Considering the importance of the WTC to our industrial complex- was bombing the WTC a legit target?

If no, why was the bombing of Dresden legit" in comparison?

Are the civilians in that building legit targets if you consider the WTC a legit target?

Considering the importance of the WTC to our industrial complex- was bombing the WTC a legit target?

No.

If no, why was the bombing of Dresden legit" in comparison?

I doubt that Dresden would be considered a "legitimate" target today. Many of the actions taken during WWII (by everyone) would not be acceptable today, Dresden hardly scratches the surface.

Are the civilians in that building legit targets if you consider the WTC a legit target?

No. My son is having a birthday party and I have to prepare the house, so I'll make this short and simple. Do you believe that a war lawyer would consider it to be a target in accordance with the Geneva conventions? In order to choose such a target, it would have to fit into legal compliance. Let's assume the WTC wasn't a completely commercial enterprise but a very large munitions factory. First, for several days before bombing, we would drop thousands of memos explaining that everyone needed to evacuate the WTC on September 11, because we were going to bomb it (and we would do that at night, when no one should be there, rather than the middle of a weekday morning in order to kill as many civilians as possible). That's how we operate. Suggesting that Al Qaeda acted legitimately (not even addressing the passenger-airplane part of the argument) and comparing that action to ours is something that belongs on a Saturday Night Live skit.

I cannot see any justification for labelling the World Trade Centres as being legitimate targets. They were, as has been said, significant (but hardly critical) structures in terms of the Economic complex of America, but their economic value if overrated. The crash in the market was not due to the inherent damage caused by the loss of the WTC, but rather by the shock of a massive attack on American soil. If the WTC are a target, then is not a really large shopping centre a legitimate target? How about a small shopping centre?

None of these are economic infrastructure. The loss of any of them has no practical, tangible effect on the American economy, though stock markets do not only react to the tangible and practical.

If we accept the premise that economic infrastructue is a valid target, which is not a premise I am prepared to accept, then the NYSE might be considered a valid target, but not the WTC.


I do not believe Dresden is a valid comparason to anything here. Dresden was a tragedy and in hindsight a completely unecessary one. But hindsight it irrelevant. It should be noted that at the time of Tragedy there was nothng in international law or the codes of the conduct of war which prohibited area bombing, those conventions were signed post-war. Dresden is not relevant here.

IIRC- and Mrs P may prove me wrong on this- didn't we hit Serbian targets of no military value- but thier economic value? Same with Bahgdad? They funded Milosovic and Saddam- and therefore, IIRC, they were legitmate targets?

We did hit the Chinese embassy- I personally think we did it on mistake "on purpose"- I would be willing to bet Clinton DID have a hand in that one-

but being a purely military target- we don't neccesarily just bomb military only targets- do we?

We have bombed power plants- with 0 military personel, pretty much ALL infrastructure- INLCUDING hospitals and schools because "bad guys are hiding behind that structure"- we have bombed churches, and villages where we KNEW there were beaucoup children ON THE OFF CHANCE we MIGHT have got a "bad guy".

I mean, if the analogy of the WTC existed in Iraq pre-invasion, would we have bombed it?

I completely concede to you Mrs P on the issue of using the commercial planes- that IS an OBVIOUS elephant in the room- but I am wanting to speak strictly on the terms of what IS a asymetrical OK target in the US- our bases, after all, are frequently in civilian centers. Those planes were obviously a terroristic exercise, though I understand the strategy.

America is a military power because we are an economic power, and our power resides in our economy- disrupt it for long enough, our military power has to be scaled back- if Al-quaida had continued in this vien, and had the resources- and the inability to confront US military directly- this seems like the strategy I would use.

Since we no longer care about the Geneva convention by GW standards- I am not really caring about the US whining about the Geneva convention while we sanction rendition and torture- it is just too hypocritical and silly for the US leaders to whine abou tthe articles in the Geneva convention when we only obey them when it is conveniant.

In order to have this discussion, I think it is imperative to determine what defines a 'legitimate' target. From the view of the attacker, any target is 'legitimate', else the target would not have been attacked. This is where, IHMO, the difference of opinion lies here. From a terrorist perspective, anything that causes harm and fear amongst the enemy is a legitimate target. From that perspective, the WTC was not only a legitimate target, but perhaps the ideal one. This is why I somewhat scoff at suggestions that our response, or actions beforehand, were similar, though. What would be an equivalent attack on our part? Probably launching nuclear attacks at several prominent Islamic cities. Something whose sole purpose was to inflict as much harm and fear on civilians as possible. Yet, we do just the opposite, seeking to reduce civilian casualties as much as possible. To me, intent makes a lot of diffierence, and I think the two clearly fall on opposite ends of the spectrum.

Okay- intentions aside Hobbes- we lost 3k in the WTC- thier intentions were to kill as many poeple as possible, to dirupt our society and economy, and to force the goverment into knee jerk silliness - they obtained all thier goals-

in our case- we invaded the wrong country, and killed more than 10 times that number in innocent Iraqis, that had nothing to do with the safety or eminent defense of our country, but our intentions were NOT to kill 10 times as many as the WTC- but because our intentions are good, our targets are MORE legitimate than thiers?

Doesn't that sound kinda, oh, beyond the hypocritical and into the realm of buying our own propaganda?

We keep saying "that was collateral damage, the target was legit because of X"- isn't that very close to what the "terrorists" are saying?

Shock and Awe was calculated to produce terror, correct?

Absolutely...but terror amongst who? Why would we have tried to create 'Shock and Awe', and perhaps more importantly, why would we have talked about it? To encourage our enemy to give up...which would create less violence and casualties. Again, if our intent was to produce shock and awe amongst civilians, the appropriate attack would been to nuke several prominent Islamic cities. What we did is nothing like that. I repeat, if one wishes to discuss what is or isn't a legitimate target, one needs to define 'legitimate'. Otherwise, any attack is legitimate from the view of the attacker....else the attack would not have occurred. Most senseless killing is legitimate from the view of that attacker...as is murder, rape, child abductions...anything. Why are these activities condemned, then? Because society has determined a definition that doesn't condone such activities. So, the only way any objective debate on the issue can be conducted is to set forth a societally accepted definition, and see if that attacks fits it. It goes without saying that the attack was legitimate from the viewpoint of those that undertook it, leaving nothing to discuss. So, what is the definition of a 'legitimate' target?

Further, intentions do indeed make a huge difference. Why do you think 'murder' and 'manslaughter' are treated so differently, or even different degrees of murder? In all these cases, the net result is the same...someone is dead. The only difference is intent.

