The Myth That Nuclear Weapons Can Kill Everyone On Earth-many times over

The question of legitimacy -- is the question. More correctly: Our military attacks targets - knowing civilians will likely die. They then classify these attacks so the legitimacy can not be questioned by the public at large.

This is the issue. The issue is in relation to legitimacy - the calculation used.

My issue is that most of the time the public does not even know why we are fighting a war - sans righteous platitudes. My issue is the complete lack of transparency and accountability.

When a third of my tax dollars are going towards Total Military Spending - there should be better transparency - or at least proper oversight and this does not even exist. We can not even get the FBI to turn over documents relating to "Russiagate" to the congressional oversight committee.

 

ROFL. You know you lost when you complain about facts, such as dictionary definitions, then deny those definitions refute your false claims:

 

There is no question of legitimacy here - sometimes, in war, civilians die.
When you attack a military target and civilians die because of it, the attack on the target is still legitimate.

 

You can hide behind that BS all you like - cover ears eyes mouth nose and any other orifice that might let the bad news in.

This will not change the fact that when you target a compound (one containing bad guys) and civilians are present in that compound - you are not just targeting the bad guys. You are intentionally targeting the compound. If the compound contains civilians you are intentionally targeting a compound where civilians are present.

The idea that the person the targeting does not realize that the bomb will not selectively kill the bad guys is akin to denial that water is wet.

 

Welcome to war.
Especially a war where the enemy hides behind civilians.
If the enemy places a legitimate military asset among civilians, and civilians die as a result of an attack on that asset, the blame for those deaths falls upon the enemy

 

1) The dictionary definition does not support your claim
2) Don't blame me for the fact that you do not know what a dictionary definition is - A dictionary does not give explanations to complex ideas and nor is it intended to do this. Otherwise we would not need textbooks in College classes.

All you are trying to do is deflect from the reality that when a compound is targeted and that compound contains civilians (and some bad guys)- this is intentionally targeting civilians and this is referred to by the military (regardless of what the dictionary says) as collateral damage.

 

You are putting the cart before the horse. I am glad that you agree that civilians are sometimes intentionally targeted during war and you are not obfuscating and living in disingenuous denial of reality.

The posts thus far are directed to those living in disingenuous denial of reality.

Whether or not the military asset is a legitimate excuse to kill civilians is a separate question. The assignment of blame is not black and white.. there are rules that govern actions in war and how these actions are labeled.

Just becomes some general claims "this target justifies killing of X number of civilians" does not necessarily make it so.

The question here is "who gets to decide and on what basis" and this is a complex question .. not so simple as "Welcome to War".

 

Read what I said, as that wasn't it.

 

1) I'm confident that educated, intelligent and sane readers can see the clear difference between your claims that collateral damage is the intentional killing of civilians and the dictionary definition that says it is unintentional.

2) Thanks for the insults and the waffling about "complex ideas".

 

I did not insult you. You are deflecting -trying to talk around the issue. It is you that are throwing indirect insults by inferring that I am neither educated nor intelligent nor sane.

This is a typical denial/avoidance response - demonization of the messenger rather than addressing the message.

If you shoot a missile at a compound and civilians are in that compound, this is intentionally targeting a compound with civilians in it.

Denial of this fact is akin to denial that water is wet and any sane and intelligent individual realizes it.

 

Facts and reality are hardly BS.

The intended target is still the bad guys.

Good thing I'm not making any such denials.

That isn't reality. Intentionally targeting enemy military forces is not intentionally targeting civilians.

 

That is true.

What is not true are claims that such acts are the intentional targeting of civilians.

 

If the enemy placed a legitimate military asset in said compound, and civilians die as a result of an attack on that asset, the blame for those deaths falls upon the enemy.

Denial of this fact is akin to denial that water is wet and any sane and intelligent individual realizes it.

 

it could make life very limited. And also depends on how many nukes hit and where.

 

So you think posting "you do not know what a dictionary definition is" is just fact or a compliment? Obviously since I was the one who posted the dictionary definition of "collateral damage" I must know what it is so are you now claiming you were giving me a compliment or are you admitting you made a false accusation against me?

 

Which is exactly why Jihadists, Palestinians and other low-lifes use women and children as meat shields. It's not a coincidence that a Palestinian mortar or rocket crew sets up on the roof or next to a school or mosque, launches an attack against Israeli citizens then runs before the retaliatory attack hits. The Palestinians want to see dead innocent civilians. Jihadist and/or Palestinian sympathizers will blame the Israelis, but the real blame is on those who set up innocent people as collateral damage.

 

All true.

 

Your the one that is full of BS. If you drop a bomb on a building full of civilians - in order to kill some bad guy in that building - you are intentionally dropping a bomb on a building full of civilians.

No amount of ballyhoo and denial is going to change this fact.

 

Don't blame me for your lack of understanding of what a dictionary definition is. If you are insulted by being called out on this fact .. then get a better understanding.

Just because a dictionary definition says "with child" refers to a pregnant woman.. does not mean a child exists at all stages of pregnancy. A dictionary tells you what is likely meant by the person using the word

Further - your dictionary definition does not change the fact that the military will often hide behind this word - as a propaganda tool - so they do not have to come out and say "we intentionally dropped a bomb on a building full of civilians".

Nor does your semantic ballyhoo change the fact that when the military intentionally drops a bomb on a building full of civilians (because some bad guy is in the building)... they are intentionally dropping a bomb on a building full of civilians.

 

You cannot point to a single untrue thing that I've ever said.

Yes. So?

Fortunately for me, I'm not trying to change that fact.

Hardly hiding.

 

You said the Military does not target civilians. Now you are saying the opposite. Make up your mind.

When you target a building that is full of civilians (because some bad guys are there) you are targeting the civilians along with the bad guys.

"Yes so" ... What part of dropping a bomb on a building full of civilians - is "targeting civilians" do you not comprehend ?

 

Your defensiveness and denial is noted. Have a nice day in your fantasies.

Meanwhile, the real world with real people will carry on with real world problems and real world solutions. Immature minds seeking to spread false perceptions will only work among the weak and stupid.

 

That is correct. And I am right to do so, as it is the truth.

I said no such thing.

That is incorrect. The only target is the bad guys.

I get hung up on the fact that it is completely untrue.

 

if all the nukes on earth went off, I think I would want to be killed in the initial blast, those that may survive not gonna have a easy life imo

 

If the enemy placed a legitimate military asset in said building , and civilians die as a result of an attack on that asset, the blame for those deaths falls upon the enemy.

No amount of ballyhoo and denial is going to change this fact