Potus ???

[GarethM]

No I'm equating Hamas with being terrorists, plain and simples.

 

Why do you read everything and seem to come to a conclusion that wasn't argued.

 

Next you'll be saying but they're not terrorists, just misguided yoofs drinking cider on the local park.

Edited Thursday at 09:11 by GarethM

[Johnsond]

2 hours ago, Mark J said:

Why should we (UK) have a ground army when we could just use our nukes?

Christ mark

Show stopper of a comment that. 

[Yournamehere]

43 minutes ago, Johnsond said:

Christ mark

Show stopper of a comment that. 

Well. Yes it is.

If there was no proportionality in war as you claim then nukes would be the first option and bugger the number of civilian casualties. The objectives would have been met.

This obviously doesn't happen: we use a land army first, specifically* to minimise civilian losses.

Thus there IS proportionality in war: civilian losses are (meant to be) minimised.

This is why Israel treating all Palestinian civilians as 'Hammas' and killing them at a ratio of (was it) thirty to one compared to their own losses is considered an outrage.

This is why in the earlier example, the Holocaust is considered an outrage** : if there was no proportionality in war, then the Nazis would be justified in their atrocity because the high civilian death rate would not be be an objection to them achieving their aims.

The excessive civilian casualties is considered an outrage precisely because there is proportionality in war.

 

*for the sake of this argument: in real life other tactical considerations would no doubt apply

** again for the sake of this argument: it is also considered an outrage for many other things too

[GarethM]

40 minutes ago, Yournamehere said:

Well. Yes it is.

If there was no proportionality in war as you claim then nukes would be the first option and bugger the number of civilian casualties. The objectives would have been met.

This obviously doesn't happen: we use a land army first, specifically* to minimise civilian losses.

Thus there IS proportionality in war: civilian losses are (meant to be) minimised.

This is why Israel treating all Palestinian civilians as 'Hammas' and killing them at a ratio of (was it) thirty to one compared to their own losses is considered an outrage.

This is why in the earlier example, the Holocaust is considered an outrage** : if there was no proportionality in war, then the Nazis would be justified in their atrocity because the high civilian death rate would not be be an objection to them achieving their aims.

The excessive civilian casualties is considered an outrage precisely because there is proportionality in war.

 

*for the sake of this argument: in real life other tactical considerations would no doubt apply

** again for the sake of this argument: it is also considered an outrage for many other things too

You waffle on about proportional responses, ok so apply to the Taliban.

 

How are you going to explain suicide bombings ?.

 

You can't apply our rules of engagement to them blowing themselves up in a crowded market can you.

[Yournamehere]

1 minute ago, GarethM said:

You waffle on about proportional responses, ok so apply to the Taliban.

 

How are you going to explain suicide bombings ?.

 

You can't apply our rules of engagement to them blowing themselves up in a crowded market can you.

So sorry you think that waffle, Gareth; for myself, I thought it a succinct and well argued point; but Hey ho.

 

Ah! but then, everything is waffle to you isn't it? Have you ever wondered if the fault lies with yourself.

 

On the other hand it is nice (and refreshing) that you have replied without the usual impolite insults and unfounded assumptions. (I mean this in all seriousness: well done.)

 

As to suicide bombings: do you mean specifically as regards the Taliban and civilians or to include the Japanese suicide bombers and their military targets?

 

It is true, they are beyond the 'normal' rules of engagement (as I, a mere bystander would understand them) and that that is why they are considered an outrage.

 

As to their 'proportionality' (in the sense we are discussing here) I would have said that the Taliban's attacks on civilian targets are obviously at odds with concept/principle* of proportionality. Specificly because of the civilian target.

But the point still stands: The suicide attacks by members of the Taliban upon civilian targets is considered an outrage because of the concept of proportionality in war which they violate.

 

The Japanese suicide attacks are probably best left for another day actually - and another thread - this is already a mahoosive enough derail as it is.

 

Nice to be able to discuss a point in a civil manner, Gareth.

 

 

*I'm unsure how it is regarded: if there is a more suitable term, then use that

 

 

PS As to explaining them: wow, that would take a long, long time.

 

[GarethM]

3 minutes ago, Yournamehere said:

So sorry you think that waffle, Gareth; for myself, I thought it a succinct and well argued point; but Hey ho.

 

Ah! but then, everything is waffle to you isn't it? Have you ever wondered if the fault lies with yourself.

