Do you think a soldier who murdered a 5 year old boy should go unpunished because he claimed: >I was denying the enemy a new recruit
Killing civilians who get in the way of actual targets is justifiable, killing them just to kill them isn't. That's why the Heer was uncomfortable SS wiping out small useless villages, but had no issue with the Heer shelling the frick out of populated cities.
Yes because people who are mentally ill and kill kids for no reason are automatically immoral and should be tossed in an asylum. You can justify killing as many kids as you want with ordnance if they're in the same structure as a combatant that is currently shooting at you. But doing the same when you know there's just kids and nothing else is irrational violence.
>thinks killing an unarmed five year old is the same as killing an armed and hostile five year old
2 years ago
Anonymous
This kind of thinking is why America lost every single major war since 1945. You either kill your enemies - all of them - or you'll be fighting them forever.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>1945 >Nuking women and children in Hiroshima and Nagasaki is OK >1950 >Nuking factories and railway depots in China is not OK
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm... Really makes you ~~*think*~~.
They are part of the enemy state. You kill them. You kill their livestock and pets. You burn their fields and their cities. You destroy their holy sites, their libraries, their museums. You erase them from the land. The only thing left to memorialize them will be the stories that are told as cautionary tales; an old man pointing to an empty part of the map where no person lives anymore as a warning to his juniors as to "why we do not do such things here.".
>You destroy their holy sites, their libraries, their museums.
I disagree but other than that based.
Ever heard of hiroshima and nagasaki? It honestly save more live than any other outcome.
Japan was trying to surrender as early as April 1945 on the single condition that the royal family would remain unharmed.
Probably not. It's actually morally dubious to do first strike against soldiers really. Jus in bello is generally an extrapolation of standard hohfeldian rights analysis. I.e., it's generally thought most individuals bear a duty not to harm others due to a corresponding 'right' held by the other person. So the way that is normally waived is if the individual attacks or harms you and tacitly (though temporarily) dissolves your duty not to harm them - self defence.
You can probably predict that various definitions of harm do a lot of heavy lifting in what you are allowed to do to people in terms of preemptive self defense.
Civilians are a actively supporting your enemy with their work, and enabling their regime with their non action. Thus, they bear partial responsibility for whatever their rulers are doing that has caused you to go to war with them.
Every adult not in a resistance movement is part of the enemy force.
Probably not. It's actually morally dubious to do first strike against soldiers really. Jus in bello is generally an extrapolation of standard hohfeldian rights analysis. I.e., it's generally thought most individuals bear a duty not to harm others due to a corresponding 'right' held by the other person. So the way that is normally waived is if the individual attacks or harms you and tacitly (though temporarily) dissolves your duty not to harm them - self defence.
You can probably predict that various definitions of harm do a lot of heavy lifting in what you are allowed to do to people in terms of preemptive self defense.
>filename
Imagine thinking she had any room to stop mustang from killing the thing that murdered his best friend while she slept well at night knowing she wasted kids that were non-combatants without thinking twice.
Yes, if it serves a valid and proportional military objective. It's the same logic as war crimes. Nothing is a war crime unless:
1) it's cruel
and
2) it's pointless
Weapons which are cruel but useful or civilian deaths incurred in the course of tactics or technologies are by definition not war crimes.
source: just war theory and Ryuichi Shimoda vs the State.
>Can killing civilians during war be justified?
It was the meta in ww2. What did American public school tell you that only the Americans bombed some cities?
They are part of the enemy state. You kill them. You kill their livestock and pets. You burn their fields and their cities. You destroy their holy sites, their libraries, their museums. You erase them from the land. The only thing left to memorialize them will be the stories that are told as cautionary tales; an old man pointing to an empty part of the map where no person lives anymore as a warning to his juniors as to "why we do not do such things here.".
Killing livestock and children is lame because it's unfair victory. Better to fight for a hundred years and enjoy the affair than win by cheating and rot in hell.
Armed civilian point of gun at you.
Enemy combatant.
Arm civilian pointing gun at the other quote unquote arm civilian. Counterinsurgency.
And today we have learned the difference between who is on your side and who is not on your side.
Yes
Killing innocence will always be wrong, doesn't mean you shouldn't do it if it meant stopping the greater threat.
>t. coddled millennial
Do you think a soldier who murdered a 5 year old boy should go unpunished because he claimed:
>I was denying the enemy a new recruit
Killing civilians who get in the way of actual targets is justifiable, killing them just to kill them isn't. That's why the Heer was uncomfortable SS wiping out small useless villages, but had no issue with the Heer shelling the frick out of populated cities.
Wermacht****
>but the children!
So you immediately jumped to the most extreme example to try justifying your point?
Yes because people who are mentally ill and kill kids for no reason are automatically immoral and should be tossed in an asylum. You can justify killing as many kids as you want with ordnance if they're in the same structure as a combatant that is currently shooting at you. But doing the same when you know there's just kids and nothing else is irrational violence.
