(January 1, 2011 at 11:46 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote:Your argument was that we should kill everyone in the country because of the possibility they might join a terrorist organization(January 1, 2011 at 10:15 am)Ashendant Wrote: You're right, mass murder in the information age is not possible to not get more enemies and human right court would force anyone that gave that order to be imprisioned
Redefining war to "mass murder". Cheery. That evades the discussion, which centers around military tactics in days past and their effectiveness compared to modern day "pound them from above and run away" incursions.
"Mass murder" implies that friendly and neutrals are targeted - one who actively supports the economic or military structure qualifies as "enemy". That is long established in total warfare. Also, on the front of targeting friendlies and neutrals, (unfortunately) no influential court as of this date has convicted the US Military, for example, for bombing Islamic wedding parties, etc,. So already the ability to target unassociated peoples is considered "acceptable" enough by the powers that be (however awful).
Henceforth, your statement is unrealistic and rather silly.
William T. Sherman Wrote:If the people raise a great howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war, and not popularity seeking.
Target unassociated people is despicable and one thing but targeting all unassociated people in a country just so you won't take any risks is another
Besides the EU already punishes other countries for shit like this, they just don't punish China and the US because they don't want long drawn out wars with very selfish people