Has war now become the massacre of civilians rather than a struggle between two armed forces?

Question

Think about it carefully.

Answer 1

When there is a war going and one side is not uniformed it is extremely difficult to tell the enemy from the civilians. As we found in  Vietnam when the use of civilians are used it is better to transgress on the safe side, if not we end up with more injuries and death on our side. Anyone who thinks differently when in hostile territory is a fool and usually dead.

If the other people of the world do not understand this they are bigger fools than I thought.  I am an old soldier because I understood this delicate point, otherwise I would have been lying in my grave for over 40 years, but I live. If you look, act or dress like the enemy, to me, you are the enemy.

And to any American citizen that thinks this war is useless and wrong, I offer this question. If we don't fight over there, what are you going to do when they start fighting in your street or yard? And if we don't fight there, it will come down to just that. I'm ready for them. My guns are loaded and I will use them!

SEMPER FI!

Answer 2

I have no need to think about this question carefully.  I have on numerous occasions been shot at by "enemy combatants" wearing civilian clothing and hiding behind civilians, mainly women and children.  Soldiers are subject (in the British Army) to intensive training before deploying to a hostile environment and a great deal of time and preparation is taken up with keeping civilian casualties to a minimum.  My son returned from Afghanistan last year, and he tells me that several times the same thing has happened to him, some things, it seems, never change.

Cooljerk - think you have been watching too many Hollywood/Mel Gibson films - support you allegations with a link, as long as its not wikipedia!!

Answer 3

War has always included civilians killed.

It has never been just two armies fighting.

Just look at any major war in history.

More civilians have always been killed,

And many times, there are 20 to 50 times more civilians killed than soldiers.

Answer 4

The terrorists are combatants, murderers and proponents of a policy of hatred and domination - if this entitles them to the term, "civilians" - then, yes, the massacre of "civilians," in this sense, is both necessary and just.

Answer 5

YES

Answer 6

That is what war always is.  I'm sorry, but read your history. In any war--since the beginning of recorded history--its the civilians who suffer and die in the greatest numbers. Rarely (lie the American Civil War) the number of soldiers who die approaches the number of civilians. Even then, the civilian toll--in suffering, death, and loss of property--was massive.

People want the illusion that you can send an army off to fight and they will meet the enemy on some convenient battlefield where no one else gets hurt. It doesn't work that way. War is ugly, brutal, and vicious. There   are no rules that keep civilians out of harms way. The best you can hope for is that one or both sides will at least try to minimize the carnage.

The real cost of war is never the dead soldier who at least had a chance to fight. Its the red goo that was once an innocent baby dripping off the body of its mother who died in a futile effort to shield her child.

That's what war is. That is what it has always been. That is what it will always be. No glory. No "victory" No noble causes. Just suffering and death.

Some times war is necessary. But don't make a pretense there are any rules. there aren't. Just a savage, unholy orgy of killing that couldn't be avoided and must be dealt with.

Answer 7

r u that uneducated?

it used to be that way

D-Day   30,000 French civs were killed by allied bombing

when USA is involved enemy civilians are much safer now

when other countries are involved they do not mind killing civs  ie Russia  

Answer 8

Almost every war, and certainly the major ones, that the US has been in had both sides being financed by the Illuminati, the super rich globalist controlling families like the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds. Since they currently want to depopulate the planet because they can't control a huge population and keep them deceived, they now have wars that is genocidal as part of their depopulation strategy.

Answer 9

Why, I ask myself, is there so much anger in your responses so far?

Civilians are dying in every "military" encounter in the world. Including those encounters engaged in by both British and American armed forces.

They die (the civilians) in huge numbers, compared to the losses of the armed forces.

It may be uncomfortable, but it is fact.

Justifications are endless, and the favourite is: "They dress as civilians or use them as shields". (Vietnam, anybody?)

There is only - ever - one true end to war, and that is a resolution that is based on mutual understanding and negotiation.

