Cikomyr Cikomyr

Contradiction

▼

Contradiction

from JoeUser Forums
I read many time one this forum 2 opinions I find one "normal" and the other really sad, taken appart, but quite hillarious when they are said by the same person :

"Terrorism use despicable tactics by targetting civilians."

"Let's just nuke Baghdad to a glass desert"

Can someone enlighten me why people support the fact that "It's all right to go in Iraq to free their people, to put a democracy there, with a constitution", while they say in the same post "I don't really care if they kill each other"?

I mean.. why do you care if they go voting or not if you don't care if they die?
5,566 views 28 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top

the question stands. what is the difference between bombing civilian population to achieve military success and car-bombing civilian population, with a much lesser casualty rate?

I can think of many key differences. But the biggest is that one involves a nation state and the other involves a terrorist organization.

If you disagree with the actions of nation states, there's a very clear way to stop them.

Your argument could be easily turned into -- what is the difference between criminals and soldiers?  The answer: Responsibility.

Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
The answer: Responsibility.


How come is it that I can't come up with a simple answer like this one? I always have to write paragraphs that usually lead to an answer as simple as this one. Go figure.
Object Desktop - Get all of our enhancement utilities in one suite
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yes. The United States went around the world and toppled every regime that was hostile to it.


the URSS were still there, right?

But the biggest is that one involves a nation state and the other involves a terrorist organization.


Touché. Still, what if the nation-state of a designed territory hasn't the support of the population, and the population fights back (like French's resistance, but that is 1 example). If both sides attacks civilian targets that are supportive of their ennemies, why would one be more legitimate than another?

Your argument could be easily turned into -- what is the difference between criminals and soldiers? The answer: Responsibility.


Sadly, except for U.S. modern troopers (and many other modern country), responsibility isn't part of a regular soldier quota in a lot of country. And even for one of the country with one of the most morale army there is (yes, U.S.A.) (except for antipersonal mines and uses of some illegal metal combustion), there are still many criminal acts commited by your soldiers, which gives you a lot of bad press.

"Responsability" is not achieved. So, except for the "legitimation" of the organisation, I do not see any real difference between a U.S. soldier and an AlQaeda guerrila. Everyone has it's unfair advantage over the other.