Are there Really any Innocents?

[Father Heathen]

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?

Your disregard for ethics, honor, and morality make Baby Moroni cry.

 

[HonestJoe]

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.

What if the problem is that I want all your stuff but I know there's no way you're just going to give it to me?

 

[Thanda]

Your disregard for ethics, honor, and morality make Baby Moroni cry.

Who's that? Your son?

 

[Father Heathen]

Who's that? Your son?

No, silly, he's the angel that gifted your prophet a sweet set of collectable plates.

 

[Thanda]

What if the problem is that I want all your stuff but I know there's no way you're just going to give it to me?

I'm not here to discuss the merits of the motivations of different players. As I said there are many battles going on around the world and I don't know the motivating factor for all of them.

That's why this thread is narrowly focused on the validity and propriety of the assumed innocence of civilians.

 

[Thanda]

No, silly, he's the angel that gifted your prophet a sweet set of collectable plates.

Oh so your were trying to insult me? Shame, well I hope it at least made you feel better.

 

[Father Heathen]

Oh so your were trying to insult me? Shame, well I hope it at least made you feel better.

Eh? I didn't intend to be insulting, so I apologize for hurting you.

 

[Thanda]

Eh? I didn't intend to be insulting, so I apologize for hurting you.

LOL!

 

[Thanda]

Father Heathen I'm not even going to watch the video. You seem really to have missed the basic point of this topic. I doubt we're going to have a meaningful discussion on this. Good night

 

[McBell]

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

Perhaps, if your fantasy democratic country existed.

 

[Thanda]

Perhaps, if your fantasy democratic country existed.

So when the US army went into Afghanistan it was without the support and approval of the vast majority of the American people?

 

[Pudding]

I've always wondered about the term "innocents" with regard to war.

One always speaks of innocent civilians and how an armed group should avoid harming them. But the question is, if you live in what you consider a democracy, are there really any innocents other than children?

Yes.

Are the innocents not the ones who chose the politicians?

If the civillian doesn't chose the politicians, then yes they're innocent.
There're quite a few candidates comes from different political party to be choose from in an election, not every candidate will becomes the elected politician who can highly influence and control the politics.
Those adult civillian who their choices of candidate ends up failed elected, is innocent.

If the civillian who chose the elected politicians and the politicians ends up using immoral reason to making war against a group, if those civillian support the happening of immoral war then they're not innocent, otherwise they're innocent.

Who finance the army? How innocent are they really? Ignorant, maybe. But innocent?

I believe when you become an adult and thus a fully functional member of society your innocence is not merely tied to your ignorance or you lack of doing anything. I believe you actually have to work for your innocence. If your country conducts unjust wars in your name and by the means that you have given them (through the constitution, other laws and regulations, elections, financing through taxes etc.) then your silence or quiet disapproval does not earn you innocence.

If the civillian is voluntary willingly to finance the army in that situation, they're not innocent.

If the civillian is opposing their chosen politicians' action of using immoral reason to making war against a group, and are force to finance the army thru paying taxes otherwise will be prosecute by the government, what should they do?

Gather all the unarmed civillian who opposing the war and protest to the government, rejecting to continue paying taxes?
Yes morally they should opposing the happening of immoral war, but that'll also leads them to be persecuted by the government if that government decides to use military forces againts those unarmed civillians or jail them up.

Unarmed civillians VS Armed government military forces.
Who'll win?

Because unarmed civillian have no power to resist the government, their resistence will put their life at risk, so it's coward for them to pretending obey when they're force to obey the government?

Their being powerless to resist the government, render them not innocent?
Not really.

Their being coward to resist the government because of their powerless, render them not innocent?
Maybe a little.

Civillian being ignorant which renders them unknowingly or ignorantly support and finance the government immoral war, render them not innocent?
Maybe a little more but it's neither completely not innocent.
It's partly not innocent.

Who, if a person came into their house and beats up their child while they did not try to do anything to prevent it, would call themselves innocent? Perhaps by the high standards of a court of law you might get away with calling yourself innocent - but certainly no other right thinking person would regard you as such.

What are the parents, child, beater and the action of beating in your metaphor be refer to, in reality?

I don't know what all the people in the world are fighting for in the various wars but I find it disingenuous when an aggrieved group of people fight by killing civilians that we find it easy to label it terrorism and say they are killing innocents. Often that group of people who fight by killing innocents don't have the fire power to match the enemy they are fighting against army for army and are doing what they can to shake their opposition.

