taking your example, if the allies would invade kosovo, would they kill civilians?
Civilians get killed in every war by accident, so yes, I believe if that happened, then civilians would be killed. Call it stupidity, call it negligent, call it heinous, but that is still not the same as intentionally going in to kill civilians. I will not argue whether it's always wrong for the military to intentionally kill civilians in the interest of hitting their target. I do not presume to believe that there is NEVER a situation where it truly is necessary. But I do believe that it should be avoided at all costs, and that it is wrong either way.
Isn't that a massacre? you cant call it collateral damage
Of course it's a massacre. Terms like 'collateral damage' and 'military action' are coined by politicians in the hopes of putting a better light on something and avoiding a public outrcry against it. It's just semantics, and I don't buy into it. A rose by any other name is still a rose.
Here again, you seem to be assuming that because politicians do something, everyone in the country must think the same way. Not so, not in any country. People can and do have their own opinions. That's human nature - nowhere do all people agree on everything. Politicians do not possess any magic that forces citizens to automatically agree with and support them.
But my point wasnt going there, my point was that there's innocent people killed in wars, that make the difference between collateral damage and massacre.
Personally, any time a large group of people is killed, I would say that's a massacre, whether they're military personnel, businessmen, children, or anyone else. A death is a death, no matter who died.
Armed civilians arent innocent people, they are militias, as Myroria often say. So even in 9/11, was there innocent people, or armed civilians? (taking the point to an extreme to be better seen).
Hm, there's a number of points in that one statement that I'd like to address.
First off, I do not agree that an armed citizen is not an innocent person. If someone's going out hunting, the fact that he's carrying a gun does not make him evil. The fact that I have a shotgun in my closet does not make me me evil - I'm just a mom, like any other mom, and I don't go around shooting anyone with it.
Secondly, one armed citizen does not actually make a militia. An organized group of armed citizens is a militia.
As for 9/11, Americans do not carry guns around with them all over the place, and certainly not to work, unless they're police or perhaps guards or what have you. When I owned a handgun, the only time I ever took it off my home property was when I was going to a shooting range, and even then, it was not loaded until I was ready to practice. THAT is the norm here. So if you thought that the people in those buildings were armed, you were misled.
If you think about it, even if your mental image of America was right, and we really were all a bunch of gun-toting cowboys, it would still not be any defense against planes exploding into the side of the building you're standing in. Real life is not a Schwartzenegger movie, or the good guys would always win. Trying to shoot a plane through a window will not make it suddenly unable to crash, so that would still not have made them a threat.
My third point - if troops invaded a country and saw a civilian holding a gun, they're probably going to shoot that civilian on the basis that he poses a threat. That's just common sense. Any civilian intending to do such a thing realizes that. That's why I wasn't sure what your point was. Why would I argue with that?
If you're asking whether it would be okay for invading troops to just start shooting random civilians who are not visibly armed or acting in a threatening manner, just because we may or may not own a gun that is sitting at home in the closet (remember, the average American does not take weapons with them when they go somewhere), then no. I do not agree.
If a nation invaded an european country, they couldnt kill the civillians, even if they do die, they are unarmed, they are innocent people. They are NOT a military target, they are no threat to the enemy. Ever thought of that?
Of course they're innocent people. No, they are not a military target or a threat to the enemy, you are right. Why in the world would I think otherwise? Here again, you seem to have a mental image in your head of what American citizens are like. It is false. We are the same as you and everyone else in the world.
plus you'r a smart man
Actually, I'm a female.
The thing is, Delfos, that because of this mental image you have of us in your head, you seem to be having difficulty accepting that Americans may not be as you've always assumed. What I've been trying to communicate to you is that we're not the unreasonable, violence-prone, gun-toting cowboys that you seem to think we are.
But you seem so determined not to believe that we might not be. That's obvious simply by the fact that you seemed so sure that I would answer your questions differently than I did. You expected me to, because you had preconceived ideas of what all Americans are like. I understand it, because that's the popular belief these days - that's what people have been told. But it saddens me.
In my country, as in all others, there are some bad people, but most are not. We do not like wars, we do not like violence, we do not like killing. The majority is against staying in Iraq. Why do you think our politicians use softer-sounding terms like 'military action'? Because they have to try to mislead us, because they know we may rise up and protest once we realize what's really going on, and that's going to complicate things for them. THAT should an obvious indication that we may not be what you've been led to believe.
