For the record, I didn't vote in it at all, I'm just reading the thread.

But I would agree that as a civilian, I can certainly be the target of a terrorist attack.

AND I can still believe in the Geneva Convention at the same time!

What are you going to do, force al-Queda to follow Geneva? Hell's bells, Chimpy McCokespoon and his ilk violate Geneva!!! (Gitmo, anyone?) You think the US hasn't? I wish every government in the WORLD followed it, but that doesn't mean I can't be targeted by a terrorist group because of what my country does to other countries! You are out of touch with reality if you don't realize that!

Where are you getting these definitions of a yes and no vote in that poll?

[geek tragedy]

85. Because the question is what do DU'ers think. Everyone already

knows what AQ thinks.

The question is whether American civilians are "fair targets." A large minority say "yes."

It DOES NOT ask what AQ thinks.

Learn to read.

[Bouncy Ball]

88. YOU learn to read.

You ACTUALLY think DUers are saying "yes, we think we should be targeted for the actions of our government, yes the terrorists would be fully justified in blowing us up!"

I mean ? You're telling ME to read? LOL!

Hey DUers who have answered that poll, are you saying you think you should be targeted, or are you saying you think the terrorists see YOU as fair game?

Let's clear this up for geek tragedy, who seems to think you all have a huge death wish!

[geek tragedy]

Allow me to quote posts from this thread:

<snip>
I did so reluctantly but the sad fact is that the modern butchers of the Axis of Liars (Bush, Blair and Sharon) have rewritten the rules of war by their barbaric disdain for the Geneva Convention. And sadly, this isn't exactly new for those three countries.

If the G-level countries are going to dish it out, their citizens better be prepared to take it. Don't want to take it? Get the war criminals OUT. Stop acting as if abortion rights, Gay rights, Black rights, whatever, whatever are more important than the NUMBER ONE MOST PRESSING ISSUE OF THE DAY- THESE OBSCENE WARS AND GET RID OF ALL THE COMPLICIT BASTARDS REGARDLESS OF WHICH PARTY THEY'RE IN. GET WITH THE GOD-DAMN PROGRAM AND THROW THE BASTARDS OUT. ALL OF THEM.
We can not condone the use of obscenities such as cluster bombs, depleted uranium, a barbaric weapon of mass destruction, deliberate destruction of the infrastructure that keeps people alive and then start wailing that "OUR" civilians are somehow untouchable. Pfft.
<snip>


<snip>
But what do civilians do when they have no army to fight for them? At what point do partisan militias and resistence movements become governed by rules that were not written with their particular tactical limitations in mind? A small cell of resistence fighters can sacrifice themselves against the guns of a brutal occupation to little or no effect under the terms of honorable combat set forth under the conventions-- in essence, wasting their lives in suicide by combat-- or they can strike at softer targets that result in much greater damage to their enemies. What would you do in their place?

Your question is a poor fit for the calculus of power in play around the world. People, oppressed to the point of desperation, often have no military solutions available, and therefore the Conventions-- while remaining the most honorable means of throwing off their oppressors-- impose an unworkable framework upon their struggle. Recall too that this is in the context of occupation forces and state governments that themselves routinely violate the Conventions when it suits their purposes.
<snip>

<snip>
You don't understand what it's like to have the world's most powerful forces come down upon your nations with full force, to occupy your nation, to prop up dictators around the region, to have your country stripped of its wealth by horrific trade deals, to live in fear of CIA and Mossad controlling your nation and its politics and be POWERLESS to strike back in any way.

The chance of any group hitting a US government/financial building is slim to none at this point. Homeland Security/FBI maintain a very powerful security net (mosty covert) around these establishments, and the people launching attacks probably know that. Desperate, and after watching their countries be torn apart mercilessly, what are they supposed to do? They gave us a chance to stop our government. We failed. Most of us don't even care. We continue to give money and allow people to lead who are allowing mass murder on a horrific scale.
<snip>

<snip>Even though I do not like violence and killing, I cannot tell those who are doing the killing to stop. Because it is inhuman and ignorant to tell those who are being butchered and savaged to not do anything. It is inhuman.
<snip>

Summary of the above viewpoints: The actions of the US government make terrorist attacks against American civilians justifiable.

This is Ward Churchill territory.

