#122 by sunwukong Saturday, October 29, 2005

there is a difference between killing civilians by accident while targeting terrorist, and targeting civilians on purpose. No civilized people make war on innocents only animals do that. Innocence and war are anthropomorphisms. Dresden is a good example of civilians targeted strictly for strategic purposes -- and not even for the war at hand but for the Cold War afterwards.

when you hide military targets in civilian populations and we {America} bomb them it is not the fault of the bomber but the fault of the government hiding things in schools, hospitals and in the middle of civilian targets. This tactic is used by cowards for the purpose of exploiting main stream and anti-American news sources to show somehow how evil america is or israel is "the headlines shout" Innocent civilians killed.

by the way wtf does that huge word mean?

anthropomorphisms.

No using words that make me the uneducated writer feel bad. heh or I will bomb you back into a time where smaller words were used. hehhehehehehehehe

Dresden is a good example of civilians targeted strictly for strategic purposes -- and not even for the war at hand but for the Cold War afterwards.

Dresden was destroyed by the Allies late in WWII because:
1. It stopped Germany's resupply efforts as a major transport hub in the region.
2. It increased (in Churchill's words) "the terror" to the German population, and possibly
3. It dissuaded the Russians from advancing further west.

As a purely military target, Dresden had no assets whatsoever being a center for arts and culture. As a strategic target it would have seemed to have served its purpose well -- it blew a huge hole in the transportation/communications grid, greatly angered/saddened the German population and the Russian forces eventually stopped their westward advance. However, it was also used by both the Nazis and the Russians for propaganda purposes later on.

when you hide military targets in civilian populations and we {America} bomb them it is not the fault of the bomber but the fault of the government hiding things in schools, hospitals and in the middle of civilian targets.

Objectively, both made choices that the lives of the civilians were less than the strategic value of their actions.

This tactic is used by cowards for the purpose of exploiting main stream and anti-American news sources to show somehow how evil america is or israel is "the headlines shout" Innocent civilians killed.

The publicity is part of the strategic value for placing the assets among civilians, as is the counter publicity for the bombing.

anthropomorphism

"Attribution of human motivation, characteristics, or behavior to inanimate objects, animals, or natural phenomena."
- The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Dehumanizing your enemy is a valid propaganda tactic -- but I'm one of those that prefer to think of my enemy in strictly human terms.

I have a question, since you seem to like theory, this will give me some insights into you, the question is:

Have you taken a human life?
oh btw this is for you sunwukong to answer or not answer.

Have you taken a human life?

No.

Are you asking whether I'd keep my seemingly callous/bloodless attitude if my life or something I cherished were threatened?

Or are you asking what I'd think if I had actually lost someone close due to the actions of someone like a terrorist?

126 by sunwukong Saturday, October 29, 2005

No. Are you asking whether I'd keep my seemingly callous/bloodless attitude if my life or something I cherished were threatened? Or are you asking what I'd think if I had actually lost someone close due to the actions of someone like a terrorist?

nope none of this, just you see war and death through the eyes of an innocent, and that is GOOD!, I do not see things the same way you do, my eyes saw too much at 18 by 19 I was an old man with old eyes, I do know how war is waged and for all the wrongs america does in war time and we do make horrific deeds happen, we are the most carefull today about casualities, Where we use to carpet bomb the crap out of everything, now we use smart bombs, never has a war been waged with more care to civilian casualties than this war. This might sound callous, but in war collateral damage {read innocent civilians} happens is it right? I think not, but is it necessary? yes it is.

Israel is in the same boat, the palistinians target and murder innocent children and people intentionally, then they hide among their own civilian population and when Israel retailiates, they scream Innocent people killed, but it is their fault for hiding there.

I probably have a closer attitude about war than you think, sunwukong.

The problem is the tactic doesn't work, as should be totally obvious after decades (even centuries) of examples. "Terror" turns to anger, which leads to more apathy on the part of the civilians belonging to the greater power. Israelis are much, much less tolerant of their nation's acts against Palestinians when they don't appear to be justified by acts of terrorism.

Consider this. What if Hamas took their billion dollar terrorism industry and pointed it toward destroying Israeli infrastructure? How would public opinion shift if, say, the electricity went out on a daily basis, or if it were difficult to import luxury items, or the information infrastructure was constantly under attack?

That's the tactic the terrorists first used in Iraq, and it worked fine. Then they started beheading people and everything shifted against them. When people are beheaded civilians blame the government for not killing terrorists. When gas lines are 100 cars long, they just blame the government, and couldn't stomach dead civilians on the other side as a consequence.

Threats must be crushed. People tolerate civilian casualties when they consider themselves a potential casualty. Their concience begins to act up when people are killed over economics.

How is this:

"Attribution of human motivation, characteristics, or behavior to inanimate objects, animals, or natural phenomena." - The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

THIS?

Dehumanizing your enemy is a valid propaganda tactic -- but I'm one of those that prefer to think of my enemy in strictly human terms.

Isn't it the opposite of that definition?

Forgive my intrustion into the discussion, but I was just (ironically enough) studying anthropomorphisms last week. Now I seem to be running into it everywhere...LOL

In my understanding, an anthropomorphism would be like taking human attributes and applying them to something that isn't human (such as God), rather than the other way around (taking something human and giving it qualities that aren't). Unless the term can be used for both situations, but I haven't found that. Enlighten me?