(April 10, 2016 at 1:45 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I would also assess it by methods. Assessing it by intent is tricky anyway because people can and do lie about their intent. Yes, this includes people in the military hierarchy.

US bomber crews in WWII were given alternate targets in the event their primary was clouded over. If their secondaries were also clouded over, they were permitted to bomb "targets of opportunity" which could and did simply list an entire city as a target.

Many were also given instructions to not bring bombs back to the base in such a case. (this info comes from Bendiner's memoir, The Fall of Fortresses).

However, to this day the USAF insists on using the term "precision bombing" in describing 8AF operations ... this when fewer than 20% of their bombs landed inside the target zone. Hap Arnold, Carl Spaatz, Ira Eaker, and Jimmy Doolittle all knew of this gross disparity between PR and actual facts, yet slept easily at night with their intentions being to minimize civilian casualties. Yet to the half-million Germans who died under RAF and USAAF bombardment those intentions were and are entirely irrelevant.

You seem to be missing the point. On the one hand, you (and others before you) say that intention was "entirely irrelevant" to the people killed... Yeah... but in the same manner that a sniper who is trying to save a room full of hostages and accidentally takes out one of the innocent victims instead of the perpetrators; in which case, you might ask, "Did intention matter to the person accidentally shot dead?" Uh, no, but it matters to those judging the action of the sniper versus the actions of the hostage-takers!

On the other hand, your example, if anything, only spells out how important intentions actually are--my point exactly--for clearly in the case you gave the intentions were, at least in part, ill-advised.

(April 10, 2016 at 2:11 pm)Mudhammam Wrote: You seem to be missing the point. On the one hand, you (and others before you) say that intention was "entirely irrelevant" to the people killed... Yeah... but in the same manner that a sniper who is trying to save a room full of hostages and accidentally takes out one of the innocent victims instead of the perpetrators, and in which case, you might ask, "Did intention matter to the person accidentally shot dead?" Uh, no, but it matters to those judging the action of the sniper versus the actions of the hostage-taker!

For the victims it's entirely irrelevant.

Say, you're been held hostage by someone. I go in, shoot the assailant and your children in the process. The assailant's gone, but so are your kids. If you now come back with you would thank me for that, you're either totally dishonest or so far removed from reality that it doesn't warrant any further discussion.

That's the real point, not intent.

(April 10, 2016 at 2:16 pm)abaris Wrote: For the victims it's entirely irrelevant.

Say, you're been held hostage by someone. I go in, shoot the assailant and your children in the process. The assailant's gone, but so are your kids. If you now come back with you would thank me for that, you're either totally dishonest or so far removed from reality that it doesn't warrant any further discussion.

That's the real point, not intent.

And yet in judging the ethical value of your action--you know, like, should you be punished for it or not--the most important question is whether or not you intended to shoot my children, or did you do whatever was in your means to protect them?

That's my point.

(April 10, 2016 at 2:19 pm)Mudhammam Wrote: And yet in judging the ethical value of your action--you know, like, should you be punished for it or not--the most important question is whether or not you intended to shoot my children, or did you do whatever was in your means to protect them?

That's my point.

See, that's the issue I take with everything you post here. You transform it into some kind of mirror jerking, while, at the same time, display total unwilligness to walk in the shoes of the ones being on the receiving end. That's why I may repeat. Your argument is something for the garbage bin of reality. People will hate you for killing loved ones. Intent doesn't matter. It only matters for you for the feelgood impression or some intellectual high you get out of it.

But there's nothing intellectual about conflict. Only victism, humans, acting as is expected from humans.

(April 10, 2016 at 2:25 pm)abaris Wrote: See, that's the issue I take with everything you post here. You transform it into some kind of mirror jerking, while, at the same time, display total unwilligness to walk in the shoes of the ones being on the receiving end. That's why I may repeat. Your argument is something for the garbage bin of reality. People will hate you for killing loved ones. Intent doesn't matter. It only matters for you for the feelgood impression or some intellectual high you get out of it.

But there's nothing intellectual about conflict. Only victism, humans, acting as is expected from humans.

Jesus fucking Christ, abaris, this isn't a debate about the loveliness of war. Nobody is arguing that losing one's limbs or family members in the battlefield is a bed of fucking roses. We are debating whether one can wage war more or less ethically, my position being that we do so in a manner far superior to those whom we target in the Middle East. Maybe you think that war isn't a reality, or that groups like ISIS should not be engaged militarily? But what a laughably naive person--not to say callous to the victims of ISIS--you would have to be to admit that.

(April 10, 2016 at 2:11 pm)Mudhammam Wrote:

(April 10, 2016 at 1:45 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I would also assess it by methods. Assessing it by intent is tricky anyway because people can and do lie about their intent. Yes, this includes people in the military hierarchy.

US bomber crews in WWII were given alternate targets in the event their primary was clouded over. If their secondaries were also clouded over, they were permitted to bomb "targets of opportunity" which could and did simply list an entire city as a target.

Many were also given instructions to not bring bombs back to the base in such a case. (this info comes from Bendiner's memoir, The Fall of Fortresses).

However, to this day the USAF insists on using the term "precision bombing" in describing 8AF operations ... this when fewer than 20% of their bombs landed inside the target zone. Hap Arnold, Carl Spaatz, Ira Eaker, and Jimmy Doolittle all knew of this gross disparity between PR and actual facts, yet slept easily at night with their intentions being to minimize civilian casualties. Yet to the half-million Germans who died under RAF and USAAF bombardment those intentions were and are entirely irrelevant.