Is Average Joe Muslim #45850 just supposed to stand there and say, "Oh ****, they're too lazy to do anything to stop the killing that's happening over here. I think I'm just going to stand around and wait to die!"?

It might be easy for us spoiled ones in the West to sit here and expect htem to literally "stand ... and wait to die," but I for some reason they demand to be treated like human beings, and are willing to fight and die for that right to live.
<snip>

<snip>

[Bouncy Ball]

99. Ah, so you don't like the fact that people in this thread are looking

at both sides of this issue?

You don't like the fact that some on this thread are saying people have a right to defend themselves?

You don't like that some on this thread are saying, essentially, "don't expect to fuck everyone's shit up and not have anything happen in return?"

Sounds pretty common sense to me.

If you came along and shot someone in the knee, would you expect nothing to happen? If that person were powerless and had no legal recourse, would you not be looking over your shoulder from time to time, and with good reason? Of course you would! You'd be waiting for him, or his brother, or his dad, or his best friend to come along when you least expect it and blow YOUR knee out with a shotgun shell.

All I'm seeing is statement of basic human truths. They are UGLY truths, to be sure, and violence sucks rocks. I don't condone violence one bit.

But I see people saying "Hey, maybe, just MAYBE if we stop fucking up people in the world, they'll slow down on fucking people up, too."

It's like gang warfare. One gang member gets killed in a drive by, then that gang is looking for revenge and so on and so on and so on till no one even knows how it started anymore. Mindless and cyclical and violent. Completely senseless.

But still a sad aspect of our lives, nonetheless, isn't it?

I happen to agree with this:

"We can not condone the use of obscenities such as cluster bombs, depleted uranium, a barbaric weapon of mass destruction, deliberate destruction of the infrastructure that keeps people alive and then start wailing that "OUR" civilians are somehow untouchable. Pfft."

Are you actually going to tell me you are going to justify the kinds of things WE do to other people and other countries??? Why is it if we do it, it's ok?

[geek tragedy]

102. Yes, I say that ANYONE who considers what Al Qaeda does to be self-defense

and an act of legitimate resistance to be pro-terrorist apologists.


I don't see how any rational person could disagree.

[Bouncy Ball]

106. Black and white thinking.

Of course WE don't think of it as legit.

But THEY do.

How could they not? They are fully invested in it.

Now.

Do you consider dirty bombs, cluster bombs, WMDs, depleted uranium and attacking a country that did nothing to us to be legit?

Tell me that.

You seem to have no capability to see the whole, big picture, so I think our conversation is through.

This is the same kind of thinking that cheerleaded us right into an immoral, illegal FUBAR mess of a war on Iraq. The inability to see in anything other than black and white.

[geek tragedy]

110. You're right. I have a morally absolute position on Al Qaeda:

I hate them and think they should be defeated. They are my mortal enemies.

You, of course, are free to be more supportive of their agenda.

[Bouncy Ball]

113. HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

GOOD TRY!

This is actually making me laugh, for real!

Ok here, let's do this slowly:

understanding....their.....motivations.....as in.....SEEING.....how....they are.....motivated.....does NOT.....equal......SUPPORT. SUPPORT.....would be.....a totally.....different thing.....than.....simply.....saying......"oh....I see.....how they.....are motivated"......



Did I do that slowly enough?

Sorry to be so condescending but really now. Generalize and jump to conclusions much?

I hate them and think they should be defeated, too! If that happens, it will be a happy day indeed!

And I also hate the bush administration and think THEY should be defeated too! WHEN that happens, it will be a happy day indeed!

bush administration/terrorists---two sides of the same coin. Different strategies, different weapons, both violent and stupid and cocking things up for the rest of us!

[geek tragedy]

121. Here's what you said:

<snip>You don't like the fact that some on this thread are saying people have a right to defend themselves?
<snip>

My point was that ANYONE who thinks that what AQ and its affiliates do is self-defense is a moral and intellectual cretin.

[Bouncy Ball]

128. THEY SEE IT AS SELF-DEFENSE.

I am not saying whether it is or isn't. But I see people on this thread who think AQ thinks they are engaging in self-defense.

And they probably DO think they are engaging in self-defense.

All of the methods are vile....our side and theirs. Violence, violence, violence.

Sounds to me like you are trying to say one kind of violence is better than the other.