 

On the other hand it is nice (and refreshing) that you have replied without the usual impolite insults and unfounded assumptions. (I mean this in all seriousness: well done.)

 

As to suicide bombings: do you mean specifically as regards the Taliban and civilians or to include the Japanese suicide bombers and their military targets?

 

It is true, they are beyond the 'normal' rules of engagement (as I, a mere bystander would understand them) and that that is why they are considered an outrage.

 

As to their 'proportionality' (in the sense we are discussing here) I would have said that the Taliban's attacks on civilian targets are obviously at odds with concept/principle* of proportionality. Specificly because of the civilian target.

But the point still stands: The suicide attacks by members of the Taliban upon civilian targets is considered an outrage because of the concept of proportionality in war which they violate.

 

The Japanese suicide attacks are probably best left for another day actually - and another thread - this is already a mahoosive enough derail as it is.

 

Nice to be able to discuss a point in a civil manner, Gareth.

 

*I'm unsure how it is regarded: if there is a more suitable term, then use that

 

PS As to explaining them: wow, that would take a long, long time.

You brought up the Nazis, therefore using your logic all wars/conflicts and civil wars are the same and must be judged as such.

 

You can't have two tier wars can we!, you logic must by default also include the previous disagreement on our doorstep, maybe even Pinochet that'll be a fun one for you to explain.

 

In other words stop using our rules of engagement as a yard stick for every alleged freedom fighter because they're usually terrorists.

 

As ones freedom fighter is another's terrorist.

[Yournamehere]

6 minutes ago, GarethM said:

You brought up the Nazis, therefore using your logic all wars/conflicts and civil wars are the same and must be judged as such.

 

You can't have two tier wars can we!, you logic must by default also include the previous disagreement on our doorstep, maybe even Pinochet that'll be a fun one for you to explain.

 

In other words stop using our rules of engagement as a yard stick for every alleged freedom fighter because they're usually terrorists.

 

As ones freedom fighter is another's terrorist.

I'm sorry, but you've got me: I can't see the relevance of any of this to the point under discussion. Nor more pertinently to the post you have quoted.

 

Mark J (I think) 'brought up the Nazis' as a rhetorical point to illustrate that there IS proportionality in war. I referred to that in my explanation but regardless of either, how does your first line's conclusion follow from that?

 

What do you mean by 'two tier wars'; and 'disagreement on our doorstep'? My logic wasn't intended to explain that, nor Pinochet, nor any other conflict; so you're deriding it for something that it isn't.

 

It is 'by our rules of engagement' that we judge these attacks to be an outrage.

That is the point at hand. If I were to judge them by other rules and principles - ie (presumably) those of the terrorists - then (presumably) they wouldn't be an outrage, they would be justified. But I don't.

 

One person's freedom fighter is indeed another persons terrorist.

 

 

 

[GarethM]

No he brought up Nazis and the extermination of the Jews, so that's hardly proportionality is it when they're civilian.

 

Rounding up and murdering people in death camps is hardly explained in any context!.

 

One presumes your over the age of 45, so on our doorstep is Ireland.

 

All I see is lefty hand tied logic, you can't do that because x,y,z fine off you pop to explain to the bad man why what they're doing is wrong, just don't complain when they flower in the barrel doesn't stay there 

[GarethM]

So let's use your logic.

 

A terrorist has a base under a hospital.

They either kill the army in a firefight, blow it up with them inside or escape and blow it up with the army inside.

 

So, how do I win ?.

 

Modern warfare is in the grey, as per M.

They wear no uniform or insignia etc etc.

[Johnsond]

2 hours ago, Yournamehere said:

Well. Yes it is.

If there was no proportionality in war as you claim then nukes would be the first option and bugger the number of civilian casualties. The objectives would have been met.

This obviously doesn't happen: we use a land army first, specifically* to minimise civilian losses.

Thus there IS proportionality in war: civilian losses are (meant to be) minimised.

This is why Israel treating all Palestinian civilians as 'Hammas' and killing them at a ratio of (was it) thirty to one compared to their own losses is considered an outrage.

This is why in the earlier example, the Holocaust is considered an outrage** : if there was no proportionality in war, then the Nazis would be justified in their atrocity because the high civilian death rate would not be be an objection to them achieving their aims.

The excessive civilian casualties is considered an outrage precisely because there is proportionality in war.

 

*for the sake of this argument: in real life other tactical considerations would no doubt apply

** again for the sake of this argument: it is also considered an outrage for many other things too

😂😂😂you actually sat and wrote that waffling shite.