Shock and awe was definately designed to terrorize the general population, I don't think the "bad guys" were terrorized one bit- they had bugged out by then, I am sure. If not after the first bomb landed, shortly thereafter! Immediate diversificaton of your command and control structure is textbook against a superior force. It terrorized the general population, and was intended to do so- no matter what our own propaganda machine says for us.


So, killing 600 thousand Iraqis, directly as a result of our invasion, because we did not "mean" to kill them, is better morally, than say, if an Iraqi family member of one of those dead, say, lit a bomb off that killed 20k innocent civilians, though he wanted more civilians?

I reject intention in the case of war out of hand, when the numbers are so horribly skewed as they are now.

If I wanted to bring the US to it's knees, but did not have the power to confront the US military directly- I would aim directly at our economy, shopping malls, banks, places of enterprise, and hopefully, force Americans from buying anything long enough to sink our economy, which would have it's toll on the military- what is the goverment going to do when there is no revenue anymore?

America hides behind it's civlian economy the way Al-Quaida hides in mosques from the US- it is plausible cover for thier side.

I am not sure why- but America expects those that are truly the victims of foreign policy to fight the army head on- which would be suicide without any benefit to thier side.

As we know, the insurgents that are killing US servicemen now are Iraqis, for the by far and above majority. They don't care about the Geneva convention or our outrage over OUR civilian deaths- but they know America killed thier family.

What better way to get back at the killers of your family than to say, blow up as many Americans, that seem to go along with GWs policies- because, why bother with the military that you can't fight or hurt really?

I think this is a global paradigm shift that is hurting us now- we are buying our own propaganda as the US being the good guys- nothing is more dangerous when trying to win at anything that believing your own press.

It is silly to say that the WTC is NOT a legitimate target because "civilians might be there" amongst the few actual goverment poeple that may be working in that building- while saying that an entire village is an okay target because there "might be some bad guys living there".

First prove the WTC was important to our industrial complex.

Dresden was bombed in the midst of a declared war. The Germans had been lobbing rockets at London for some time. There were military HQs and actual industry in Dresden.

No un uniformed civilians are NEVER legitimate targets. Un uniformed people with guns shooting at you, however, are.

PS - I think from now on I'll just post "What Mrs. Pigpen says" since her answer is better than mine anyway.

Okay- I will address Mrs P's comments then directly

What a 'war lawyer" would say is ALWAYS at a distinct advantage for the guy with the biggest military- in other words- the entire breadth and depth of this argument is "might makes right" and our society is "off the hook" as long as we don't "intend" to kill civilians- no matter if there are 50k+ dead as a direct result of our shooting bullets in thier general direction- of course, always "intending" to hit someone else.

Yes, the planes- you are correct on it's face-

but at this point- the US and Europe and western society in general is writing the rules for roll, as the victor- and then whining when our enemies don't play by our rules.

That being said- I would say a crowded movie theatre would be a pure-terror target, or a daycare or school, as in the Chechnyan incident in Ingushia- that was pure horrible terrorism- but to suggest that the WTC, and other national monuments is NOT a legit target (no matter what western forces say) is kinda silly.

I clearly remember Reagan calling the "contras" "freedom fighters" when, in fact, they were simple terrorists killing off entire villages in order to terrorize them. Those contra types and the right wing death squads Reagan employed were pretty hardened terrorists- but we wrote the rules, and we don't even live by them-

but, the WTC and the pentagon (the most obvious actual miltary target in this case, I think everyone can agree with that one) are prime US targets- if we are truly at war- we should be realistic as to where our power lay, and what is a legit target to kill that power.

I hate war on any level, but this is the reality, and really, we only stick with those very rules when it suits us, and have an EXTREMELY myopic view of the outrage done to us vs the outrage we perform on othes.

I don't think they did this part on purpose- it just worked out this way- but, as a suprise attack, since they attacked so early in the morning- the civilian casualties were far, far far lower than it would have been had they struck at say, 2pm, when there were more than 30 thousand in those buildings! However- that is somewhat of a specious argument- because they obviously didn't time it for civilians sake- they timed it for the flights themselves.

However- Mrs P- we don't give warning to villages we suspect has bad guys, we go ahead and bomb them as sneakily and stealthily as we can, so they won't get away- or are you saying we regularly let them get away so we can warn the village?

Sure- when we planned on dropping more ordinance in a couple weeks than we did in WW2, we give some warning- but, for a major strike against our enemies- it is stupid to give the civilians warning, because the FIRST folks out of that area are the bad guys- don't ya think?

Now- be very clear- I am NOT justifying the attack on the US, or the WTC or anything else- and I think the entire Middle Eastern culture- even seperate of Islam (I know some Iranian mormons, of all things, that have no difference in thier atttitudes and culture as an Iranian Islamic extremist- it is cultural as much as religoius)- the Middle eastern culture is oppressive in the extreme, and it would not bother me if it dried up and went away, though without a genocide to perform this drying- - but, if I were a commander against a country as powerful as the US, the WTC would be a first target, as it is not as well defended, is part of the US power base, and has the most effect.

In Dresden, we changed the rules as soon as we won, is basically what we are saying- same with the nukes- we used it, and then said no one else could- that is our pattern, and we whine when others don't do as we say, instead doing as we do?

What gives the idea the WTC was anymore important to the US "power base" than say 1 Wall Street? I mean other than the obvious height differences... The fact that the WTC was not "well defended" is a clue it's not a military target. Your argument is getting weird. I mean, look, my house isn't very well defended is it a legitimate target? I make money out of it sometimes. I even employ people at it occiasionally! My goodness I'm part of the US Power base. I need to install Phalanx CIWSs on my roof (which would be really cool).

Really- even a military base in America isn't all that well defended- heck, I could sneak on the one here in a few minutes if I chose too- but, if I am moving heavy ordinance towards it- they would get warning I am sure- but, in a single act of destruction, as in a raid- I could do serious harm to some hard targets and get away- or, our southern borders are not well defended as well- hell, even the pentagon was not well defended!

We rely on the insular nature of our country, not really hard defense preperations against terrorist attacks, really.

Just like an attack on the prez, it is really hard to plan well for one smart, but crazy, terrorist.

To use "it is well defended" is well, rather fantasy land.