If they both result in dead innocents, how is one kind of violence better?

[geek tragedy]

133. What AQ isn't self-defense by any sane definition of the word.

They are not, by any stretch of the imagination, justified in using violence against innocent civilians.

Again, the view of AQ and its supporters are not entitled to any respect or consideration any more than a serial killer who thinks he's justified in torturing and killing women because his mommy was mean to him.

[Bouncy Ball]

139. I am, like, sooooo fucking glad that you aren't a diplomat

or a foreign policy advisor, although I am quite sure the bush administration people share your sentiment that AQ is not worthy of examination or looking at their motives, etc.

Your knee-jerk emotional reaction to them is exactly what they want, by the way. REACTION! Unthinking, BLIND reaction! Bomb 'em back, and then they'll have even MORE reason to carry out their shit, too!

Yee ha! Who cares what they think or why they do what they do! Just kill 'em all!

Problem is, how do we know when we've killed them all?

How do we know who they all are?

How do we know where they are?

They work in a guerilla fashion, so how are you ever going to find them ALL and root them ALL out and make them contrite, or at least dead?

And what about their friends, who were kind of borderline to their cause, then saw them killed and think "Damn, he was RIGHT! I'm joining up now!"

Seems to me answering their violence with our own violence just leads us down a blind alley. I don't believe they should be coddled, not at ALL, but I do think there is STRATEGIC value in finding out WHY they do what they do and WHAT they are trying to accomplish! If we knew that, if we REALLY knew all the ins and outs of that, then we could start to do some real work on dismantling their organizations in such a way that they might stay dismantled. Or at least have very little capability to do harm anymore. And cut off the money flow, too!

But attack a country that had nothing to do with any of it? Yeah, THAT makes sense!

Heck, most of the 9/11 attackers were Saudi! What if the headlines the next day had read "Saudi Arabia attacks US?" Things would have been very different, I can tell you that.

But for SOME odd reason (hmmmmmm) the bush administration refused to even slightly point a pinky finger in the direction of Saudi Arabia. One of the oddest things I've ever seen.

And what about the Taliban? Once severely weakened, they are now gaining strength once again, and claiming responsibility for shooting down that US helicopter last week. Warlords back in power in Afghanistan.

Sure doesn't seem to me that anyone in charge is actually very serious about doing something about terrorism!

No, no, there's no value whatsoever in understanding the motivations of your enemy! ROFL!!!! Go on with your bad self!

[Bouncy Ball]

60. Hey weren't you the one talking about the Madrid bombings earlier?

I just read some right wing stuff on the Michelle Malakin (or whatever her name is) thread posted below that sounded EXACTLY like what you were saying!

[geek tragedy]

63. Huh? Link please. eom

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[geek tragedy]

82. What a stupid attempt to smear me. You need a few lessons in logic and

history:

1) Just because a rightwinger says something doesn't make it false.

2) Just because a rightwinger says something doesn't make it a rightwing talking point.

3) The view that Aznar's lies cost him the election is a very widely held belief by many observers, regardless of ideology.

[Bouncy Ball]

89. Hey, I'm just sayin'.

I read those exact words this morning from you, not something I've ever read on DU before.

Then I read that just about thirty minutes ago and thought it was interesting!

[Kraklen]

77. Bush and Rumsfeld are murdering civilians.

hundreds of thousands in fact.

So are the people who support the war in Iraq

So nobody's really below Bush and Rumsfeld.

Denying that is very disturbing.

[Tinoire]

33. I voted yes

I did so reluctantly but the sad fact is that the modern butchers of the Axis of Liars (Bush, Blair and Sharon) have rewritten the rules of war by their barbaric disdain for the Geneva Convention. And sadly, this isn't exactly new for those three countries.

If the G-level countries are going to dish it out, their citizens better be prepared to take it. Don't want to take it? Get the war criminals OUT. Stop acting as if abortion rights, Gay rights, Black rights, whatever, whatever are more important than the NUMBER ONE MOST PRESSING ISSUE OF THE DAY- THESE OBSCENE WARS AND GET RID OF ALL THE COMPLICIT BASTARDS REGARDLESS OF WHICH PARTY THEY'RE IN. GET WITH THE GOD-DAMN PROGRAM AND THROW THE BASTARDS OUT. ALL OF THEM.
We can not condone the use of obscenities such as cluster bombs, depleted uranium, a barbaric weapon of mass destruction, deliberate destruction of the infrastructure that keeps people alive and then start wailing that "OUR" civilians are somehow untouchable. Pfft.

