Are there Really any Innocents?

[HonestJoe]

I'm thinking more along the lines of a group without extensive conventional warfare capabilities (most non-governmental armed groups) who resort to "terrorizing" civilians in order to achieve their objectives (whatever they might be).

In that case they’ve rendered the distinction between military and civilian moot since they’re not engaging in warfare but terrorism (regardless of whether that’s by choice or perceived necessity). This also excludes that action from the rules of war so we’re not just talking about killing civilians but permitting rape, torture, theft and use of any form of weaponry or tools prohibited in warfare by international law.

If those civilians belong to a democratic country then they share responsibility for whatever crimes the rebel group accuses the government of.

I think it’s debatable how far you can make that connection, even if you’re presuming the democratic system is perfect. Millions of citizens could directly oppose a particular action by their government but if they’re outvoted by a larger majority, there is limited other action they can take. After all, on this basis, if an elected politician is put in prison for breaking the law in office, every citizen in that country would be equally guilty and should be locked up with them.

The answer to your first question is yes (if they belong to a democracy).

You’re basically unconditionally justifying acts of terrorism, by soldiers and unconventional forces alike, against unarmed civilians.

Their support (even of only tacit) may well have led to the deaths of the enemy soldiers and possibly even the enemy soldier's family and friends. Therefore since the civilians support has contributed to the death of others their own life is rightly at risk,

We’re not talking about soldiers now, we’re talking about terrorists. You’re seeking to destroy the distinction between soldiers and civilians on one hand yet using it as justification on the other.

 

[LuisDantas]

How are the two of you disagreeing with me then?

 

[Thanda]

In that case they’ve rendered the distinction between military and civilian moot since they’re not engaging in warfare but terrorism (regardless of whether that’s by choice or perceived necessity). This also excludes that action from the rules of war so we’re not just talking about killing civilians but permitting rape, torture, theft and use of any form of weaponry or tools prohibited in warfare by international law.

They are not rendered moot. There is no obligation for a warring party to conduct a conventional war. Requiring people to do so is merely a way of maintaining the status quo and giving advantage to ruling, powerful governments. So for example the US will always maintain it's advantage if the only people are allowed to fight against it is but going against it army against army.

I think it’s debatable how far you can make that connection, even if you’re presuming the democratic system is perfect. Millions of citizens could directly oppose a particular action by their government but if they’re outvoted by a larger majority, there is limited other action they can take. After all, on this basis, if an elected politician is put in prison for breaking the law in office, every citizen in that country would be equally guilty and should be locked up with them.

I never said every citizen is responsible - I merely said being a civilian (i.e. a non-combatant) does not automatically make you innocence - and further that there is no moral obligation for a enemy force to assume you are innocent.
And your other point is non sequitor as clearly if the citizens are bringing the politician to book they are showing that they disapprove of their behaviour - so why should they through themselves in jail?

You’re basically unconditionally justifying acts of terrorism, by soldiers and unconventional forces alike, against unarmed civilians.

To an extent yes. I am basically saying when the war starts - neither side's citizens must be assumed to be innocent. Obviously there is no point merely killing civilians just for the heck of it as it is not the most effective way to win a war. But if killing some civilians is a necessary way to effectively win a war - then that should be done.

We’re not talking about soldiers now, we’re talking about terrorists. You’re seeking to destroy the distinction between soldiers and civilians on one hand yet using it as justification on the other.

I'm talking about combatants - whether you like to call them soldiers or terrorists is up to you. What do you think those people at the wedding party whom Americans killed using a drone think of the US army - those you think they perceive the US army as a group of soldiers or terrorists?

 

[Thanda]

How are the two of you disagreeing with me then?

My disagreement with you is merely that it is not immoral to kill civilians as part of a campaign to effectively win a war.

 

[Father Heathen]

In combat you're only suppose to kill those who are in a position to do the same.

 

[Father Heathen]

My disagreement with you is merely that it is not immoral to kill civilians as part of a campaign to effectively win a war.

