Discussion and Debate Community Thread

[Cyclops]

So, thousands of 5 year old kids that died were marching on the streets of Hiroshima chanting death to Americans?

No, they were killed as a terror attack, and as collateral. Like the children in Dresden, or London, or Poland. Likewise the children who starved from the RN blockades in WWI and II. I mean, war is all Hell as the guy with the scruffy beard said.

I agree there are almost no clean hands in war. When you wage war you make yourself a monster.

[AqD]

So, thousands of 5 year old kids that died were marching on the streets of Hiroshima chanting death to Americans?

Their fate was unfortunately sealed by their parents.

If people don't wish to suffer from it, why not just stop going to war? They weren't forced to - They chose it.

[PointOfViewGun]

Their fate was unfortunately sealed by their parents.
If people don't wish to suffer from it, why not just stop going to war? Like most wars today, they weren't forced to - They chose it. Yet people today treat war like some stupid chess game with made-up rules and believe the players themselves should bear no responsibility whatsoever.
That's just pathetic.

So, you're advocating threatening murderers with bombing their house? Those Japenese people would be cheering for USA if they were born New York. They did not choose war. They didn't even have a say in it. Heck, even the Japanese state as a whole didn't choose war with USA. What's pathetic is saying that their fate was sealed by their parents.

[AqD]

Those Japenese people would be cheering for USA if they were born New York. They did not choose war. They didn't even have a say in it. Heck, even the Japanese state as a whole didn't choose war with USA. What's pathetic is saying that their fate was sealed by their parents.

The country as a whole invaded several neighbors and attacked USA already. Are the lives of US soldiers lost during their preemptive strike matter less than those children? Why should they risk losing even one more of their own to stop the aggression?

So, you're advocating threatening murderers with bombing their house?

A house where murderers are supported by majority, yes.

War is not some stupid game with rules, players sitting safely behind table and chess moved to die. It's life and death for everyone involved. If people don't believe it's the last resort and worth for them and their children to die for, why do they even start it?

Again the idea that civilians should be separated from combatants makes no sense, for they're the supporters of the wars and it's them who should bear full responsibilities, not soldiers or governments doing their bidding. IMO such idea helps nothing but encourages people to see war as a viable solution even when it's unnecessary, for example the intervention in Syria and Libya.

[sumskilz]

Again the idea that civilians should be separated from combatants makes no sense, for they're the supporters of the wars and it's them who should bear full responsibilities, not soldiers or governments doing their bidding.

You're misunderstanding the rationale of the convention you're arguing against. The distinction isn't between combatants and non-combatants, and it isn't between enemies and non-enemies. It's safe to assume that a significant portion of a hostile nation's population are enemies, so are prisoners of war, but it's considered a war crime to kill prisoners of war. Prisoners of war no longer pose a threat, so it's considered wrong to kill them. But it isn't just that, because it's considered perfectly acceptable to kill retreating enemy soldiers. The difference is retreating enemy soldiers remain an enemy strategic asset.

It's also perfectly acceptable to target a factory or a power station filled with civilian workers, because what you are targeting is an enemy strategic asset. As I recall, some allied bombing of civilian neighborhoods at night was justified on the grounds that targeting the homes of people who work in strategic industries would prevent them from going to work in the morning. This would be considered a war crime today because of the principle of proportionality. If you target neighborhoods, you are killing the families and neighbors of the workers, whereas if you target a workplace which is strategic asset, it will destroy the asset with the least possible collateral casualties.

Modern international agreements are based on the idea of targeting strategic assets (which may include people) in order to destroy an enemy's capability to continue to fight. This is not the same as killing enemies because you hate them or killing enemies and their families in order to terrorize them into surrender.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

I must agree wholeheartly with sumkilz.

Additional to the legal and moral aspect of not targeting civilians of enemy countries, there is the rational fact, that "moral bombing" doesn't work.

British night raids had nearly no impact on the german will to fight on, in fact the support it, as now you had perfect propaganda arguments to present your enemy as "gangsters", who threat your homeland and families. Also german war production was permanent increasing although in theory it should have been falling because the workers have now no homes anymore, they fear for their families, they have no sleep at night etc.