Do unto others... And I'm afraid certain people's track record isn't very good!

[meganmonkey]

38. Me too (voted YES) , for mostly the same reasons

My life is no more valuable than an Iraqi's life. And if we (the US)are 'justified' in inflicting 'collateral damage' on civilians there, I am as valid a target as they are.

[SmokingJacket]

180. But they're NOT a valid target.

I think people are interpreting this thread in all kinds of weird ways. I mean, I suspect you and I agree heartily, yet we voted oppositely.

Innocent people are never "fairly" targeted, ever.

Maybe the definition of "fair" is what's so confusing here.

[meganmonkey]

192. I think you're right...

In the context provided in the poll, I guess I think that US citizens getting killed is 'as fair as' Iraqi citizens - I guess I saw the question as sort of comparing the two...But ultimately I believe that even in a noble war (if there is such a thing - that's a whole other conversation!) NO one outside of the military should die...the whole concept of human life as 'collateral damage' makes me sick.

I had a hard time picking an answer because of that disconnect - maybe the question could have been written differently, or more choices made available. Although maybe the thread would have turned out dull without the ambiguity!

[mike_c]

53. spot on Tin....

I'm especially disgusted by those who've decried the use of force against OUR populations without the slightest criticism of the wholesale murder we've perpetrated against civilians elsewhere. A response just above yours referred to this as "moral reasoning." Sheesh.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tinoire]

84. Is this the same "great majority"

Is this the same "great majority" that turns a blind eye to the wholesale theft of the 3rd World's resources, the bulldozing of innocent people's homes, not to mention the theft of their very land, their water, their vineyards-their livelyhood, obscene support for wars against Second World countries, and the slaughter of our victims all over the world?

Color neither impressed nor concerned about NOT being in such company...

First put and end to the theft and get rid of the planes that drop their bombs for the wealthy and then we'll talk about the poor suicide bombers.


And Geek, for some very odd reason, I don't think you're quite the voice for the "great majority of Americans, Democrats, liberals, and progressives".

[geek tragedy]

86. On the issue of terrorism, I certainly am. I don't make excuses for

terrorists.

Anyone who seeks to excuse the terrorists' behavior or suggest that such attacks are justified aren't progressives or anti-war.

[Bouncy Ball]

93. I don't see any excuses or justifications.

Just an examination of some pretty simple facts.

Country A takes it upon itself to wage war on Country I, which did nothing to Country A. Country I suffers civilian casualties, lots of them, as a result. Terror Group A is out there blowing up stuff and is generally considered to be not such good friends with the government of Country A. Pretty mad at them. Was mad at them even before Country A attacked Country I and is still pretty mad at them.

So do you think because you are a citizen of Country A that Terror Group A MIGHT target you?

Yes. Of course they might. What an easy question. Country E is an ally of Country A and has helped Country A attack Country I. And Country E was just targeted and civilians killed today. Do you think any citizens of Country E were sitting around yesterday going "I will NOT support or excuse terrorism by admitting that I could be a target!!!" No! Of course they weren't because that statement doesn't even make any sense.

To face the FACT that terrorist groups attack civilians is not the same thing as GIVING THEM PERMISSION. They don't wait for anyone's permission anyway, I don't know if you've noticed!

[geek tragedy]

94. Again, EVERYONE ON THE PLANET knows that AQ thinks that

civilians are fair game.

That isn't the topic, and I've quoted posts in this thread that show that several DU'ers ARE justifying the killing of civilians.

[Bouncy Ball]

101. As in the DUers WANT to kill civilians????

You have GOT to be kidding me now. Now I know you are pulling my leg.

Well, pull the other one. That one isn't working.

I responded to your collection of quotes above.

[KG]

157. the US military sees civilians as fair game

as do all other first world militaries. everyone else on the planet knows that also.

[Tinoire]

140. I agree! Let's stop excusing the terrorists and throw Bush, Blair, Sharon

I agree! Let's stop excusing the terrorists and throw Bush, Blair, Sharon in a jail-hole so deep not even the Devil himself will find them.

