I think that you should critically reflect upon why multiple people couldn't ascertain this from your posts on the issue.
Certainly you do know that there were civilian casualties as a result of US military action against non-state enemy combatants and people didn't go to jail for it, right?
Considering we haven't actually discussed ROE or anything to do with what you're bringing into the conversation, and you are way out of your depth, I'll choose to pass. As for your second sentence, I never said civilian casualties aren't an acceptable part of war, or anything close to that. Try reading what I said again. Think I need to follow other's leads and just block all the non-aviators who troll here.
I used to have students like you…in it for the fight, not the logic or debate.
Well, you had 1 good post, Griz, and I thought we were going to be able to have a civil debate, and now you're following it up with a bunch of ad hominem attacks on me (in it for the fight, not the logic, calling me immature, etc.) I think if you read my post, every argument I made is based in logic. I asked you a lot of questions to challenge your logic, and you answered none of them. But sure, I'll go through your post and again, defeat your arguments with logic.
1. You entirely missed the point that war isn’t about “hardware” (manufacturing, weapons systems, or similar), it is about “software” (human morale). The idea that you fell back on the concept of the “state” or “popularity” already places you behind the power curve of the debate. As I noted days ago, this isn’t the 1970’s, functioning Middle Eastern powers beyond Iran aren’t going to risk their place in the global economy to defend Hamas, but Hamas maintains the capacity to make war, therefore they maintain the capacity to have war made on them. As for their popularity…that is kind of the point. They are growing more and more unpopular because they are inviting Hellfires into the front door of apartment high rises.
Wars are not equal, Griz, and the CoG is not always the same. In your first example, WW2, it was absolutely about hardware. Human morale was important, but it was the German manufacturing and equipment that was winning them the war until our superior manufacturing turned it in our favor. You not understanding that does not inspire confidence in the rest, but lets continue. You state that Hamas is growing more unpopular since the war started... Do you have evidence of that? The article I posted was based on a poll before the war started. To the contrary, there is much evidence that the Palestinian cause more broadly has gained a lot of popularity since the war started. For evidence, see the recent articles I posted regarding increasing support in the UN, POTUS' recent comments, SECDEF's recent comments, etc.
2. I dare you to find a war in which no civilians were ever harmed. If the civilian population supports the enemy, regardless of their “state” status then they are subject to proportional targeting with reference to that support.
This is a complete straw man argument. I never said Israel could fight this war without civilian casualties, or any warring power could. I said Israel is conducting the war immorally with excessive and unnecessary civilian casualties, and many months ago I referenced proportionality in that argument, and I still stand by that. Leveling a 6 story apartment complex in a refugee camp that you recently told civilians to flee TO, for the military purpose of killing 1 room of terrorists, is not proportional in my opinion. You are free to disagree with that opinion, but clearly much of the world agrees, and that is the more important point: Israel is hurting themselves by their "indiscriminate bombing", to quote POTUS.
3. Try thinking deeper. I mean it. Think about the idea Orwell proposes (and I am aware that isn’t easy since I didn’t post the entire article). All wars end - now imagine if War X ended after five years with the loser suffering the deaths of 700,000 men ages 18 to 40 out of a population of, say, 70,000,000 men, women and children. If we took the standard gender ratio of 51% women to 50% men with the standard age ratio that places the majority of the population in that age range, you get the devastation of a society for three or four generations (without considering those wounded in combat). Now take that same war, shorten it by three years because of “terror killing” and spread the deaths across the entire population (women, children, the elderly - why don’t you ever mention them in your concerns?) and you end up with a population harmed by war, but not destroyed as a potentially productive society. Also, I’m never said I agreed completely with Orwell just that his musing should earn our consideration.
I've considered Orwell's musings you pointed out, and I find the execution of how it would have to be carried out absolutely abhorrent. As does the world, in general, by the way, which is why that type of warfare is "illegal". You never answered any of my questions. Maybe you should "try thinking deeper". Is it ok for soldiers to go about the streets killing women, children, the elderly, the mentally handicapped, the mentally unwell, etc. (hope I didn't leave anyone out, but I'm sure you'll let me know)? Do you think intentionally killing tens of thousands of non-combatants for the sake of "terror killing" will actually shorten a war that is for the hearts and minds, or do you think it will only create so many more future terrorists and turn world opinion against Israel? I cannot believe I'm even engaging in an argument with someone who is proposing we murder tens of thousands in "terror killings" (your words).
As for the rest of your assertions in your final paragraph, they are simply immature. My wife and children have zero to do with it, yet they remain targets in the current war. You know, I worked down at ground zero in NYC immediately after the attack there and saw plenty of crushed mothers (and fathers) removed from the devastation…they did not play a role in the final prosecution of the war. Were they “reasons” to go to war? Yes, they were. Were they boiled down to moralistic calculations that implied we could only kill 3000 some odd enemy - not at all. That’s not how war works, and it never has.
Another straw man argument. I never said we could only kill 3000 enemy because that's what we lost. Wtf are you talking about?
Listen, I'm tired of defending shit I didn't say from people here. If you want to debate me with logic... great! Argue against the logic I'm actually using. Don't just use logical fallacy after logical fallacy, while calling
me the immature one (another logical fallacy). Lets either have a grown up debate, or let's not waste our time on here.