Okay- we destroy "infrastructure" in countries we want to bring to thier knees- are you telling me the WTC is not "infrastructure"? They are not "military targets" but "infrastructure" now-

see that is our propaganda- when they do it to us it is "terrorist attacks against civilian targets"- but when we do it to them it is "killing infrastructure that could support the regime"

In, I believe, 1999, we blew up Serbia- big time. 70 days of bombings IIRC (Mrs P- does this sound right?)- we bombed civilian AND industrial "infrastructure" that had NO direct military advantage- EXCEPT that they supported the Slobodon money machine. Why would we bomb banks in Serbia ya think? Dry up his money supply perhaps?

I am sorry- much as you wish it not to be- ANY infrastructure that aids the administration, even indirectly, is certainly a target- now- DELIBERATELY making sure that there is maximum civilian casualties would be "illegal" in our terms- but, if we label it "infrastructure" it is okay- you agree?

The enemies tactic if you will is not conventional in any sense but of course can be rationalized for a debate purpose. Basically its just a few things overall, observation and planning then of course execution, its all pretty normal there but for such groups its really the true backbone of such, because for what its worth they use populations in many regards for such, as a mask and a place to spring attacks. Such groups do not have the ability to fight a conventional war, so there are not existing in a conventional sense, such as having some HQs all neat and laid as maybe we or some other nations army would.

SO say, two people, sit in a major city, scout the city for everything you can think, such as what can they use there against us. For instance the first WTC attack, nothing in that entire attack I imagine came to those people from overseas, most all of it was probably researched and purchased in the U.S, such duel use technologies are over abundant to say the least, such as a big truck that can be rented.

Being a prime tactic is simply just to kill what is there enemy, and the fact they cant sustain a fight against a military in a conventional sense, like the U.S military, they resort to such means which could be called easily terrorism, though I simply think it falls short of the true reality a bit, I don’t think terrorist attacks are really bent as much as changing our ideology overall as it may simply be just attacks to kill us is all.

Overall simply put if you can keep observation killed, the rest never comes to exist, save for poorly planned versions that have issues when it comes to execution of such. IN my experience with people from other nations, part of there counterterrorism methods is to basically deny in all forms observation, one simple method is to simply keep everything moving and restrict as much as you can information in the open about anything you may have or do. Such a tight pattern overall it seems made it easier for those people to basically boot anyone that even as so much stepped out of such a line slightly, its overall crude and brutal but hey.

In iraq such is not afforded to us, it would be like asking the police force to finally end crime, its simply a giant fallacy of rational thinking about the reality of anything really when taken into account the reality of something, such as crime, or terrorists.

Terrorism can be combated of course, but intelligence methods employed for security and of course offensively, far better then simply landing troops, because again you have to be able to find these people and they don’t want to be found, and existing within a culture they know so well it makes it just that much harder, like why say a police officer could not go out tomorrow and identify all the criminals in America, or the police force for that matter. I mean they probably could if let go, but the reality is many innocents would probably be eaten alive in such a process and the gains in combating crime would be minimal, hey its a match.

WTC was a prime target in there view of things. It was an economic center, full of people, that would require a grand plan to pull off, and of course it would aid in spreading the idea that radical Islam is capable of being something of a force.

OK I think there are two distinct problems in this conversation:

1) We're not talking about the same thing. If you want this to be an act of WAR (which has rules and such) the WTC is not a legitimate target. I say WTC is a civilian entity and not in anyway a piece of any infrastructure. Despite exciting rhetoric about this being "War" (spouted by Bushco) it's not. You can't have a war against an idea. WTC was an act of terrorism and this time instead of treating like a crime Bushco went after Afghanistan - although I think we can all agree Saudi Arabia would have been the best place to anhilate.

2) You're under the delusion that the WTC held some secret "power structure" in the US. It doesn't. It was one of many buildings. Yes they were very tall. THAT'S what made them great and easy targets. If AQ was looking to take the US out financially the NYSE was the place to hit.

Hmm- I hear what you are saying- and I don't neccesarily disagree with you in entirety- I don't think the Geneva convention, and the US's articles of war really have considered "unconventional war" as a war- and I think that has alot to do with our loss in Vietnam, and our losing in Iraq.

One of the large problems with this debate, or any other on America- as Moif pointed out- is our extreme views that America is not only the center of the universe- but the source of all good in the world, and we need to disabuse ourselves of this fantasy.

The WTC was larger than the financial centers we killed in Bosnia and Iraq, but we did target those areas, in Serbia and Iraq- do you disagree?

Now- I keep saying this- because folks tend to think I am justifying the behaviors of bad guys here- I think those that attacked us on 9/11, everyone involved are evil scum and should die- just to be clear

Okay- moot point #1- they used civilians as weapons by hijacking those planes- okay- that makes them terrorists

#2- they are not even a country, or heck, even a single organization- so, it is not a 'war" in our usual sense- in fact, that makes them no different than Timothy McViegh- they are just some bad guys with a chip on thier shoulder- in what we know about the actual hijackers- in fact , as far as I know- they had never had anything done negatively to them or thier families directly by the US- in fact, living on our soil, going to strip clubs and going out drinkin'. - so, these are not die hard family men looking for some revenge for the killing of thier families- so, that this part was terrorism is moot too-

I wanted to put that, even though off topic a bit- to seperate out all the elements EXCEPT the WTC as a legit target.

I firmly believe, that, even in a complex that size, say, in Serbia, and there was even ONE office of slobodon's in there that aided and abbetted him in some small way- we would have bombed it- and, had a person of "high value" been in there- we would have given 0 warning as well- even if we were to kill 10k poeple to get that target- THAT is SOP in this "war". We would level a village, or even a city, if we had hard evidence that OBL was there- I have no doubt about that.

The difference is- we would call it "collateral damage" when we killed "civilian infrastructure to degrade the ability of Slobodon's economy to support his military"

In fact- we did hit some targets by "accident"- Chinese embassy anyone?

It completely depends from which angle you are looking at the situation. From my own western point of view, the attack on the WTC was an atrocious and illegal act of violence. Attacking innocent civilians who are working in a non-military building is never a justfied act. But this is my personal opinion, which is based on Western ethics and probably shared by everyone else on this forum. On the other hand if you look at it from Al-Qaida's side than the WTC was a perfectly legitimate target. The goals of these terrorist, who declared a holy war against the U.S. and the rest of the western world, is to cause as much mayhem and panic with very little military resources. Hitting the famous WTC, an icon of U.S. economic power in the world, with two planes, which resulted in the collapse of two enormous towers leaving many people dead or injured and left the city of New York in total panic as well as the rest of western world, was a highly effective attack and a huge succes for this comparatively small militant group of Muslims fundamentalists. For them the ethical question regarding the deaths of innocent civilians is not important. They belief the means justify the end.