To the Hague with those War Criminal terrorists and their sycophantic terrorist supporters!!

What a wonderful day Geek I never thought I'd see the day when we so totally agree. NO DECENT PERSON CAN SUPPORT THOSE TERRORISTS or support their thieving, murderous criminal agenda.

I couldn't have said it better than you did: "Anyone who seeks to excuse the terrorists' behavior or suggest that such attacks are justified aren't progressives or anti-war".



To hell with terrorists and their supporters!

====
"We argued, as did the security services in this country, that the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq would increase the threat of terrorist attack in Britain. Tragically Londoners have now paid the price of the Government ignoring such warnings."

George Galloway - a GREAT PROGRESSIVE... And how correct he was/is!

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news /

[Tinoire]

137. Well...

There's "moral" as defined by normal people who still retain their humanity and capacity for compassion

vs

"moral" as defined by the Axis of Liars .


We saw the same disconnect during Vietnam.

[mike_c]

151. indeed....

[tk2kewl]

34. Of course not! But it certainly doesn't mean you shouldn't expect it.

And even if your government (assuming it is a super power like the US) could ensure it didn't kill civilians you should still expect that civilians in your own country would be killed.

Guerrilla warfare is the only effective means to fight against an army more powerful than ones own. The only other option would be surrender.

[undeterred]

37. If my country acts as though the Geneva Conventions are "quaint"

I think its more likely that civilians of my country will be targeted for terrorist attacks.

[ComerPerro]

39. Middle. I'm not fond of your two choices

I consider civillian losses to be expected in war, but that doesn't mean that I see civillians as "fair game"...

Too late for a third "middle ground" category???


Of course, to more directly answer your question, if my nation is at war then I consider myself to be a potential target for our enemies, whether I am in the service or just a civillian.

We target civillians, I shouldn't expect any less from a warring nation.

[LSdemocrat]

43. Umm, are the US/British armies deliberately killing civilians?

I personally think there is a moral difference between deliberately targeting civilians and killing civilians in the process of bombing a legitimate military target.

[Finder]

46. Enabling. n/t

[mike_c]

48. there hasn't been a "legitimate military target" in Iraq for years...

...unless you count civilians gathering for the purpose of resisting occupation. So yes, I would respond that the U.S. and British are deliberately killing civilians in Iraq. And that doesn't even count those killed simply for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, e.g. cars "lit up" at checkpoints or by passing patrols. Bunker-busters dropped on civilian neighborhoods because an "important target" *might* be at a restaurant there. That sort of thing.

Put it this way. Close to 1 million Iraqi CIVILIANS died during the sanctions. Another 100,000 CIVILIANS have been killed during the invasion and subsequent occupation. If those were simply collateral damage of ligitmate operations against Iraqi military targets, where is this elusive Iraqi military, and what military targets of such scale have been destroyed? It doesn't exist, and neither do the targets. The Iraqi military was decimated during the Gulf War and has been largely a fiction maintained by Saddam Hussein and three American administrations since.

I submit to you that absent HUGE military struggles, civilians cannot have been killed on this scale unless they were indeed deliberately murdered by the U.S. and it's partners.

[Bouncy Ball]

56. Tell me what Iraq did to deserve to even be a military target of ours.

[Finder]

45. Apathetic vs innocent...

It really sucks but terrorism is effective in many places because people are apathetic until death and destruction hits close to home or in their pockets.

Also, in some cases a small group does not have air power or a military force to fight conventional war. Pegging stones at the "enemy" is useless.

When diplomacy and debate is not even allowed...what else is there. That is not to say terrorism is not used by those with bad intentions--it is in many places.

If a person willingly paid taxes to a government/organization murdering thousands--they are funding which as Bush says makes them the enemy. Why do we think the "terrorists" don't feel exactly the same? All extremists use the same rationale.

[RobertSeattle]

51. Hello Michelle Malkin Readers !

(She links to this thread via http://michellemalkin.com/archives/002945.htm )

Here's your enlistment papers!
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/infomgt/forms/eforms...

[Bouncy Ball]

57. BWAAHAHAHAH!!!

Yeah, chicken shits, support Chimpy McCokespoon's illegal war with more than your mouth, support it by putting on a uniform and getting your ass over there! Recruitment numbers are WAY off!

