General Discussion

1-Old-Man

(2,667 posts)

10. I believe the distinction is made in that they are utterly indiscriminate

Mon Sep 2, 2013, 09:35 PM

Sep 2013

So its impossible to target military personnel and at least before the bombing of London it was generally considered (and now enshrined in the Geneva Conventions) wrong to attack civilians. In fact I have read that in the US Civil War and the european wars prior to WWII it was not uncommon for civilians to go watch battles like we'd go to a movie today. They knew they would be unmolseted.

Not now days. Some tin-pot dictator or leader of a major nation gets a hair up his ass and all of a sudden you've got Shock-and-Awe.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

10 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I know that chemical and biological weapons are nasty and cruel... [View all] WCGreen Sep 2013 OP

If we bomb, innocent lives will be lost. In_The_Wind Sep 2013 #1

Nothing will change. Syrian people will die from our bombs and missiles Autumn Sep 2013 #2

We also need to think about what we're doing here at home: polichick Sep 2013 #3

There are no good choices here... CaliforniaPeggy Sep 2013 #4

Great post. Thanks. 99th_Monkey Sep 2013 #5

the work on banning chemical weapons KT2000 Sep 2013 #6

I surely agree with you... WCGreen Sep 2013 #7

That's a good point treestar Sep 2013 #8

Very true. There's plenty of brutality in "conventional weapons". backscatter712 Sep 2013 #9

I believe the distinction is made in that they are utterly indiscriminate 1-Old-Man Sep 2013 #10