To my understanding it is longtime established that the Dresden bombing was not justified and is considered a black page in history. As with many things one should try to avoid making analogies with WWII when discussing present day conflicts.

Considering the importance of the WTC to our industrial complex- was bombing the WTC a legit target?
Based upon its importance to our industrial complex, the WTC is not a legitimate target. A nuclear power plant, Grand Coulee Dam, Hoover Dam, the Holland Tunnel, etc, all are much more important to our industrial complex, and the loss of them would do far more actual damage to our industrial complex than the destruction of the WTC.

If no, why was the bombing of Dresden legit" in comparison?
Because Dresden was a transportation hub.

Are the civilians in that building legit targets if you consider the WTC a legit target?
Civilians are only legitimate targets in their own right, regardless of where they may be. A child in the middle of a munitions factory is not a legitimate target, whereas a non-uniformed, unarmed IED maker in the midst of a class of kindegartners is..., the question becomes, is the "collateral damage" acceptable? Is destroying the munitions factory acceptable even if the child is killed? Is taking out Mr. IED acceptable even though the kiddies may get waxed? In short, the question is no longer, are they legitimate targets, but can we legitimately take them out right now.

Now, I'm going to once again be the Kontrary Kid.

Before you continue, I want you to consider this question: Are the White Houe and the United States Capitol legitimate targets?





















My guess is, most of you would answer "Yes", even though the vast majority of folks in both buildings are non-military, unarmed civilians.

The WTC was a legitimate target, on an ethical and moral basis. It was legitimate because of its symbolic importance (which has been vastly overrated by the attackers), but more importantly, it was legitimate precisely because it contained thousands of Americans. Every American citizen who can vote is a legitimate target. This, my friends, is one of the downsides to democracy.

One of the points that we made repeatedly when we went into Iraq was that we were not going to war against the Iraqi people, but rather against the government. Our actions, our restraint, demonstrates that this is true. We could have, like we did in WW2, bombed the entire country back into the Stone Age. We easily could have obliterated their military, rather than allowing most of it to melt away. Aside from political and image reasons, we refrained from doing so because precisely because it was our contention that Saddam was a dictator, and that the people were not free to make their own choices.

Contrast that with our situation. "A government of the people, by the people, and for the people." We are responsible for what our government does, therefore it is just as legitimate to attack the WTC as it would be to attack Congress or the Pentagon. Now, a reasonable argument can be made regarding proportionality, but as a simple binary Yes/No question, we're legitimate targets.

The doctrine of not attacking the innocent is based on just that, innocence. If you want to claim the right to have some say in the activities of this country, then you also must accept the responsibility. And one of those responsibilities is to acknowledge that the Congress and the President are acting on our behalf, however well or poorly they may fulfill their duties. As a decision maker, (i.e., you have a vote), you are a legitimate target. There are, of course, many more targets of much higher value (Congressfolk come to mind), as far more decision making capacity has been vested in them, but it is our decision making capacity that has been delegated.

Simply put, those who make the decisions are legitimate targets. The ethical doctrine of using the minimum amount of force necessary comes into play on the "right now" question, but all that addresses is the timing.

Ahh, wonderful! I'll be glad to forward this to any who complain of any collateral damage from any U.S. attacks, then, as their concern is clearly misplaced. Following this same logic, anyone who contributes in any fashion to any terrorist or terrorist activity is certainly a legitimate target. The terrorist message is generally propogated from the local imams, so anybody attending worship service is similarly a target. Anyone providing any aid or comfort to said terrorists would be equally guilty. Clearly, terrorists aren't going to stay anywhere they're not suported--the chance of their being turned in would be too great. So, it is essentially impossible that anyone killed in any attack on a terrorist doesn't qualify as a legitimate target. I guess this is just one of the downsides to being an Arab Muslim. I'm glad this issue has been resolved, and we can remove the restrictions we have unnecessarily placed on ourselves!

If you'll note, I've already addressed the matter of where individuals don't have any control in the distinction between the Iraqi people (subjects of a dictator) and Saddam's (said dictator) regime. You may, of course, ignore the distinction if it amuses you.

Yes, if they contribute willingly. And even if their contribution isn't willing, they may be a legitimate target if the threat is great enough. A toddler wearing a remotely detonated bomb vest waddling happily towards a railcar filled with chlorine gas next to a packed stadium is a legitimate target, and can be blown away if that's the only reasonable means of eliminating the threat the little tyke unwittingly poses. (minimum use of force)

Only if they're actively supporting the rabble rousing imam.

Duh, of course!, if the aid and comfort is given willingly and with knowledge that it will be used in support of terrorism. Giving aid and comfort is exactly why we blew the hell out of the Taliban. They didn't attack us, they just sheltered those who did...
Its that whole concept of "agency." I don't recall for sure, but I believe that your namesake's namesake discussed it in his seminal volume on the human condition...

Sure, if you utterly disregard the role that agency plays. Then we can slaughter the kindegartners in my example with a clear conscience as well. Oh, right, I already explained the limitations ....

btw, if we did adopt, with implacable intent, your charicature of my argument, then we would very shortly either run out of terrorists to kill, or be fighting the entire Arab world.

edited to add:

Interesting argument, Bikerdad.

I believe that is the exact rationale of Al Qaeda (and most terrorist movements). They place as much direct pain on the population as they can in an attempt to sway public opinion and shift policy. It is an asymetrical warfare tactic, and effective. Most directly and obviously it is happening in Iraq right now.

But by that reasoning, democratic populations are less entitled to protections than the populations of countries with other styles of government. But it was representative, democratic-style governments that set up those protections in the first place. A paradox.

*******************
Edited to add:

CR, it is difficult to address all of your points without writing a volume here. It would be necessary to delve into tangential issues regarding some pretty basic concepts to human understanding. Things like intent, why it matters, law, why it exists, the difference between various types of government, international, and individual law, why governments exit to begin with, ect. I don't have the time.

To summarize the most direct points, if we have actionable intelligence we target the Al Qaeda meeting, yes we will target the meeting if it is determined that we can do so with little civilian cost. No we don't raze a neighborhood, or level a large occupied building in the hopes of getting an Al Qaeda suspect. You eliminate the entire concept of proportionality in your argument.