The innocent people will still be innocent people regardless the fact that because the aggrieved group of people don't have the fire power to match the enemy they're fighting against so they'll killing innocent people to shake their opposition.

Terrorism - the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

In this case those aggrieved group of people may can be given the label "terrorist", a person who uses violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims (to defend themselves).

In connection with this I am reminded of the anti-Apartheid struggle in South Africa. The ANC (the first liberation movement) was started in 1912. For decades they tried dialogue and other peaceful methods of engaging with the Apartheid government to try get freedom (one of their leaders - Albert Luthuli - even won the Nobel Peace prize). When Mandela came in he realised that this method was not working and started an armed wing of the party (Mkhonto we'Sizwe). Now it was clear that if the ANC gathered it's militia on a plain somewhere and declared war that they would be crushed by the nuclear armed South African defense forces. So what could they do? Well they engaged in guerilla warfare and bombed various places including a bank. Some civilians died - they were terrorists (the US recently removed Mandela from their list of terrorists).
The armed struggle was not intended to defeat the defense force by might of arms. It was meant to degrade the morale of the opposition, to make the lives of white people whose government was oppressing blacks as difficult and uncomfortable as possible so that they start seriously considering the plight of black people.

I do not believe in intentionally killing civilians a group is necessarily killing innocents. Being a civilian does not make you innocent (even if you're ignorant), especially if you live in what can be described as a democracy.

Intentionally killing civilians doesn't necessarily means the civilians being killed is innocent, neither does that automatically means the civilians being killed is not innocent.

Being a civilian does not automatically make you innocent, but neither being a civilian automatically make you not innocent.

Whether the civilians is innocent or not depends on the situation about the civilians.

The civilians is guilty?
Then probably not innocent.

The civilians is guiltless?
Then innocent.

 

[Pudding]

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

My answer is not yes nor no.
Being a civilian doesn't automatically make you an innocent in war times; but neither does it automatically make you not innocent.
If the civilian is innocent then they're innocent, vise versa.

 

[YmirGF]

I suppose at some level people do have a moral duty of storming into the offices of their leaders and ripping their entrails out of them before they order the killing of foreign civilians.

Hopefully human animals would react against a given govenment before things got to this stage... ... then again, you are in South America...


*melts into a purple mist*
*poof*

 

[Twilight Hue]

I've always wondered about the term "innocents" with regard to war.

One always speaks of innocent civilians and how an armed group should avoid harming them. But the question is, if you live in what you consider a democracy, are there really any innocents other than children? Are the innocents not the ones who chose the politicians? Who finance the army? How innocent are they really? Ignorant, maybe. But innocent?

I believe when you become an adult and thus a fully functional member of society your innocence is not merely tied to your ignorance or you lack of doing anything. I believe you actually have to work for your innocence. If your country conducts unjust wars in your name and by the means that you have given them (through the constitution, other laws and regulations, elections, financing through taxes etc.) then your silence or quiet disapproval does not earn you innocence.

Who, if a person came into their house and beats up their child while they did not try to do anything to prevent it, would call themselves innocent? Perhaps by the high standards of a court of law you might get away with calling yourself innocent - but certainly no other right thinking person would regard you as such.

I don't know what all the people in the world are fighting for in the various wars but I find it disingenuous when an aggrieved group of people fight by killing civilians that we find it easy to label it terrorism and say they are killing innocents. Often that group of people who fight by killing innocents don't have the fire power to match the enemy they are fighting against army for army and are doing what they can to shake their opposition.

In connection with this I am reminded of the anti-Apartheid struggle in South Africa. The ANC (the first liberation movement) was started in 1912. For decades they tried dialogue and other peaceful methods of engaging with the Apartheid government to try get freedom (one of their leaders - Albert Luthuli - even won the Nobel Peace prize). When Mandela came in he realised that this method was not working and started an armed wing of the party (Mkhonto we'Sizwe). Now it was clear that if the ANC gathered it's militia on a plain somewhere and declared war that they would be crushed by the nuclear armed South African defense forces. So what could they do? Well they engaged in guerilla warfare and bombed various places including a bank. Some civilians died - they were terrorists (the US recently removed Mandela from their list of terrorists).
The armed struggle was not intended to defeat the defense force by might of arms. It was meant to degrade the morale of the opposition, to make the lives of white people whose government was oppressing blacks as difficult and uncomfortable as possible so that they start seriously considering the plight of black people.

