Why We Have to Fight

[scribblet]

Christianity' is brewing among us, but whatever it is, it doesn't hold the same connotations as Sharia Law.

Ever hear of Franklin and Billy Graham???

Yes, but I haven't heard them suggesting that we kill anyone who doesn't believe in their faith, nor have I heard of any of their followers being violent or using their kids as bombs. In fact, I believe they preach about peace and love do they not?

Pointing out past history is only an attempt to deflect from the atrocities being committed today by radical Islam, which is by far committing the large majority. Instead of vilifying other religions which today do not advocate violence, maybe it would be better to recognize that there is an issue and a possible culture war.

I would wager that most Christians today do not believe in the 'rapture' or most other pieces of dogma, and they certainly don't want to end the world for that reason. I did not know that they really desire to see the end of the world, IMO that theory only comes from blogs etc., people who wish to use it to further their own agendas, and as a method of getting at Bush and the U.S. Neither do they believe if you kill women and children, you will go to heaven, or committing suicide taking out innocent lives will get you 72 virgins,

At a recent debate over the battle for Islamic ideals in England, a British born Muslim spoke and said that the Prophet Mohammed's message to non-believers is: "I come to slaughter all of you." - nice huh

What we need to do is stop trying to apologize for the radical Islamic atrocities which were happening long before the Iraq war and help the moderate majority of Muslims to make sure that the radical brand doesn't get a toe hold here as it has in Europe.

[M.Dancer]

I believe you were saying that there western anti semitism in the Arab world....that being said, how many western papers routinely publish hate literature as a matter of course?

Depends what you consider hate.

I personally consider the acceptance of terms like collateral damage to refer to civilian casualties in Lebanon, Iraq, or Afghanistan as a form of hate in our daily newspapers. That might sound like im stretching the definition a bit, but i believe it is just as harmful, if not more so, to those effected.

Sure in Canadian mainstream media one cant be overtly racist, but when i hear the press talk about collateral damage, as if such a thing would be accepted in one of our own cities or towns, to be a very sinister form of racism, mainly because it is not recognized for what it truly is.

Andrew

It isn't a definition that is being stretched, it's reality. The purpose of hate literature is propagandic. To inspire hate against your enemies or against a people. Collateral damage (which by definition is all damage not related to the target) reported in Canadian or western papers does not in itself inspire hate against either our enemies or any particular nationality. Colaterla damge is a fact, although a decreasing one. The colllateral damge in terms of lives on D-day was measured in the tens of thousands.

[ScottSA]

I can't get over the degree of nonsense to which the apologists of Islam are willing to stretch. Christ "may have been a totally violent person"? Yeah Maybe. That's hardly worth dignifying except with a resounding "Doh".

Canadian Blue, I told you I'm not going to do your research for you when you demand to see what is for anyone with a tad of education common knowledge, but because it's so easy to find, here's a small number of them. Before you start flinging shit at the source, let me help expand your knowledge a bit. There are 5 major accepted translations of the Koran, and this website uses those sources. If you don't like this website, because you classify it as "hate" on the grounds that it doesn't say what you what, then you truly are lost in Neverland. You'll notice that they are arranged by different translators one after the other:

Suras commanding war against unbelievers appear throughout the Koran, but the one that is short and clear is 9:73:

"Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate." (Dawood)

"O Prophet, struggle with the unbelievers and hypocrites, and be thou harsh with them; their refuge is Gehenna - an evil homecoming" (Arberry - the word translated "struggle" is the Arabic word "Jihad" - holy war).

" O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites! Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey's end." (Pickthall).

Muslims are also promised heaven if they fight for the "cause of Allah" in many places. Suras 9:86-90 are clear:

" Whenever a Chapter (Sura) was revealed, saying: 'Believe in God and fight alongside His apostle," the rich among them excused themselves to you, saying 'Leave us with those who are to stay behind.' They were content to be with those who stayed behind: a seal was set upon their hearts, leaving them bereft of understanding. But the Apostle and the men who shared his faith fought with their goods and with their persons. These shall be rewarded with good things. These shall surely prosper. God has prepared for them gardens watered by running streams (the Koran's metaphor for heaven), in which they shall abide for ever. That is the supreme triumph. Some Arabs of the desert turned up with excuses, begging leave to stay behind; while those who denied God and His apostle remained idle at home. A woeful scourge shall fall on those of them that disbelieved." (Dawood).