>It's completely fine to kill an enemy combatant who is 18 years old
>BUT NOT THE HECKIN' 17 YEAR OLD
>thinks killing an unarmed five year old is the same as killing an armed and hostile five year old
This kind of thinking is why America lost every single major war since 1945. You either kill your enemies - all of them - or you'll be fighting them forever.
>1945
>Nuking women and children in Hiroshima and Nagasaki is OK
>1950
>Nuking factories and railway depots in China is not OK
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm... Really makes you ~~*think*~~.
>You destroy their holy sites, their libraries, their museums.
I disagree but other than that based.
Japan was trying to surrender as early as April 1945 on the single condition that the royal family would remain unharmed.
Little haji will grow up and become a big haji, and big hajis plant IEDs.
>Innocents
He said civilians, not children.
Civilians are a actively supporting your enemy with their work, and enabling their regime with their non action. Thus, they bear partial responsibility for whatever their rulers are doing that has caused you to go to war with them.
Every adult not in a resistance movement is part of the enemy force.
Only if they're Ukrainian
>UKRAINE UKRAINE UKRAINE!
>RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA!
Slow day at Langley?
killing hohol is expendible since cocainskyy clicked 'scraping the barrel' there is no such thing as "civilian"
Killing civilians is always justified. My CO had us shooting up every Iraqi village we came across and blamed it on Shiite militia.
Probably not. It's actually morally dubious to do first strike against soldiers really. Jus in bello is generally an extrapolation of standard hohfeldian rights analysis. I.e., it's generally thought most individuals bear a duty not to harm others due to a corresponding 'right' held by the other person. So the way that is normally waived is if the individual attacks or harms you and tacitly (though temporarily) dissolves your duty not to harm them - self defence.
You can probably predict that various definitions of harm do a lot of heavy lifting in what you are allowed to do to people in terms of preemptive self defense.
>filename
Imagine thinking she had any room to stop mustang from killing the thing that murdered his best friend while she slept well at night knowing she wasted kids that were non-combatants without thinking twice.
If we were on PrepHole I would kill you both for being filtered by shounenshit
Yes, if it serves a valid and proportional military objective. It's the same logic as war crimes. Nothing is a war crime unless:
1) it's cruel
and
2) it's pointless
Weapons which are cruel but useful or civilian deaths incurred in the course of tactics or technologies are by definition not war crimes.
source: just war theory and Ryuichi Shimoda vs the State.
Yes, anything can be justified
Yes, consider it denying the enemies new recruits
Any russian speaker or anyone understanding slav runes, is open season everyday, they must be exterminated
Depends on the race.
If they're carrying supplies
No.
>Can killing civilians during war be justified?
It was the meta in ww2. What did American public school tell you that only the Americans bombed some cities?
If they're reproductive-age men, it's always permissible.
Depends, are you having fun doing it?
They are part of the enemy state. You kill them. You kill their livestock and pets. You burn their fields and their cities. You destroy their holy sites, their libraries, their museums. You erase them from the land. The only thing left to memorialize them will be the stories that are told as cautionary tales; an old man pointing to an empty part of the map where no person lives anymore as a warning to his juniors as to "why we do not do such things here.".
Killing livestock and children is lame because it's unfair victory. Better to fight for a hundred years and enjoy the affair than win by cheating and rot in hell.
Based bring back ancient warfare
>America
>Fails to conquer Afghanistan
>USSR
>fails to conquer Afghanistan
>Ghengis Khan
>no reindeer pillow to sleep on in the steppe
Its not fair
Why can't I have a reindeer pillow?
Because our government has moronic concepts like "Rules of Engagement" codified into law.
Intentionally or unintentionally?
Unless its a race war then no.
Ever heard of hiroshima and nagasaki? It honestly save more live than any other outcome.
That just depends on what one considers a civilian
Almost anything can be justified, like all those times I fricked your mom.
Canada posting is an old meme that was not funny when it was fresh.
Yes. They will form skirmishes if you don't.
As for children, you take them as prisoners and indoctrinate them into soldiers for you.
There are no civilians in war, there is only alive and dead.
Only if they arent your own civilians. Not meant to be a joke btw.
War cannot be justified as anything other than theft and murder.
Bomber Harris, do it again!
Thank God we saved the West from Hitler.
Why wait until there's a war?
You can just have death squads in your police you know.
yes.
Also i need to complete the geneva suggestion.
justified? It's morally virtuous to kill your enemy.
Of course. If you're bored anything goes. Besides they can't shoot back so no risk involved.
Simple as.
Armed civilian point of gun at you.
Enemy combatant.
Arm civilian pointing gun at the other quote unquote arm civilian. Counterinsurgency.
And today we have learned the difference between who is on your side and who is not on your side.
I don't have to justify it if I don't get caught.
You still have to report your ammo account dumbass.
Only in self defense (including sabotage). Other than that, no.
No but why would I try to Justify it?