View Single Post

Default 

June 17th, 2007, 00:01
@Pladio, @cptnmaxon — the people killed by the Israeli airstrike were refugees fleeing from Marjayoun, following the IDF's orders to evacuate before their assault. They had contacted the IDF and their convoy had been cleared to leave. They were tracked by Israeli drones for about 35 kilometers. Then some pimple-faced teenager in a bunker somewhere pressed the red button on his joystick, and people died. So now who's the one who thinks war is a video game?

The other guy that got killed got killed because he happened to be the son of an anti-Syrian MP who was on The Good Doctor of Damascus's hit list.

I don't see any difference, moral or otherwise, between these two acts… unless it's the difference between a mob hit and a school shooting. You may believe your propaganda about armies trying to avoid killing "innocents." I don't buy it. If they think they're in danger, they'll shoot first — that's what they're trained to do. I'm sure whoever gave the order to the pimply-faced teen had his reasons too; perhaps he thought he saw something in the convoy that looked like a shipment of rockets; perhaps that's why it took so long until they actually pulled the trigger. Hell, for all I know, perhaps the Hezzies did sneak in a shipment of rockets (or fighters) in there; I know that I would have, in their position.

And, of course, terror against civilian populations is a tactic that has been and is widely used by militaries all of the world and all through history. What else was the London blitz, the Dresden bombing, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, the rape of Nanking, the leveling of Groznyi, not even to mention the shit that's going down in the Middle East right now? Pick any major war in history, scratch the surface, and you'll find armies terrorizing civilian populations for any of a number of reasons. How is this different from terrorizing the population by blowing up teenagers in a disco?

Militaries don't give a flying fuck about civilian casualties. The only thing they care about is executing their orders and coming back alive. Anything else comes second. And generals care about civilian casualties only to the extent that they affect their strategic position — if they feel it's strategically advantageous to wipe out a couple of cities, they'll do it (Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, Carthage, Groznyi, Halabja) but if they feel it's in their advantage to court the civilian population and play nice with them, they'll do that too (although, strangely, I can't come up with any examples right now even though I'm sure there is one, somewhere, some time). But it sure as hell isn't from some deep humanitarian impulses. Generals play to win. Any general who doesn't has no business being a general.

@Korplem — if you do get in a scrap with Iran, may you keep your life vest and shark repellent handy, 'cuz you're OK. I hope you lose this war and get hurt badly enough not to start a new one in a while, not to mention getting the fuck out of the Middle East, Asia, and Europe, but I've nothing against you personally. Nor any of your compadres, for that matter, other than the ones who sent you there — or elected the ones who sent you there.
Prime Junta is offline

Prime Junta

RPGCodex' Little BRO

#20

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,540