"And when a sura is sent down, daying, 'Believe in God, and struggle with His Messenger,' the affluent among them ask leave of thee, saying, 'Let us be with the tarriers.' They are well-pleased to be with those behind, and a seal has been set upon their hearts, so they understand not. But the Messenger, and the believers with him, have stuggled with their possessions and their selves, and those - for them await the good things; those - they are the prosperers. God has prepared for them gardens underneath which rivers flow, therein to dwell forever; that is the mighty triumph. And the Bedouins came with their excuses, asking for leave; those who lied to God and His Messenger tarried; there shall befall the unbelievers of them a painful chastisement." (Arberry).

"009.086 And when a surah is revealed (which saith): Believe in Allah and strive along with His messenger, the men of wealth among them still ask leave of thee and say: Suffer us to be with those who sit (at home). 009.087 They are content that they should be with the useless and their hearts are sealed, so that they apprehend not. 009.088 But the messenger and those who believe with him strive with their wealth and their lives. Such are they for whom are the good things. Such are they who are the successful. 009.089 Allah hath made ready for them Gardens underneath which rivers flow, wherein they will abide. That is the supreme triumph. 009.090 And those among the wandering Arabs who had an excuse came in order that permission might be granted them. And those who lied to Allah and His messenger sat at home. A painful doom will fall on those of them who disbelieve." (Pickthall)

TERROR is a pervasive theme in Koran - inflicted both by Allah and by Muslims on those who don't believe. Here are several suras.

Sura 3:151 - aimed at Christians who believe in the Trinity:

"We will put terror into the hearts of the unbelievers. They serve other deities besides God for whom He has revealed no sanction. The fire shall be their home; evil indeed is the dwelling of the evil doers." (Dawood).

"We will cast into the hearts of the unbelievers terror, for that they have associated with God that for which He send down never authority; their lodging shall be the Fire; evil is the lodging of the evildoers." (Arberry)

" We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve because they ascribe unto Allah partners, for which no warrant hath been revealed. Their habitation is the Fire, and hapless the abode of the wrong-doers." (Pickthall)

This is Allah talking here. My 1967 Encyclopedia Americana says "On many issues the Koran is unclear or incomplete, and on others...it is sharply contradictory." The biggest contradiction in Koran is that while it claims God had no son (no partners with Allah) it mentions the Holy Spirit and is written in the first person plural - "We".

Sura 7:4, again Allah casting terror:

"How many cities have We destroyed! In the night Our scourge fell upon them, or at midday, when they were drowsing." (Dawood)

"How many a city We have destroyed! Our might came upon it at night, or while they took their ease in the noontide...." (Arberry)

" How many a township have We destroyed! As a raid by night, or while they slept at noon, Our terror came unto them." (Pickthall)

Sura 59:2 - here Allah and Muslims cause terror:

"It was He that drove the unbelievers among the People of the Book (Koran's phrase for Jews & Christians) out of their dwellings into the first exile. You did not think that they would go; and they, for their part, fancied that their strongholds would protect them from God. but god's scourge fell upon them whence they did not expect it, casting such terror into their hearts that their dwellings were destroyed by their own hands as well as by the faithful (Muslims). Learn from their example, you that have eyes." (Dawood)

"It is He who expelled from their habitations the unbelievers among the People of the Book at the first mustering. You did not think that they would go forth, and they thought that their fortresses would defend them against god; then God came upon them from whence they had not reckoned, and He cast terror into their hearts as they destroyed their houses with their own hands, and the hands of the believers; therefore take heed, you who have eyes." (Arberry).

"He it is Who hath caused those of the People of the Scripture who disbelieved to go forth from their homes unto the first exile. Ye deemed not that they would go forth, while they deemed that their strongholds would protect them from Allah. But Allah reached them from a place whereof they recked not, and cast terror in their hearts so that they ruined their houses with their own hands and the hands of the believers. So learn a lesson, O ye who have eyes!" (Pickthall).

SLAYING UNBELIEVERS is specifically commanded, though they can also be made slaves and their property can be confiscated. Non-muslims have no legal rights in Muslim societies. If unbelievers are not killed, they can be made to pay "Jizya," a tax to buy back rights like owning property, working, or going to school.