Let’s take the Iraq war for an example of how we do things: First, an inventory of all potential targets for coalition forces was vetted by judge advocates and other legal advisers to ensure compliance with international war law. Certain operations directed against Saddam Hussein's regime were deemed off-limits because they targeted civilians or risked producing disproportionate damage to civilians and civilian infrastructure. Then, the Pentagon enlisted UN agencies to help draw up a "no-strike" list of thousands of schools, mosques, sensitive cultural sites, hospitals, water-treatment facilities, power plants, and other elements of civilian infrastructure. And you are asserting that, by comparison, the WTC was a legitimate target using “our rules”? It isn't.

You can make the argument that Al Qaeda has no choice but to kill as many innocent people as possible in order to try to compete with our might and force our citizens to cow, true. That is in a nutshell, the most basic justification for all criminality... From nations to individuals. Usually it is used by the offenders rather than the potential victims, though.

And I have to add... you believe that the passenger planes in question weren’t chosen because they would hit in the peak hours when they could inflict the most civilian damage? Nine in the morning is hardly an off-hour. Ever hear of “red eye” flights? They were chosen for that specific purpose, so they could hit when and where they would inflict the most impact of terror. You can call it asymmetrical warfare, and you could say that they did this because they cannot fight as effectively by our rules, and I’ll agree with you. But to say that the intent was not to inflict the highest number of civilian casualties possible simply flies in contradiction to all evidence, logic, rationale, and, for that matter, what the organization itself has publicly, verbally espoused.

Edited to add a link that pertains (tangentially) to this topic. Opinio Juris is going to have the State Department legal adviser John Bellinger write a series of essays on such topics as treatment of detainees, international humanitarian law, and sovereign immunity during the coming week. Should be interesting, especially reading the responses to his entries. Lots of lawyers (especially war lawyers) participate on that site.

Mrs P- look at the list of businesses destroyed in 9/11-

http://www.tbtf.com/unblinking/arc/2001-09a.htm

Now- imagine if Saddam had a complex like the WTC- with the non-western equivilent of those businesses- I think we would have brought down that complex as a top 5 high value target- banks, aviation technology, SEVERAL TV stations- that alone makes it a legit target BTW- that is both command and control AND propaganda propagation- we in fact, as I recall- targeted the TV stations FIRST.

Several airline corporatet offices- though not centralized enough to damage an actual airline in the US, they are the #1 method of moving troops- commercial airlines?

HQ for a couple utilities- I mean, that is so prime that was a UBER high value target in Bosnia

What I am saying is this- there were so many high value tenents in that building that, were the situation reversed, and, had Saddam had the equivilent- we would have killed that building and as many poeple we could in it- because those folks are "command and control"- OR vital to the running of civilian business with DIRECT link to Saddam's power structure- not to mention the plethora of goverment offices-

and, IIRC, goverment offices are ALWAYS fair game, civilians or no.

Mrs P- "war lawyers"- well, thier entire job is CYA and plausible deniability.

I do think another subject thread needs to be started as far as a spin off thread-

I mean, if the west and the US get to write the war laws- and our enemies break our laws- how legit is that?

Again, there is the complete difference of intent. While it may be that if such a building existed in Iraq we might have targeted it (can't say for sure, not being aware of the parameters of the vetting process Mrs. P describes), WHY would we target it? WHY are some of the institutions you mention here, such as TV stations, considered valid targets? Because they impact, as you state, command and control, and are therefore germane to military attacks. On the other hand, WHY does Al Queda choose their targets? Purely for their terror impact. What military movements was Al Queda conducting that necessitated attacking the WTC? None. In fact, it clearly had the exact opposite effect, greatly impeding their ability to move about, as it brought drastically increased focus on them. The WTC was targeted for purely terror intent. It was the biggest target they could feasibly attacks. As I have said, if we were to do the same, then nuking several prominent cities would surely be the equivalent.

I would disagree with those here who claim the WTC was an insignificant economic target. Look at the effects the attack had. Hundreds of billions of dollars were lost in the stock market, and the airline industry (on which our economy is so strongly based) was almost thrust into bankruptcy. I would argue that attacking the WTC caused more economic impact to the U.S. than all of our attacks did to Iraq.

Considering the importance of the WTC to our industrial complex- was bombing the WTC a legit target?
WTC is a civilian “business’ center and not a military target. An “industrial complex” is where they build war material, such as bombs, ammunition, nukes, planes, guns, tanks etc. Workers there are civilians but they become targets because they are working in the ‘defense” industry. The terrorists targeted the civilians, that is clear. They consider American civilians, including women and children legit targets and have said so from day one. This is why IMO giving them any Geneva Convention rights is ludicrous.


If no, why was the bombing of Dresden legit" in comparison?

Dresden was a military target because of war factories. That said the resulting fire storm that resulted killed thousands of “civilians”. There was a lot of this in WWII by the Germans, the Brits and the US. Hitler started it with the attacks on London – it got IMO out of hand after that. Also remember that without the precision bombers and bombs we have today we would send 200-500 planes to destroy a factory complex (today 10-20 planes) and those planes would blanket the area. Civilian deaths in high numbers were a certainty. Same for Japan.
Killing Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is a good example. We took out his house with 2 bombs in the center of a residential neighborhood. In the old days we would have leveled the entire area and might have missed him while inflicting hundreds of civilian casualties. The reality is that without the precision weapons we would not have even tried from the air at all.

In the same vein, some dead old white people wrote the majority of the laws we have now. If we break them, we go to jail. How "legit" is that? I suppose we could toss away governments all together and just make up our own rules, but the outcome would be pretty unsavory. Would you prefer Sharia Law law to the GC? How about some chosen immam could write up the international war laws? Then Al Qaeda would be safe (as believers) and all "nonbelievers" would be valid targets as infidels. Would justice be served better that way?

True that- however- we pretty much wrote those laws in a manner that pretty much gives the advantage to a big military, and makes it a crime to fight in any manner that, basically, the US can't really defend against- all I am saying (really who wants to live under islamic law, I am against a theocracy of any kind) we right the rules for war- and become all indignent when our rules aren't followed.

TV stations are legitimate targets ALWAYS because of thier ability to transmit information- both propaganda and actual military info.

The fact that there are several in those towers makes it a very, very high priority target, by ANY military idea towards strategy-

Ted- you really need to read more than some right wing blogs about WW2. Dresden has been pretty much universally known to be a civilian terror bombing- to terrorize the population.

We did it first- then made it illegal.

Same with nukes- we dropped two (the only country on the planet, remember, that has USED nukes in anger- of all the countries on earth- we are the only ones to use that against civilian populations- duh?) then decided that was a horrible thing to do to poeple- but not before we killled a few hunded thousand civilians- remember?

