[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Catfish

No Skybird, war is thoroughly humane.

Pardon...?

That this is a "war", has been declared by characters like Bush, Wolfowitz and Cheney. I will leave Powell out of there, for now. But it is fine to see how this media propaganda bull**** still works, in the minds of some.

"Some"? You mean me. I have nothing in common with the names you mentioned. These treacherous reptiles do not share my determined view on war - that's why they so easily and carelessly triggered them and foguht them with a light heart and did not care for there own troops being sacrificed for - well, essentially for nothing worth their sacrifices.

It is not only an offence you mention me in one sentence with these unscrupulous basterds. It also illustrates that you do not have the slightest clue on what I am about.

Can you really wage "war" against people not wearing a uniform, not belonging to a nation, and committing assassinations ? This is police and intelligence work, imho, and not war.

In parts it is. But mind you, Afghanistan is not Gaza or West Jordan. Anyway, we talk about asymmetrical wars, where the inferior tries to compensate for his inferiority by non-conventional tactics and means, which includes undiscriminating terror against civilian population, and a boycott of the Hague Land warfare Convention that necessarily works to the disadvantage of the one side obeying it if the other refuses to do so. To achieve this effect also is a strategy of asymmetrical warfare, like is hiding in hospitals, establishing ammo dumps in schools and build missile and mortar sites on civilian houses' roofs so that the enemy either does not shoot at them to prevent collaterla damage, or does, and then causes collateral damage that the targetted side then can use in public relation and propaganda scoring. During the Lebanon war, Hezbollah seized southern villages and forced the people by weapons to stay there instead of fleeing, in the hope that they would get killed by Israeli shelling or air strike, which would make good headlines Hezbollah than could make use of to win the propaganda war.

The US have declared war to several nations in the last decades, some were called interventions (the middle and south Americas), some war, for all kinds of reasons. Now they have declared war not only to terrorists, but to a religion.

Formally they have not, instead the repeated over and over again that this were not a war against Islam - it is me in this forum saying since years and again that the war on terror is a stupid term and only makes sense when you understand that you must fight against the ideology motivating the enemy, which in this case is Islam, yes. There is no "war on terror", as there is no war on submarines, on tanks or on cruisers. You wage war against the nation, the people, the faction owning these weapons and using them. weapons and tactics are just this: weapons and tactics. Tools.

But that is academic formalities only. War is what war does - once the dying has began you do not care that much for polite formalities anymore. For the soldiers fighting it, once the shooting begins and it is either themselves or the enemy, all ideals and motivations quickstart right into Nirvana, and the whole thing comes down to the level of simple survival. If somebody starts to swing the barrel of a cannon at my direction, it'S time to stop talking and shoot at him. If somebody lobs grenades into the houses of my neighbourhood in an intended and deliberate attempt to kill families and "non-combatants", aiming at them indeed and not at military targets, this is terror as a tool of war by intention, and as such I react to it. I try to kill the terrorists. If he happens to hide inside his "civilian" family - well, fly with the crows, get shot with crows. If he would agree to separate himself from non-military targets by wearing uniform and not building an HQ below a hospital, collateral damages would dramatically drop.

Aiming at enemies and not always being able to prevent collateral damage is not the same as intentionally aiming at civilians in order to spread fear and terror.

I hope you see that it is dangerous to think you can defeat an enemy intentionally abusing and ignoring the Land Warfare Convention while you respect it yourself, one-sidely.

Now people are killed by US weapons, in countries not knowing or agreeing to this,

Would it better be Swedish weapons? Do you really think that terror regimes need to comply with their key figures getting eliminated? Do you argue for the same "method" when it comes to law-enforcement in Germany? The polie shall only do arrest when the suspect agrees?

all over the world,

All over the world? that was new to me.

without trial,

Thank God you do not design the rules of enaggement for combat forces. They are in parts already insane enough.

without asking their government,

YXes. There is no point in asking the patron of terrorists for his agreement to kill his staff. By that giving warnings to the target and allowing the patron to help him escape and find a new hideout.

killing innocent civilians as "collateral damage" as they cynically say, without even knowing for sure whether the target is a criminal

The air force does not drop bombs on somebody just because he is "criminal". when you steal a car, rob a bank or evade taxes - then you are criminal. the type of men thy drop bombs on, have some heavier marks in their records, I would say. War fighter, terrorist, guerilla - call it what you want. I do not rate these as categories of "crime".

not by the jurisdiction of the nation where it happens, and not even by their own jurisdiction.

In case of Pakistan, Gaza, and Iraq, I do not give much for their precious jurisdiction. I have a problem with the jurisdiction of the whole Arab world, to be honest, since it is highyl discrminating, arbitraily, corrupt, and in violation of basic human rights. Not to mention the general attitude towards women. I see little worth to be respected there. I could - but only by violating my own ethical values and moral standards. So you maybe see the problem I have there.

Targets of drone attacks get selected not for no reason. I expect that some results of accoridng evaluation processes or intel puzzles are false, but that is part of war, I'm sorry, ther eis no way top wage a perfect, error-free, clean, civilised, surgical war. That is not cancial. That is accepting the real nature of war. It is not civiuklised. Not peaceful. Not holy or just or fair. It is cahos, and considering that the ammount of efforty trying to bring order to it and not kill just anything that moves withiout discirmninating between bystander and target, is remarkable.

By your logic a nation can declare war against anothger n ation an declaer it illegal that that nation should firee and fight back. By that, it can fight against that nation, while the target nation is expected to sit still.

Reminds of what the eU usually epxects of Israel: sit still and do nothing when its people get attac ked by missiles and mortar rounds. That precious peace process, you know. In Vietnam, it was called "Paris negotiations", and these bound the American military'S hands on the back. The outcome was unacceptable.

Why the Israelis even go as far as to give 20 minute warnings to houses where supects live so that not only the people there but also the intended targets can escape, is beyond me, though. It makes the whole idea of shooting at target persons absurd. (They for example drop dud bombs by airplöane that just fall thro9uzgh the roof, but do not explode, then some time later the real bomb follows, usually 15-30 minutes later. The hous emenawhile got evacuated - the targets of course, too. Think they call it knock-knock-bombing or somehtign like that).

We will see if the worldwide condition changes to the better, and a better international understanding, with that new approach.

Yes, and maybe one day we all will sit together on the mmadow in the sunshine and sing andlaugh and dance together. Lovely.

And I am certain: hopelessly unrealistic. So I stay with these two pieces of wisdom:
1. It is better to have weapons and being able to fight, and not needing to, than to find out that one needs to, but not being able and niot having weapons.
2. From LOTR: Those refusing to pick up a sword still can get killed by a sword.

Since you are German, I recommend these two books to you:

LINK

LINK2