Sura 2:191:

"Slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you. Idolatry is more grievous than bloodshed. But do not fight them within the precincts of the Holy Mosque unless they attack you there; if they attack you put them to the sword. thus shall the unbelievers be rewarded: but if they mend their ways (become Muslims), know that God is forgiving and merciful." (Dawood)

"And slay them wherever you come upon them, and expel them from where they expelled you; persecution is more grievous than slaying. But fight them not by the Holy Mosque until they should fight you there; then, if they fight you, slay them - such is the recompense of unbelievers - but if they give over, surely God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate." (Arberry)

"And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers." (Pickthall).

http://www.citizensoldier.org/koranone.html

Now, I could go on. There are hundreds of these passages in the Koran. Not one even remotely similar is to be found in the New testament. The closest apologists have been able to come is Christ's statement that he comes not to bring peace, but the sword. I'm not a biblical scholar, but that's not exactly an incitement to create mayhem, rapine and slaughter. The Koran is. On almost every page.

[Black Dog]

I don't see either of those groups being as radical as the Islamists, we may have one or two or want to kill abortionists, all religions have their crackpots I suppose, but none to my knowledge are beheading people, stoning women to death or even suggesting that they might want to bomb a subway or fly planes into building and kill a few thousand people at a go, and certainly none of them are using kids as human bombs or decoys. Neither do I see them planting bombs in places of worship that belonged to their own faith There is no equivalence.

I hate to repeat myself, but it's always interesting to me that the ends of the different fundamentalists are never questioned: only the means. That tells me the main difference between Christian fundamentalists and their Islamic bretheren is only the degree to which they are willing to use violence. (Of course, bear in mind that the nominally Christian west has held the monoply on violence for the better part seven centuries, so its followers would never be reduced to the same crude measure the radical Islamists use). What's apparent, though, is that the actual ends aren't terribly different.

Also, I find it interesting that some are able to conclude that Islamic violence is rooted in the religion, but are unable to draw the same conclusions to others. Oh and as for the tired fallacy that "atheism is evil because evil men were atheists": how essential was the religious beliefs (or lack thereof) of the Stalins of the world to their deeds? Not very. The problem with them was not that they did not believe in God, but that they were dogmatists.

[ScottSA]

That tells me the main difference between Christian fundamentalists and their Islamic bretheren is only the degree to which they are willing to use violence.

If by "degree", you mean scale and popularity, then don't you find that a tad relevant? Your arguemtn is analogous to saying that the Andy Griffith shot someone once as Sherriff of Mayfield, thereby demonstrating violent capabilities and intent, so Mayfield is morally equivalent to Nazi Germany and differs only by degree. Forgive me for thinking that's a silly argument.

Also, I find it interesting that some are able to conclude that Islamic violence is rooted in the religion, but are unable to draw the same conclusions to others.

I'd be happy to draw that conclusion if you can show me where, in the New Testament, for example, Christ assures his disciples that they will go to heaven for slaying the infidel, or where Christ advocated the rapine and slaughter of his Jewish foes, or....

Oh and as for the tired fallacy that "atheism is evil because evil men were atheists": how essential was the religious beliefs (or lack thereof) of the Stalins of the world to their deeds? Not very. The problem with them was not that they did not believe in God, but that they were dogmatists.

Tell me that atheism is not central to humanist Marxism, or Leninism, or any other humanist transformative ideology. It's not only central to the philosophy, but it's a necessary condition.

[M.Dancer]

Also, I find it interesting that some are able to conclude that Islamic violence is rooted in the religion, but are unable to draw the same conclusions to others.

I'd be happy to draw that conclusion if you can show me where, in the New Testament, for example, Christ assures his disciples that they will go to heaven for slaying the infidel, or where Christ advocated the rapine and slaughter of his Jewish foes, or......

I don't want to get drawn into the argument which I find pointless......but to be fair, christianity does not begin with the new testament. Christianity is an offshoot off Judaism and early christians has no problem with the exortation of Samuel urging Saul to slay the amalekites...they understoood its meaning both literally and symbolically..(other example of Old testament militancy ommitted due to lack of interest...)

The difference between Islam and Christianity isn't it's supposed pacifist or militants roots, but that one no longers deems it worthy to convert or coerce religious obediance through violence or state law.

I am sure though that one day, and sooner if we help, Islam will have it's reformation and enlightenment.

[ScottSA]

I don't want to get drawn into the argument which I find pointless......but to be fair, christianity does not begin with the new testament. Christianity is an offshoot off Judaism and early christians has no problem with the exortation of Samuel urging Saul to slay the amalekites...they understoood its meaning both literally and symbolically..(other example of Old testament militancy ommitted due to lack of interest...)

The difference between Islam and Christianity isn't it's supposed pacifist or militants roots, but that one no longers deems it worthy to convert or coerce religious obediance through violence or state law.