We (the West) wrote the laws in accordance with fighting a WAR with sides and uniforms not to the advantage of "big military." Yes we get upset when people use children and women as shields. We get upset when people attack hospitals. We get upset when enemies don't declare themselves and fight from Mosques or Churches where we aren't supposed to shoot. These rules are set up for CIVILIZED NATIONS to engage in war.

Seeing as how you've just latched onto the TV stations I'll assume you just found out about them. Your case isn't getting anymore compelling.

On Dresden - I suspect the London bombings were done by "us". I mean the Germans are, afterall, part of the West.

Nukes Dropped In Anger... sounds like a name for an Emo band that is as we speak in a bathroom painting their nails black and cutting themselves to emote... it however has NO realtion to reality of "The Bomb."

CR I though the Geneva Convention had pretty much covered the “rules” of war – agree? We did not make them up. As far as TV on WTC you have to be joking. You don’t kill thousands of civilians to temporarily interrupt TV (in some limited area)! Esp. since it serves no purpose unless you are invading.


Hitler “did it first” unless you count the 2 bombers who got lost over Germany and dropped a couple of bombs. The V2 attacks on London were terror attacks on civilians. Likewise the Japs tried to float balloons over with explosives. It failed but the intent was to terrorize population.

The nukes on Japan were legit in my opinion. Both cities were heavy industrial and the alternative was regular bombing with just as many casualties.


The point is moot in any case since no country in WWII complied with the “rules of war”. The Japs were by far the worst. They executed thousands of Americans or marched/starved them to death. As for our current enemies – well if I have to tell you they murder civilians and violate “rules of war” as well as rules of humanity you are missing something.

Thank you for seeing this thread for what it is, Hate America First. It's just another well orchestrated attempt to question the morality of the US but not the Taliban, al Qaeda, Hezbellah or every other terror mind group. If I answered yes to Question 3, I could then justify dropping nukes on Baghdad, Tehran or any other threatening target.

It's WAR, you know? Nothing is legitimate in war, and nothing is illegitimate. War is not about legitimacy or humanity or morality, it's about winning, and if necessary, destroying your enemy in the process. Terror is merely a tactic of war. Fire-bombing Dresden and Tokyo was terror. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terror, emboldened by racism. So what, sez I? It all helped to win the war. Each one was an irretreivable moral disaster, but so is ALL war.

The March to the Sea was terror, for crying out loud, but as Sherman said, it is well that those who choose war should receive it.

But now our that our enemies unleash terror against us, we should hardly reprehend them for their use of an effective tactic. What, were the Japanese to blame for taking us by surprise? The problem with these enemies, as with the Japanese, is only to defeat them.

The Geneva Convention is very VERY clear about this...

If you dont wear a uniform with a distinguishing mark and stay away from civilians while fighting you forfeit ALL protections according to the third GC....

The punishment for being a non-lawful combatant is death....





so which of the GCs cover the rules of war ?

1= sick and wounded on the battlefield
2=sick and wounded at sea
3= P.O.W.s
4=Civilians

and if you think for a moment that the 4th GC covers these guys

Was the WTC a legit target for whom, cruisingram? And what exactly is your point? I don't understand what you're driving at other than some half-baked attempt to legitimize the Jihadists in some way and at the same time discredit our military (and otherwise) response to these fanatics.

Was Desden legit? Of course. So was Tokyo, Berlin, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki.

In war, all means are legit. And, one can ONLY be on one side of the conflict.

It is not that in war, all means are legitimate; it is that in war, legitimacy is irrelevant. One does in war what one thinks one needs to do to win. That includes the infliction of mass destruction and mass terror. Dresden, and the other cases you cite, were unmistakable examples of terror.

"Terrorism" has come to mean the practice of terror by forces not associated with any state, but these forces have no monopoly on the use of terror, and even today, despite their best efforts, they practice it on a much smaller scale than nation-states do. Examples: Russia in Chechnia, Israel in the occupied territories, the United States in Iraq (hmm, it would seem that the most notable victims of officially inflicted terror are Muslims...). You do not bomb and machine-gun civilian-occupied areas from the skies, or employ heavy artillery against them, if you do not intend one of the consequences of your actions to be terror.

So, since we both recognize that terror is a tactic of war, what is your concern with the "legitimacy" of jihadists and the "credit" owing to our war efforts? From the viewpoint of those who attacked us, this is war, that is all. The means that one or the other side uses to make war are not a basis for chosing sides. War is about something political, not about how properly to make war.

Was the Japanese attack against Pearl Harbor legitimate? What possible difference would it make one way or the other? I mean, when was the last time anyone took such hand-wringing over "legitimacy" seriously, 1914 with the Lusitania and the suppose rape of Belgian nuns? By now I would have hoped we understood war a little better. It is not a game for gentlemen or an arena for saints, it is simply hell on earth.

Do you object to the practice of war by forces not associated with any state? Well welcome, not to the 21st century, but to 1808, which is approximately when the Spanish partisans started fighting Napoleon in Spain.

A few points, if I may....

The intent of the balloons wasn't to terrorize the population (as we understand it today), but rather to tie up massive American resources fighting huge forest fires in the West. The balloons were carrying incendiary devices.

One thing that hasn't been directly addressed, although it has been tossed out there casaully and left to lie in the street like the huge rotting elephant it is, is the perspective of the attackers. We cannot dismiss it as "they're simply terrorists, they'll consider anybody a legitimate target." Such is not the case. Even under Islam, there exist certain limitations regarding targets. The majority of those limitations are moot if the prospective "target" is an infidel....

So now we have two grounds of legitimacy for the folks in the WTC. First, as citizens of a democracy, they are the decisionmakers, and all decisionmakers are legitimate targets in war. Second, as infidels, they're targets.

You do realize you're making a very good case for Islamo-cide right? I mean if any citizen of "The West" is fair game then killing every person who worships Allah is a viable answer.

The WTC is not a legitimate target under any circumstances.

This appears to me to be just so much huffing and puffing from someone who incorrectly supposes that we are waging a war over the issue of how war should properly be waged. Although this has been the Administration's rhetoric and many people accept it, and it is indeed implicit in the expression "War on Terror," it is really quite droll to suppose that we would wage a war to ensure that future wars were fought only in a certain, "legitimate" way. Wars are waged for political reasons, and it appears to me that the Admistration's rhetoric is designed to obsure from the typical American the actual nature of our enemy and his purposes for fighting. If the people better understood that, they might better understand that the enemy is fighting a defensive war and, from his point of view at least, a war caused by the United States.