You seem to be missing the point. On the one hand, you (and others before you) say that intention was "entirely irrelevant" to the people killed... Yeah... but in the same manner that a sniper who is trying to save a room full of hostages and accidentally takes out one of the innocent victims instead of the perpetrators; in which case, you might ask, "Did intention matter to the person accidentally shot dead?" Uh, no, but it matters to those judging the action of the sniper versus the actions of the hostage-takers!

On the other hand, your example, if anything, only spells out how important intentions actually are--my point exactly--for clearly in the case you gave the intentions were, at least in part, ill-advised.

I think I didn't make my point, then. Their intentions were absolutely meaningless because they lacked the tools to give their intentions actuality.

Yet despite knowing that, they clung to the comfort of their intent, and continued the bombardment anyway.

That is, to my mind, equal to deliberately killing civilians, overlaid with a veneer of self-serving rationalization. As such, the only real difference is what the killer is telling himself.

(April 10, 2016 at 2:31 pm)Mudhammam Wrote: Maybe you think that war isn't a reality, or that groups like ISIS should not be engaged militarily? But what a laughably naive person--not to say callous to the victims of ISIS--you would have to be to admit that.

No, I'm arguing for being perfectly aware of what one is buying when making war. I'm also arguing against the fairy tale of any war being something clean, with all kinds of euphemisms employed. Such as colaterals when the real word is innocent victims.

The public as well as politics and individuals should be aware of that when engaging. They should know the package they're buying.

And again, I'm well aware that we're better than ISIL. That's not the hardest task on this planet. But that doesn't make me comfortable with civilian casualties. Most of all because I am willing to walk a mile in the shoes of the victims and can only come to the conclusion that joining up with the enemies of my enemies is a very realistic option.

So, words are words. Better stay on planet earth and think of the consequences. Before taking certain actions, that is.

In a smaller domain: Drunk driver gets into car and subsequently kills three others in a wreck. He didn't intend to kill anyone, he only wanted to get home. Is he more or less culpable than the guy who grabs his gun and kills three people in a spree killing at your local mall.

I don't think intent is as morally decisive as you seem to think. That's fine, morality is relative and subjective anyway. I'm enjoying the discussion, btw.

(April 10, 2016 at 2:45 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(April 10, 2016 at 2:11 pm)Mudhammam Wrote: You seem to be missing the point. On the one hand, you (and others before you) say that intention was "entirely irrelevant" to the people killed... Yeah... but in the same manner that a sniper who is trying to save a room full of hostages and accidentally takes out one of the innocent victims instead of the perpetrators; in which case, you might ask, "Did intention matter to the person accidentally shot dead?" Uh, no, but it matters to those judging the action of the sniper versus the actions of the hostage-takers!

On the other hand, your example, if anything, only spells out how important intentions actually are--my point exactly--for clearly in the case you gave the intentions were, at least in part, ill-advised.

I think I didn't make my point, then. Their intentions were absolutely meaningless because they lacked the tools to give their intentions actuality.

Yet despite knowing that, they clung to the comfort of their intent, and continued the bombardment anyway.

That is, to my mind, equal to deliberately killing civilians, overlaid with a veneer of self-serving rationalization. As such, the only real difference is what the killer is telling himself.

We're also ignoring that the USA (the nation under discussion here) happily engaged in deliberate, mass napalm firebombing of major cities, not simply precision bombing, with the express intent to kill enough civilians to make the war so horrible (terrifying... isn't that terrorism, when you use force and fear to get what you want?) that the people would cry out for the Japanese leadership to stop the war, as if Japan was a democracy.

ETA: If you ever want your blood to run cold, read some of General "Hap" Arnold's writings on the subject of the use of the USAF bombers, both pre- and post-nuclear age.

(April 10, 2016 at 2:50 pm)abaris Wrote: No, I'm arguing for being perfectly aware of what one is buying when making war. I'm also arguing against the fairy tale of any war being something clean, with all kinds of euphemisms employed. Such as colaterals when the real word is innocent victims.

The public as well as politics and individuals should be aware of that when engaging. They should know the package they're buying.

No disagreement there. I never suggested that war is "clean." And as far as collateral damage, whether or not the term diminishes the reality of human suffering it entails (and I'm inclined to agree with you that it does), it still doesn't change the meaning of the term which is simply unintended civilian deaths.

(April 10, 2016 at 2:50 pm)abaris Wrote: And again, I'm well aware that we're better than ISIL.

That is good to know. Keep in mind then that my responses were primarily aimed at the notion that we are no better (and some say even worse) than the terrorists, which was the idiotic suggestion made by Heat.

(April 10, 2016 at 2:50 pm)abaris Wrote: That's not the hardest task on this planet. But that doesn't make me comfortable with civilian casualties. Most of all because I am willing to walk a mile in the shoes of the victims and can only come to the conclusion that joining up with the enemies of my enemies is a very realistic option.

So, words are words. Better stay on planet earth and think of the consequences. Before taking certain actions, that is.

I agree completely. I don't want anybody to unjustly die as a result of war. It's just a fact, though, that it will happen, and sometimes war is necessary. Do you think we are justified in waging war against a group like ISIS or the Taliban? And if so, don't you have to acknowledge that it is a reality that civilians will die as a result of our bombs; do you think that this automatically makes our fight unethical?

Btw, I'm aware that the U.S. has done some truly unethical and horrendous deeds in recent and distant wars, but I don't think that these are representative of overall strategy or policy when deciding to engage in military action, and certainly not representative of the overwhelming majority of our soldiers. Indeed, the case could easily be made that soldiers or commanders who have intentionally targeted innocents ought to be held accountable, more than the few instances in which they have; whereas ISIS fighters who burn pilots alive in cages or bury a pile of villagers in a pit are not merely "a few bad apples" in al-Baghdadi's army.