I am sure though that one day, and sooner if we help, Islam will have it's reformation and enlightenment.

Maybe so, but this is the 21st century and not the 16th. If Islam would confine its reformative actions to slaying each other over such questions as how many virgins can prance on the shredded heads of departiculated freedom fighters, I'm sure I wouldn't much mind. But when Islam decides that it's going to reform by attacking me and mine, that makes it of direct interest to me.

[Argus]

So far the religion with the most killings under it's best is probably Christianity, aka western civilization. Why don't we go to war with ourselves.

Because that would be stupid, as your supposition is clearly wrong. Christianity, though it had its barbarous era, was never as violent as Islam, and has vastly reformed over the last two centuries. Islam has not.

[Argus]

Al Jaz ain't a newspaper .....not withsatnding, they sometimes carry the editorial cartoons from newspapers of the region....the one that have the stereotyped jew doing something....robbing the poor, eating babies and such.

Considering that staples of anti semitism like the protocols and blood liable are accepted truths in places like syria and iran, this is like arguing whether the world is flat.

Racism is global in nature, not exclusive to arabs.

Andrew

Yeah, thanks for that. We didn't now.

Racism in the West means not hiring someone for a job because of his skin colour or religion.

Racism in the third world means cutting someone's throat and smashing his baby's head against a wall because you don't like his skin colour or religion.

There's something of a difference.

[Argus]

I don't think we have to worry about Billy Graham. I'd be more concerned about Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.

And how many people have any of them murdered lately?

Round numbers please.

[Argus]

First of all, most of the numbers came from Iraq, which is a clusterf$#k due to American incompetence.

Even without Iraq that list, given the period of time, is rather shocking.

Well, I was born and raised in an evangelical home, but I'm closer to the United Church nowadays.

Okay, so you're an atheist

I simply recognize historical facts surrounding Christianity.

And yet, you seem utterly without knowledge, recognition or interest in the bloodthirsty past of Islam.

Besides which, neither is of any particular interest in a discussion of the religious inspired violence of TODAY.

To insinuate that one religion is more evil than another is a simple response which doesn't recognize the complexity of religion.

To fail to recognize that one religion inspires far, far more violence today than another is simple-minded.

[Argus]

ScottSA, if you'd like I'll give a link to an anti-Christian website which show's all of the atrocities committed by Christian's. I decided not to give a link simple because I think it would be ignorant towards those who have moderate religious views.

Translation: I tried, but I couldn't find anything which was anywhere remotely as bad a the one detailing the religious inspired violence from the Islamic world.

[Black Dog]

Tell me that atheism is not central to humanist Marxism, or Leninism, or any other humanist transformative ideology. It's not only central to the philosophy, but it's a necessary condition.

"Atheism as a denial of this unreality; has no longer any meaning, for atheism is a denial of God and tries to assert through this negation the existence of man; but socialism as such no longer needs this mediation."-Marx

[AndrewL]

It isn't a definition that is being stretched, it's reality. The purpose of hate literature is propagandic. To inspire hate against your enemies or against a people. Collateral damage (which by definition is all damage not related to the target) reported in Canadian or western papers does not in itself inspire hate against either our enemies or any particular nationality. Colaterla damge is a fact, although a decreasing one. The colllateral damge in terms of lives on D-day was measured in the tens of thousands.

By not referring to the killing of innocents as murder, and glossing over it as if they are just another object like a building, we are promoting a hate that goes far beyond the infantile propaganda of deliberately racist hate speech. Our casual acceptance of collateral damage breeds hatred of people we do not know and cannot understand, as long as they are not like us, and are way over there in some foreign country, we can pretend they are all evil and that their deaths are of no more concern than that of an actual combatant or terrorist, let alone as you describe as just something that 'is not a target'. (that is quite perverse).

You make a claim that collateral damage is decreasing, which is very misleading. The fact is that the civilian/soldier death ratio is on the rise, beginning in the 20 the century. Total numbers are down since WWII, yes, but the ratio is up. Also it is important to note that WWII was total war. There has only been limited war since then. If total war ever came upon us again it is not inconceivable that every civilian on the planet would be killed. We have not improved, we have become infinitely more barbaric.

Andrew

[ScottSA]

Tell me that atheism is not central to humanist Marxism, or Leninism, or any other humanist transformative ideology. It's not only central to the philosophy, but it's a necessary condition.