I do not believe in intentionally killing civilians a group is necessarily killing innocents. Being a civilian does not make you innocent (even if you're ignorant), especially if you live in what can be described as a democracy.

All I can think of is Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the thought that this will save lives in the long run.

War is chess brought to life.

Are pawns on the board innocent?

 

[HonestJoe]

I'm not here to discuss the merits of the motivations of different players. As I said there are many battles going on around the world and I don't know the motivating factor for all of them.

That's why this thread is narrowly focused on the validity and propriety of the assumed innocence of civilians.

Sure, but the problem I’m trying to get across is that the inevitable consequences of your conclusions based on that very narrow viewpoint have a much wider scope of principles and practical situations.

Also, you’ve not really established the logical or moral arguments for all citizens in a democracy baring complete responsibility for the actions of their elected officials or for the scale and scope of violent response is justified against any individuals (the politicians, armed forced or the civilians) in response to those actions.

 

[Thanda]

Sure, but the problem I’m trying to get across is that the inevitable consequences of your conclusions based on that very narrow viewpoint have a much wider scope of principles and practical situations.

Okay but remember killing is neither wrong nor right in and of itself - whether it is wrong or right depends in the situation. So in saying that civilians cannot be assumed to be innocent it doesn't automatically make everyone who has ever and will ever kill civilians justified. What it does do is make us unable to assume that a armed force is wrong just because they have deliberately killed civilians (and it must be said here that I am talking about the deliberate targeting of civilians and not merely collateral damage).

Also, you’ve not really established the logical or moral arguments for all citizens in a democracy baring complete responsibility for the actions of their elected officials or for the scale and scope of violent response is justified against any individuals (the politicians, armed forced or the civilians) in response to those actions.

I have not done so because I have not desired to do so. I have merely said that citizens of a democracy cannot be assumed to be innocent bystanders by enemy forces.
When an enemy force enters a country the civilians are normally in two minds: they either hope the invaders will overthrow their government or they hope their government will crush the invaders. In a democracy in which people have had ample opportunity to voice their grievances against their governments actions against the people whom the armed group represents; if those people have not done so then they have shown support (even if it is only tacit) for their country's actions against the people of the armed group.

So to make an example if my country starts killing people in our neighboring country Mozambique and I do nothing about it, then I should not feel aggrieved if some "terrorist" group arises from Mozambique and starts killing people in my country including my family and friends (or even myself).

 

[YmirGF]

So to make an example if my country starts killing people in our neighboring country Mozambique and I do nothing about it, then I should not feel aggrieved if some "terrorist" group arises from Mozambique and starts killing people in my country including my family and friends (or even myself).

That being the case you better make sure that you have eliminated the problem.

 

[Pudding]

@Thanda
Do you think the civilians who were killed in islamic terrorism, is not innocent too?

 

[HonestJoe]

I have merely said that citizens of a democracy cannot be assumed to be innocent bystanders by enemy forces.

I think you’ve gone further than that, you’ve argued that civilians (in a democracy) are automatically “guilty” of the actions of their governments and suggested they are as legitimate targets as armed attacking emery soldiers. You’ve also implied that any act is legitimate against civilians that the attackers believe (or claim to believe) will hasten the end of the conflict, not excluding any of the acts or weapons that are explicitly prohibited by international law at the moment.

When an enemy force enters a country the civilians are normally in two minds: they either hope the invaders will overthrow their government or they hope their government will crush the invaders.

I disagree. I’d suggest most civilians are of the mind of hoping all the killing ends soon so they can get on with their lives. Most military conflicts are somewhat distanced from the day-to-day needs and desires of the average citizen, especially with the complexity of modern day conflicts.

Look at the multiple and constantly shifting front lines in Syria for example? By your argument, civilians would be legitimate targets for the enemies of whoever holds that territory that day. If you’re a civilian trapped in a Aleppo, one day the Syrian army might hold the ground but the next ISIS take control. Do the civilians effectively change sides and legitimacy as targets on that basis? Your principle simply makes no sense in the real world.

So to make an example if my country starts killing people in our neighboring country Mozambique and I do nothing about it, then I should not feel aggrieved if some "terrorist" group arises from Mozambique and starts killing people in my country including my family and friends (or even myself).

What if your country is attacking the neighbouring country for legitimate reasons – say they were building up forces on the border and openly planning an unprovoked attack themselves? Would the foreign terrorist group still be justified in kidnapping, raping, torturing and executing your family as a consequence? Would a native terrorist group that opposed the government actions be justified in attacking your family because you supported the government?