But further, I really wish someone would take note of the obvious fact that legitimacy is a concept that has no relevance in war. Oh I know, it often comes up in rhetoric that one side or the other uses to demonize its adversary; after losing several battles to Hannibal, the Romans promoted the view that he was an immoral trickster. But in fact, one generally does in war what one needs to do to win, irrespective of its moral enormity. That is why an atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, for example, notwithstanding that it brought hell to earth on an unimagined scale. For the fact is, war always brings hell on earth whether in small ways or, increasingly these days, in very big ones. And to stand in the ruins of the World Trade Center or of Hiroshima and ask whether this act of destruction was legitimate is a monumental category mistake.

Having said that, I will concede that there are occasions in war where one has the option of doing something a little less destructive to one's notions of humanity, and still winning. But those occasions are rare, and they are even more rarely enjoyed by the weaker side. So as a general rule, it holds that in war, one does whatever one needs to do to win.

Then you're saying it would be OK to kill anyone, anywhere who practices Islam in order to "win". It would be fully legitimate to walk into Mosques and just let the bullets fly.

This is precisely WHY the WTC is NOT a legitimate target, because if it is then "the West" can have no moral quandary killing any and all Muslims. Using the logic presented here that the WTC and its people are all viable targets then so too would be anyone who prays to Allah. Any of them could at anytime become an enemy of "the West." Certainly "the West" could invoke terror upon Islam with our massive firepower and technological superiority.

You can't let Islam off the hook morally and legally because they can't fight back in a globally accepted way. If the rules don't apply to them then they don't apply to us and I am not sure "the West" wants to kill a billion people.

Would you please understand that "OK" does not apply in war? Or if it does, whatever is likely to produce victory is OK?

As to killing any and all Muslims, that is a pretty good description of what many Muslims think we are doing today, in the Middle East. But as a explicit tactic, it would be idiotic. We have not been attacked by the whole Muslim world, but by a particular subset of Muslims. Our wantonly attacking Muslims in general would would not help us to win our fight, but would, on the contrary, enflame the Muslim world (indeed, the whole world) against us, and thus would make our eventual defeat of these people more difficult, and perhaps impossible.

Analogous logic was applied by those who attacked Manhattan, only they concluded that the entirety of the U.S. nation, and indeed the whole West, was their enemy in a very real, ongoing Middle Eastern war. It was desirable (to them) to commence their counter-attack (as they saw it) by striking a powerful blow against the United States, maximizing American pain and rallying millions of Muslims to their cause. I believe also that part of the objective was so much to enflame the U.S. as to call forth an American crusade (as they would perceive it) against Islam. And it all happened, and the crusade is what you see in Afghanistan and Iraq.

So in all respects, they succeeded beyond their most hopeful imaginings. But is was war, waged for definite political purpose, namely, to get our forces out of the Middle East, to weaken our support for oppressive (as they see them) regimes there, and our support of the quintessential enemy, Israel. And in war, as I have said, one employs the tactics most conducive to one's eventual victory. I am sure they had nothing personal against the people in the two towers, any more than Truman had against the people of Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

Finally I can assure you that widespread acceptance of your view that Islam itself is the problem would be very satisfactory to the enemy, who wants very much to cause a world war between Islam and the West.

Vladimir it is not my view that Islam is the problem. It is my view that if anything goes in war as you advocate then hey... ANYTHING goes. As I said earlier, I don't think "the West" is ready to kill a billion people.

And that's why we may lose. Anyhow, we wouldn't have to kill a billion. Half a billion tops. Apostasy will be rampant after a few hundred million.

In these callous remarks, you demonstrate an enthusiasm for war that is unfortunately typical of Americans, who among all peoples of the earth, understand war the least. Americans think that war means bombs falling on other people's cities. That's why they thought it was a national disaster when they lost two whole towers, and that this pinprick warranted reconstitution of their government, and extraordinary curtailment of the civil liberties that they affect to love so much.

Oh dear me, some buildings were destroyed. What a world-transforming disaster. Tell that to the Iraqis. Or the Palestinians. Or the Serbians. Or the Panamanians. Or the Lybians. Or the Cambodians. Or the Vietnamese.

That's completely ridiculous. You frame an argument that anything goes in War and whatever must be done to win is fair game and then try twist your framed argument into an America is Bad conversation?

I call foul! (Actually I call something else but I can't here.)

You made this ludicrous "anything goes" in war (and it doesn't) argument. If we were following your rules BikerDad's (clearly sarcastic) remarks would be well in the bounds of your argument. The fact that the "bad guys" don't have the means to kill half a billion people is about the only thing stopping them. We in "the West" do have the means to kill half a billion people, we're just civilized and moral enough not to.

BaphometsAdvocate


Vladimir is not advocating , (if he doesn't mind me speaking for me, as understand it) He is not expressing what he wants, he is expressing what is.

Question: 1

Why have we not said equivically we will NEVER use nukes unless attacked first with Nukes.


The reason... because if we ever feel that a nuke is needed to achieve our goal... we are willing to use them.

There was a debate about the use of Nukes in Hiroshima... most people in that debate pretty much said... yeah it was o.k. to do it.

Think about the revolutionary war when open field line shoot outs were the "honorable" way to fight. What did the founding fathers do??

Baphomets, you and many others simply like to play this little mind game with yourself.. no matter how many people die, whether it be military or civilians, your a good guy. I said it before, I'll say again...

This isn't G.I. Joe!! The enemy is not Cobra. What leader of a country from Hitler, to Saddam, to G.W. Bush, to Tony Blair, to OBL doesn't think they are the good guys?? Which leader does not have "followers" willing to "sacrifice" for "The cause" for the good of "their people"

Which group of people does not use propaganda?? Whether it be die for your King, Die for your religion, or Die for your nation??

So now to you say we follow "rules of war" What if the Osama was to say "O.K. new rule!! No airplanes or artillary allowed." Would we follow that?? Admittedly, the question I am asking you has to seem absurd. Because we use what weapons serve the purpose.

Do you remember directly before the Iraq war. When people were arguing that the war went against international law. Do you remember what many conservatives to include the President, and liberals were saying? Something like... "No U.N. is going to tell us whether we can defend our sovereign country" And Americans were eating it up... MMMM-MMM good!!

Translation:

International law matter when you are in power.

How many nations are on the security council?? How many are pemanent?? Is it as many as countries in the world?? Is it even a tenth?? Yet, you and others truly pretend and hide behind some mythical rule of war.