"Atheism as a denial of this unreality; has no longer any meaning, for atheism is a denial of God and tries to assert through this negation the existence of man; but socialism as such no longer needs this mediation."-Marx

Ilove it! Do you have any idea what that means? If I were you, I'd spend a little less time googling and a little more time trying to understand what it is you're posting. Thanks for proving my point.

[AndrewL]

Al Jaz ain't a newspaper .....not withsatnding, they sometimes carry the editorial cartoons from newspapers of the region....the one that have the stereotyped jew doing something....robbing the poor, eating babies and such.

Considering that staples of anti semitism like the protocols and blood liable are accepted truths in places like syria and iran, this is like arguing whether the world is flat.

Racism is global in nature, not exclusive to arabs.

Andrew

Yeah, thanks for that. We didn't now.

Racism in the West means not hiring someone for a job because of his skin colour or religion.

No. Racism in the west is poverty, hatred, and abuse.

Racism in the third world means cutting someone's throat and smashing his baby's head against a wall because you don't like his skin colour or religion.

There's something of a difference.

No. Thats religion.

Andrew

[M.Dancer]

By not referring to the killing of innocents as murder, and glossing over it as if they are just another object like a building, we are promoting a hate that goes far beyond the infantile propaganda of deliberately racist hate speech. Our casual acceptance of collateral damage breeds hatred of people we do not know and cannot understand, as long as they are not like us, and are way over there in some foreign country, we can pretend they are all evil and that their deaths are of no more concern than that of an actual combatant or terrorist, let alone as you describe as just something that 'is not a target'. (that is quite perverse).

You make a claim that collateral damage is decreasing, which is very misleading. The fact is that the civilian/soldier death ratio is on the rise, beginning in the 20 the century. Total numbers are down since WWII, yes, but the ratio is up. Also it is important to note that WWII was total war. There has only been limited war since then. If total war ever came upon us again it is not inconceivable that every civilian on the planet would be killed. We have not improved, we have become infinitely more barbaric.

Andrew

Murder is a legal term and whether you like it or not, conduct of war is also guided by legal terms. The glossing over that you decry so passionately is the realities you chose to ignore.

Military targets are not picked soley by the side launching the attack, but mainly by the side that occupies them. If one side chooses to position itself amongst the civilian population and civilians get killed, there is no war crime. This is clearly set out under Geneva.

The only way that the killing of civilians can be considered a war crime is their direct unmitigated targetting.

As to ratios......

Second World War

China-

4,000,000 military

16,000,000 civilian

Burma

22,000 Military

250,000 Civilian

France

212,000 Military

35,000 Civilian

Ethiopia

5,000 Military

200,000 Civilian

USSR

10,700,000 Military

11,500,000 Civilian

Holland

7,900 Military

92,000 Civilian

Full List

[Canadian Blue]

As for the people who believe that their are no violent passages in the Bible.

Observe what I command you this day. Behold, I am driving out from before you the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Hittite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite. Take heed to yourself, lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land where you are going, lest it be a snare in your midst. But you shall destroy their altars, break their sacred pillars, and cut down their wooden images (For you shall worship no other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.)

Exodus, Chapter 34, verses 11-14

You will chase your enemies, and they shall fall by the sword before you. Five of you shall chase a hundred, and a hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight; your enemies shall fall by the sword before you. For I will look on you favorably and make you fruitful, multiply you and confirm My covenant with you. You shall eat the old harvest, and clear out the old because of the new.

Leviticus, Chapter 26, verses 7-9

No. Racism in the west is poverty, hatred, and abuse.

I thought that was bigotry.

Translation: I tried, but I couldn't find anything which was anywhere remotely as bad a the one detailing the religious inspired violence from the Islamic world.

http://dim.com/~randl/tinq.htm

English Catholics suffered horribly under Protestant regimes. American historian William T. Walsh writes: "In Britain, 30,000 went to the stake for witchcraft; in Protestant Germany, the figure was 100,000" (, p. 275). In Scotland, too, alleged witches were cruelly put to death. Karl Keating quotes from the : "It is well-known that belief in the justice of punishing heresy with death was so common among the 16th-century Reformers-Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, and their adherents-that we may say their toleration began where their power ended" (C.E., s.v., "Inquisition," 8:35).

In the 12th and 13th centuries, the Inquisition was born, with Christians killing Christians, during what was known as the Albigensian heresies. Hundreds of thousands of people died because their Christianity did not agree with official dogma. This adds to the irony of murder in the name of Christ, when the majority of victims of the early inquisitions were themselves Christians.