What sort of things could be fought over that would warrant the sacrifice of civilians, and in what circumstance would killing civilians be necessary to win it?

Really though, killing innocent people is always dishonorable and immoral.

 

[HonestJoe]

My disagreement with you is merely that it is not immoral to kill civilians as part of a campaign to effectively win a war.

Is it immoral to kill civilians to achieve any political aim (warfare just being an extension of politics after all)?

 

[Thanda]

In combat you're only suppose to kill those who are in a position to do the same.

I'm not talking about a combat, necessarily - I am talking about a war. And I am saying that in wartime there is no obligation to assume civilians are innocents.

 

[Thanda]

What sort of things could be fought over that would warrant the sacrifice of civilians, and in what circumstance would killing civilians be necessary to win it?

Really though, killing innocent people is always dishonorable and immoral.

For example, if your fighting force is far inferior to your opponent so that it is impossible for you to win in a straight contest. In the OP I made the example of the ANC and the Apartheid government.

 

[Thanda]

Is it immoral to kill civilians to achieve any political aim (warfare just being an extension of politics after all)?

If you have come to the conclusion that violence is the only answer to your problem (meaning you know no diplomacy can unlock the deadlock) it is not immoral to kill civilians.

 

[Father Heathen]

I'm not talking about a combat, necessarily - I am talking about a war. And I am saying that in wartime there is no obligation to assume civilians are innocents.

Unless they're caught in the act of actual participation, there is a moral obligation to assume innocent until proven guilty. Nothing justifies indiscriminate killing, and once your hands are stained with innocent blood, it doesn't wash out.

 

[Father Heathen]

For example, if your fighting force is far inferior to your opponent so that it is impossible for you to win in a straight contest. In the OP I made the example of the ANC and the Apartheid government.

I don't think being disadvantaged would justify committing atrocities in an attempt to level the field.

 

[Thanda]

Unless they're caught in the act of actual participation, there is a moral obligation to assume innocent until proven guilty. Nothing justifies indiscriminate killing, and once your hands are stained with innocent blood, it doesn't wash out.

A battlefield is not a courtroom. And the purpose for war (when it has been declared) is to win not save civilians.

And again how would one know that a group of civilians have not in fact been assisting the armed forces of the enemy? And therefore how can one judge that they are innocent?

 

[McBell]

Does being a civilian make you an innocent in war times?

Depends entirely on which definition of "civilian" you go with.

 

[Thanda]

I don't think being disadvantaged would justify committing atrocities in an attempt to level the field.

The term atrocity requires a value judgement. One has to first judge the act to be unnecessary and wrong before they can say the act is an atrocity.

When black people were being raped, robbed and killed by a force too powerful to overcome in conventional warfare, attacks on civilians were the most effective defensive option.

Remember that negotiations were off the table as all black parties had been banned and blacks were not allowed to vote.

 

[Thanda]

Depends entirely on which definition of "civilian" you go with.

Give me the options.

 

[McBell]

Give me the options.

"not a member of armed forces or police" is a standard dictionary definition.
Some people exclude those working for either directly or indirectly for/with the armed forces and or police.
Some limit their exclusion to those working directly for/with armed forces and or police.

This would be much quicker and easier if you were to present exactly who you consider civilians vs non-civilians.

 

[Thanda]

"not a member of armed forces or police" is a standard dictionary definition.
Some people exclude those working for either directly or indirectly for/with the armed forces and or police.
Some limit their exclusion to those working directly for/with armed forces and or police.

This would be much quicker and easier if you were to present exactly who you consider civilians vs non-civilians.

My definition is anyone who is not an active member of the defense or police force during wartime.

 

[McBell]

My definition is anyone who is not an active member of the defense or police force during wartime.

Then civilians are innocent.

 

[Thanda]

Then civilians are innocent.

Why, if they are part of a democracy are the armed forces not acting on their behalf and with their support?