It show in comparison to the US day raids as mostly ineffective.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Don’t forget to vote/nominate for POTF

https://www.twcenter.net/forums/foru...ht-Competition

[Abdülmecid I]

Ibrahim al-Douri is probably dead, finally, at the not so tender age of 78. I say probably and finally, because he has been pronounced dead more times than Baghdadi and Kim Jong-un combined, but, in this case, the announcement reportedly comes from the Iraqi Baathist Party, which al-Douri had been leading, at least nominally, since 2006. Al-Douri was the Club King in the famous most-wanted deck that had been distributed to US soldiers in Iraq and by far the most prominent fugitive of Saddam's regime. He joined the insurgency, established his own organisation whose name was inspired from the Sufi Naqshbandi Order and even temporarily cooperated with ISIL, when the terrorists conquered Tikrit. Not a fan of Sunni sectarianism, but he must have despised Iran really badly, judging by how common the term Safavid is in his speeches. He was also suffering from leukemia for several decades, but his notoriety rests more upon his appearance. He looks more like a Scottish general of the British army than your stereotypical Arab rebel:

[Heathen Hammer]

So he supported terrorists that massacred civilians just to spite Iran? That sounds like something CIA would do.

[Prodromos]

Speaking of Safavids, this is pretty weird:

John Ghazvinian on Twitter: "Did you know: The very first newspapers published in America (way back in the 1720s) were obsessed with Iran. But not in the way you might think. A thread....

[swabian]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeYoUJYqAQc

[sumskilz]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeYoUJYqAQc

I might be reading too much into it, but if you're suggesting an alternative method for selecting the next US president, it's not a bad idea.

Although I'd prefer a last septuagenarian standing version of this:

[swabian]

I might be reading too much into it, but if you're suggesting an alternative method for selecting the next US president, it's not a bad idea.

Although I'd prefer a last septuagenarian standing version of this:

No, i couldn't care less about the next US president, tbh. Feel the sting of my rapier, gentlemen. Feel it.

[Vanoi]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/egypts-si...093014551.html

All Muslim leaders coming together to condemn Marcon's comments and advocate for a boycott. They complain that these actions are offensive to Muslims and not a form of freedom of expression.

And yet halfway around the world China continues to oppress its Uhygur minority. Where's Erdogan? Where's al-Sisi? Why don't the Muslims care about the Uhygurs?

[PointOfViewGun]

Because neither Sisi nor Erdoğan represent Muslims. Just like how Macron, while banking on radicalism from Muslims, never really made much fuss about the Catholic priest pedophilia cases.

[Vanoi]

Because neither Sisi nor Erdoğan represent Muslims. Just like how Macron, while banking on radicalism from Muslims, never really made much fuss about the Catholic priest pedophilia cases.

Actually Turkey under Erdogan has taken up the mantle of the defender of the Islamic faith. They may not represent all Muslims but they definitely claim to.

Egypt and Turkey weren't the only Muslim countries who weighed in on Marcon's comments.

Good to know the Muslim world can focus on Marcon but ignore the plight of Muslims like the Uhygurs in China or Rohingya in Burma. The Muslim leaders of the world are a joke.

[PointOfViewGun]

Yes, what a shocker that a bunch of corrupt leaders are not acting out of principle but for the sake of their petty political gain.

[Vanoi]

Yes, what a shocker that a bunch of corrupt leaders are not acting out of principle but for the sake of their petty political gain.

You forgot to mention their words making it more likely incidents such as what happened in France will happen again.

[PointOfViewGun]

You forgot to mention their words making it more likely incidents such as what happened in France will happen again.

What words are those exactly that would incite more people to cut other's heads?

[Vanoi]

What words are those exactly that would incite more people to cut other's heads?

As shown above Muslim leaders like al-Sisi have advocated against freedom of expression and other leaders have condemned those who post the cartoons.

Then of course you have the French boycott encouraged by leaders like Erdogan.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/26/europ...ntl/index.html

Then you have another Muslim leader claiming Marcon defending his country's right of freedom of expression forces people to commit terrorism.

https://thehill.com/policy/internati...forcing-people

These massages are rather clear. That people who practice freedom of expression are the problem. Thats its right for Muslims to get offended and boycott who wish to practice their rights. And of course claiming that freedom of expressions forces people into terrorism.

These messages will only make it more likely for Muslims to act out of things they perceive to be offensive to their religion.