Queen Isabella, famous for sending Columbus to the New World in 1492, was well known also for her 'Spanish Inquisition', the gruesome torture and murder of tens of thousands of Spanish Jews, Muslims, homosexuals, people who read or wrote, uppity women, and anyone else not up to the Queen's strict standards. Isabella was a champion of the faith, piously congratulating herself as her victims writhed to their deaths in the flames and the many other ingenious methods of torture invented by her inquisitors.

In 1122 Christian crusaders swept over Jerusalem and slaughtered men, women and children, 'until their horses were knee deep in blood. We then went to the church to thank the Lord for his mercy.'

In 777 , Charlemagne, a devout Christian, after conquering the Saxon rebels, gave them a choice between baptism and execution. When they refused to convert, he had 4500 of them beheaded in one morning.

In the fourth century, Emporor Constantine, the first Roman Emperor to become a Christian, had over 3000 Christians executed because their interpretation of the Bible did not agree with his. That is more than the number of Christians who died at the hands of the Romans during the well known 1st century "Christians to the lions" persecutions.

[jdobbin]

Does that mean you're not going to try to find a similar list perpetrated by Jains or Buddhists?

You mean one of these?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_terrorism

[ScottSA]

Yes yes, we know all that. I'm asking for some New testament passages.

[ScottSA]

Does that mean you're not going to try to find a similar list perpetrated by Jains or Buddhists?

You mean one of these?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_terrorism

No, I meant Jains or Buddhists.

I mean really...with 257 self-proclaimed Islamic terror groups afoot and active in the world today and killing hundreds across the globe each day, don't you feel a little foolish trying to jam everything from every religion together to make up a fraction of the amount of terror that Islam spawns?

[AndrewL]

Murder is a legal term and whether you like it or not, conduct of war is also guided by legal terms. The glossing over that you decry so passionately is the realities you chose to ignore.

This is exactly the type of glossing over of murder that i find so distressing. I find it odd you would say i am ignoring reality when you consider the murder of children to be 'damage that is not the target'. If anybody is ignoring reality i would say it was you.

Military targets are not picked soley by the side launching the attack, but mainly by the side that occupies them. If one side chooses to position itself amongst the civilian population and civilians get killed, there is no war crime. This is clearly set out under Geneva.

Doesn't matter in the slightest when the initial justification for the occupier is completely lacking. That alone makes collateral damage nothing but murder.

The only way that the killing of civilians can be considered a war crime is their direct unmitigated targetting.

When the war itself is a crime, than every death in it is murder.

As to ratios......

Second World War

China-

4,000,000 military

16,000,000 civilian

Burma

22,000 Military

250,000 Civilian

France

212,000 Military

35,000 Civilian

Ethiopia

5,000 Military

200,000 Civilian

USSR

10,700,000 Military

11,500,000 Civilian

Holland

7,900 Military

92,000 Civilian

Full List

WWII death totals:

Military 25 million

Civilian 37 million.

That is a ratio of more civilians dead than soldiers. The ratio has increased dramatically since WWII through Vietnam, Iraq, Lebanon, etc... Modern war is far more deadly to civilians than any other era of war.

Andrew

[M.Dancer]

Military targets are not picked soley by the side launching the attack, but mainly by the side that occupies them. If one side chooses to position itself amongst the civilian population and civilians get killed, there is no war crime. This is clearly set out under Geneva.

Doesn't matter in the slightest when the initial justification for the occupier is completely lacking. That alone makes collateral damage nothing but murder.

Andrew

How about I just pat you on the head and say never mind?

[M.Dancer]

WWII death totals:

Military 25 million

Civilian 37 million.

That is a ratio of more civilians dead than soldiers. The ratio has increased dramatically since WWII through Vietnam, Iraq, Lebanon, etc... Modern war is far more deadly to civilians than any other era of war.

Andrew

For the record, civilians deaths totalled over 47 million

[ScottSA]

Military targets are not picked soley by the side launching the attack, but mainly by the side that occupies them. If one side chooses to position itself amongst the civilian population and civilians get killed, there is no war crime. This is clearly set out under Geneva.

Doesn't matter in the slightest when the initial justification for the occupier is completely lacking. That alone makes collateral damage nothing but murder.

Andrew

How about I just pat you on the head and say never mind?

There are tomes and tomes making this point self-evident. Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bellum reaching all the way the the GC makes your point quite clear in point of agreed moral and in point of law. Poor Andrew...