I won't be holding my breath. I don't see any of you beating the doors of the recruiting stations down.

[Zero Division]

181. Of course Malkin has to go looking for straw-men to fight.

What else can one do, when you've written something as morally reprehensible and factually challenged as a book that seeks to justify something as shameful as the internment of Japanese Americans. Some good analysis of that can be found here: "Malkin, dual citizenship and profiling"

[Geek_Girl]

52. Civilians are not fair targets in a war

Whether it be in Iraq, the US or London. Wrong is wrong is wrong!

[Bouncy Ball]

81. I took the poll to mean "do the terrorists think of cilivians

as fair targets?"

And of course they do. We have seen evidence of that even just today!

It's never right to target civilians! But do THEY think of us as fair game? Heck yeah they do. Ask London. Ask Madrid. Ask New Yorkers. Ask the people in the Pentagon. Ask people all over the world who have witnessed terrorist attacks.

[geek tragedy]

87. The question doesn't ask what the terrorists think. It asks what DU'ers

think. Plain language.

[Bouncy Ball]

91. Back up a step and you'll get it right!!

From the OP: "My country's armies are killing civilians "somewhere else;" am I -- a civilian non-combatant far away from the main conflict -- a fair target?"

Meaning, am I a fair target to the terrorists? Should I be afraid?

Where do you get that it says "Hey DUers, do you think it would be ok for you to be killed for the actions of your government?"

No one here seems particularly suicidal. And it's pretty clear to me that the implied assumption is are you a fair target to the terrorists? Otherwise, who else would it be talking about? Ourselves?

Come on. You understood the question.

[geek tragedy]

92. Again, the thread doesn't ask what terrorists think. EVERYONE KNOWS

what terrorists think. The question is whether people agree with them.

[Finder]

115. Nobody feels it is justified...EVER

and "terrorist" is a term that is tossed around too much. The old saying that "One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter" rings true in some cases--would you agree?

I know here in the US, a lot of people do not follow what is happening in the name of the "War on Terrorism" and today at least a few more will wake up.

[geek tragedy]

118. The term "terrorist" applies completely to AQ and similar organizations.

That is beyond dispute.

[Bouncy Ball]

119. Unless you are a member of those organizations

and support them. In which case you might think of them as "selfless martyrs" or "freedom fighters."

All he was saying is it depends on your perspective. And it does!

[geek tragedy]

122. Except that their perspective is wrong and invalid. eom

[Bouncy Ball]

127. How is perspective wrong and invalid?

Perspective is just perspective. It's simply how you see things from where you sit. You can work to broaden your perspective by trying to see through other people's eyes (AGAIN DISCLAIMER, THAT DOESN'T MEAN YOU AUTOMATICALLY SUPPORT THEM!! LOL!).

But perspective is just perspective. You have an American perspective. An Iraqi has an Iraqi perspective. Is yours right and theirs wrong? What about the Iraqi civilian who takes up a weapon against a US soldier? Is their perspective (defending their home against a foreign invader) wrong?

[geek tragedy]

134. Did Adolf Hitler have a wrong and invalid perspective? How about Mao?

Or Pol Pot? Or Stalin? How about Bush?

Insanity, megalomania, and theocratic zeal are not valid and acceptable perspectives.

[Bouncy Ball]

143. Again, perspective is simply perspective.

Hitler certainly had a different perspective than say, Churchill. Or FDR.

People's ACTIONS can be wrong. People's BELIEFS can be wrong.

People's perspective? That's just their perspective! It *influences* a person's actions and beliefs, but it is NOT their actions and beliefs.

Hitler's actions and beliefs were wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. But his perspective was just that. How you ACT on your perspective is what counts.

I have the perspective that bush is a raging asshole and dangerous for the country and the world. Because I'm a non-violent person who believes in democracy and free speech, I ACT on that perspective through my words, my vote, my organizing voters, etc. Not by doing anything harmful or immoral.

[mike_c]

125. it is not beyond dispute by any means...

...but I doubt that you are interested in discussion, so I'll save my breath.

[geek tragedy]

136. It's beyond dispute amongst sane and decent people. I have yet

to see a sane or decent person argue that AQ aren't terrorists. There has never been a credible argument to the contrary made.