Rules of war only apply to people who say they follow the rules of war. International law only applies to those who say they follow international law and only when they choose to follow International law.

And just like Vladimir... I'm not advocating, I'm say what is.

Look we're economically crippling Cuba, but they are no military threat to us. They simply chooose to have a socialist government. What is international law going to do to us. Nothing. Where is the Justice?? Doesn't exist.

Is the WTC a legit target.

To me no, to some yes... final result "yes" it was a legit target because it was hit.

Are insurgent bomb makers or planners legit targets while sitting at home full of their family or while having a meeting in an apartment complex with othe civilian....

To me no, to some yes... final result "yes" they are legit targets because they were hit.


Basically regardless of what side you are on.. if there is someone to legitimize or rationalize why killing civilians is appropriate then the target is legitimate to someone. So now just look on the board and see who rationalizes and accepts the neccessity of civilian deaths and lump them all into one group.

Actually not because it aptly illustrates the fallacy of your own argument. It is in fact the argument you're making. "Rules are there aren't any rules, because I say so." By your reasoning, what Ted Bundy did was not a crime because he wouldn't deem his own actions a crime. Who cares what the law states? He would have written it differently.



Actually, had there been a formal condemnation by the UN we likely wouldn't be having this argument. That would have made the war illegal. There wasn't one so your point is moot.



Interesting people you'd be lumping together with the last. Gandhi would be sitting next to Attila the Hun.

No. No, no, no. No.

Good grief. There are rules in wars. If we're going to assume that AQ declared war on the US then the WTC are NOT legitimate targets! The last thing any country on the planet wants to do against the US is throw away the rules of war. We have enough fire power and industry to kill any number of people you can throw at us.

But we don't. We are not monsters. We are not cold blodded killers even when we need to be.

AQ did not declare War on the US. It's sexy to think so but it simply is not true. AQ did attack the US in ways that are simply criminal.

If you'd like to imagine that AQ is equal to a soverign nation and if AQ was at war with us the WTC are still NOT legitimate targets. They simply are NOT legitimate targets.

To some bloodthirsty jihadist are they? I'm sure they are. The same way people wanted to turn the entire Middle East into glass that we could go get the oil from in a century or so felt that was legitimate. If we're going to leave the rules of war/engagement up to the loonies then we mightas well not have them.

I suspect strongly that you feel grievous crimes have been committed in Abu Gharib but worry little about the Daniel Pearl's of the world. If you want "the West" and by proxy America to be the bad guy you'll find what you need you just can't compare the acts to any other nation on Earth. In a game of moral equivalance America is going to come out looking pretty good most of the time.

The World Trade Center is not an industrial complex, not a hub of commerce and nothing more than a really big office building full of secretaries, maintenance men, wait staff and a couple of extremely rich people.

First let me comment on your first and second point, starting with the second point. I swear I feel like I am "A few good men" I'm Tom Cruise and your Jack Nicholson.

Any ways to my point. You state that I make a moot point because if the UN had made a formal condemnation of the war we wouldn't be having this argument. The implication seems to be had such a condemnation came forth we be a rule abiding nation would have played it "fair". Now I don't want to say that's laughable but......

The United Nations General Assembly has voted overwhelmingly for an end to the United States' 40-year-old economic embargo against Cuba.



Now I'm not trying to take us off debate to talk about Cuba. However, (comma, pause for effect) this is a classic case and point. I'm not sure if you are trying to mislead me, or whether you are simply deluding yourself... but there it is in Black and white for you to read. REGARDLESS of what the UN votes or condemns... we do what we want.

Which is why my point is not moot and your statement about "if the UN formally condemns..." is simply a red herring. If we don't follow the "rules" for the past 12 years over Cuba, what makes you think we'd follow the rules in Iraq.

Now, to you first point.
Do you follow the laws of Saudi Arabia. Do we follow the of the UN. Answer... no and no. And that is how my reasoning works. Why did Ted Bundy go to jail?? For murder. How was Ted Bundy able to kill people if it was against the law. Because the law was irrelevant(to Ted of course), when Ted Bundy no longer felt bound to them. That is how my reasoning works.



Again, you misunderstand. It's not the people you lump together it the people of certain philosophies. Humans are not static, but dynamic. We change. Tomorrow some islamic suicide bomber could blow up my daughter's school killing or maiming her. I could change my whole thinking around to ..."kill' em all they're evil" Then I would be in the same set of mind of some father who had a bomb dropped on his house by some US bomber and now thinks... "kill 'em all, they're all evil" it could happen. Now do you understand how I am lumping people together.

Do you take offense by me lumping people who thinks its necessary to kill civilians to obtain an objective to people who thinks its necessary to kill civilians to obtain an objective. If so, why not get out of that group of people... if you're in it at all.

BaphometsAdvocate



Under what... the Geneva Convention??? When did OBL sign the agreement. When did the 19 hi jacker sign?? The last thing a country wants to do is go to war with us period!!! Why do you think Pakistan rolled over like cowering mongrel, yet they're still supporting OBL.

Whether it is because of the economic symbolism or the businesses within The WTC was a legit target to them.



Bravado. They're not monsters either, and the only way there blood would be cold is if they're dead. Come on say it with me. They are Human. I mean come on... is it really that much better to me a "Warm-Blooded killer" as opposed to a cold blooded one. G.I Joe!!



Ahhh bringing up turning the Middle East to glass. Are nukes within the bounds of these "rules of war"??? Why. Don't just answer, but think about it... rewally think about it.

We know the lasting effects of Nukes, we know the indiscriminate nature of its destruction. Why has it not yet been banned by the rules of war.

We know sanctions kill thousand of Civilians... in facts hurts and kills civilians more than the governments in charge. Yet we sanctioned Iraq, yet we sanction Cuba, yet we sanction North Korea... KNOWING full well we are harming INNOCENT people.

Rules of war are Jokes. They are nothing but a shield for certain people to hide behind so they can pretend that they aren't "bad guys". "Yeah, I may be killing tens of thousands of Civilians... but so what, l am following the rules of war" YOOOO JOE!!



Exactly... we've killed at least.... on the low count.... ten times more the civilians in middle Eastern Countries than middle easterners have killed of us in the west. Yet, if we were to compare them to us, morally... in your mind we're coming out smelling like roses.

Now all you have to do is analyze your own psyche and you can understand what is the true purpose of "rules of war" Have fun Duke, say hi to Scarlette, Gung Ho and Snake eyes.