If I don't talk to my enemy I am condemned to fighting him until one of us dies.

Saying "He won't talk to me, so I have to fight him" is simplistic, naive playground nonsense.

I accept that there are people with whom one might be trying to resolve differences and whose differences make war unavoidable. Hitler was a good example.

Even then, if one engages in war, one must acknowledge that, horrific though the losses to ones armed forces might be, the civilian losses will be greater.

Answer 10

Probably another liberal who will never fight for this country. You have no clue what its like over there, fighting against people who hide behind children for body shields. Think about that carefully. Its people like you that is ruining this country, and nobody else.  

Answer 11

Yes but it always has been.

Recent [wars] have not been a struggle between two armed forces but more of an invasion or massacre by an army of an inferior people . This is what leads to terrorists.

Answer 12

Yes, it has been that way for many years, the trick is to keep the public blissfully unaware of the massacres undertaken in their name

Answer 13

Depends what you mean by WAR: the word has been thoroughly ABUSED in recent years, particularly with respect to Iraq and A'stan. These are not wars, and never were. Both were INVASIONS, with a subsequent OCCUPATION. The violence thereafter is not war, but RESISTANCE to that occupation.

A WAR was, and still is, a t*t-for-tat prolonged struggle between two opposing factions of the same character : bewteen two families, two tribes, two sects, two countries. Violence between "terrorists" and a country's army is not a war--and there is no such thing as a War on Terror. It's a concocted term to suit the concocter. When someone says (ref the Iraq debacle) STOP the WAR, they mean GET OUR TROOPS OUT: this in turn means "end the occupation".

The last time the UK was at war was 1982. The last time the US was at war was 1945--every other bout of violence it has been involved in since then has been entirely voluntary. Vietnam WAS, of course, a "war", but between North and South Vietnam, not with the US.

I say all this because I suspect by the nature of your question you're referring to the current violence around the world. I think to answer your question, that "war" is still the same as it always was--it's just that more and more atrocities get CALLED war, because "war" sounds better for the aggressor, as "fight" sounds better for a puncher-in of a bystander's teeth. You can bet the Arabs/Muslims don't call what the US does "war", on THEIR media. Neither do I.

Answer 14

only because one side hides among the civilians and uses them as human shields.

Answer 15

Wow, how far off can you be, every war until recently (give or take 20 years) countless civilians were killed either by collateral damage and or factories and other military targets were placed in civilian centers ie; Cities. and at times cities were targeted for the demoralizing effect it would have. The ultimate goal in any war is to make the opposing side capitulate and surrender. In the past 5 years or so the number of civilian deaths due to "War" is down dramatically due to "smart weapons", yes there are the cases where for one reason or another it misses the target or the target was in the kitchen of a house and civilians die, but that is the exception not the norm.

Now, have thousands and thousands been killed by the fanatics that are targeting their fellow country men and women because they pray differently. Yes

Answer 16

Yes, considering the fact that tyrannical regimes, extremists and insurgents commonly surround themselves with non-combatants as human shields.

Many times these non-combatants are duped or even unaware.

"War is not nice." - Barbara Bush (1925 - )

Answer 17

If you really think hard about it,than war is killing.Once a soldier has killed another soldier,than it becomes even easier to kill a civilian,and then easy peasy to rape who they want.We cannot train soldiers  to have a concsion as they would get killed.

Killing women,children and raping is an effective scare and shock aspect of war.

The last war that had very few civilian deaths was WW1 after that WW2 has a lot of civilian deaths.It's nothing new.It's niave to think of high mindedness in war.You have to go to the very bottom.

Answer 18

All I have to say is read, "The sorrows of Empire" you will have no questions about what anything is about anymore.

Answer 19

when you get down to it war has always benn between two (or more) societies.

Some countries have trained armies and some don't. Consider, for example, our own revolutionary war. Because it was all (or most all) the colonists engaged in the fight the British were forced to treat all people as the enemy and yes the British massacred the colonists, armed or not.