[mike_c]

149. were they terrorists when they fought to eject the soviets...

...from Afghanistan, i.e. when America financed and supplied them, or are they only terrorists now that they're fighting against American imperialism in the ME?

on edit: can you please try to make your points without reference to the sanity or decency of folks who hold opposing views?

[geek tragedy]

158. Were they blowing up buses and office buildings in Moscow during

the 1980's? I seem to recall them shooting at Soviet troops and tanks, but very little mass murder directed against Soviet citizens.

When they started slaughtering innocent civilians by the hundreds in a period where there were no military hostilities, they became terrorists. QED.

I tend to find that those folks who sympathize with AQ as fellow 'anti-imperialists' really are on the other side. I don't know why they don't admit it as such.

[Finder]

152. They were Freedom Fighters when they fought against the Soviets, no?

I personally don't think al qaeda exists as more than a central tracking organization but the Mujahadeen were supported by us in the 80s for a fact.

[geek tragedy]

159. How many civilians in Moscow and St. Petersberg did they kill?

If they were shooting at US troops, it would be one thing. But they were slaughtering thousands of innocent civilians.

That is terrorism.

[Finder]

162. good point there

but how many innocent civilians were the Soviets killing?

[geek tragedy]

164. Being the Soviets, probably quite a few. But the Soviets were never

what I would consider terrorists--rather they were totalitarians who depended on the coercive power of the state.

[Finder]

168. so you think some killing of civilians...

does not a terrorist make?

[geek tragedy]

173. Depends why the civilians were killed.

Was it negligence, recklessness, or intentional?

Also, totalitarianism and terrorism tend to be two very different kinds of evil. Terrorism is an anarchic form of violence and oppression, while totalitarianism is a fascist one.

[Finder]

178. WRONG

One is government(totalitarianism) and the other is non-governmental and more of a tactic. Do you honestly believe some of our own actions via CIA down in Latin America--for example--should not be considered terrorism?

[geek tragedy]

182. Now we're talking about Latin America?

If we're talking about Latin America, then hell yes the US has sponsored terrorism.

[Finder]

184. I was referring to your statement, "It depends why..."

Civilian/innocent deaths always suck no matter who is doing the killing.

Who do you feel is NOT fair game?

[geek tragedy]

187. Civilians are not fair game.

However, targeting people who aren't fair game doesn't mean the guilty party is a terrorist. There are other, equally foul means of murder and oppression.

[Finder]

190. Sigh...If it causes terror it is terrorism if you are...

in the group being terrorized. Why, how and who means nothing.

[mike_c]

166. and now the Americans and British...

...are killing them. And let's not forget Poland.

[geek tragedy]

170. Who's 'them?' If you're talking about AQ members, of course

we're trying to capture or kill them.

If you're talking about Iraq, I should probably point out to you that Iraq wasn't involved in any significant anti-American terrorism, and that there were no operational links between Saddam and Osama.

[Finder]

172. We know that but Bush is still linking the war on terrorism to Iraq...

justifying the slaughter of innocents to draw "terrorists" away from us. "Fighting them over there" bullshit.

[geek tragedy]

174. Bush is a lying asshole. eom

[mike_c]

179. d'oh! No links between Saddam and Osama?! How did I miss...

...that?

Geek, with all due respect, I think we are posting from different planets. I was talking about Iraqi and Afghan civilians. But thanks for clearing up my misconceptions about Saddam and Osama-- that's what I get for trusting the president....

[geek tragedy]

183. Of course I was being sarcastic.

What I was pointing out was the absurdity of folks on the left trying to link Iraq and AQ. It's dumb when Bush does it, dumb when people who oppose Bush do it.

[Finder]

185. Who on left would ever say that? n/t

[geek tragedy]

188. Everyone who was saying that AQ has been bombing places

because of Iraq.

[Finder]

189. Well that is true in a sense...

they are pissed at the treatment of Arabs and muslims in the middle east by the West and by their own leaders. Hell, Osama hated Saddam and vice versa.

You are using the premise that al qaeda exists as some global movement and that is where we differ. It is similar to the right blaming everying they disagree with on the left to the UN or some silly "New World Order".

Understand what I mean?

[geek tragedy]

191. NO doubt that AQ is much less of a cohesive organization nowadays.