Is it OK to target civillians in a war?

Question

According to a Red Cross survey 51% of British people say it is. At the begining of the Iraq conflict, 72 % said it wasn't right and civillians should be off limits. What do you think?

This is from an article on the 12th Dec
http://uk.reuters.com

Answer 1

No, any Israelis reading this? if so perhaps you would like to explain why so many 100s of Palestinian children have been killed in "crossfire" recently.

No again, any Muslim extremists reading this? there were
innocent people in buildings on 9/11 and 7/7 .

No again, America and the UK, why the hell did you attack Iraq? this caused 1000s of civilian deaths.

Answer 2

I do not think it is right from both a moral and a tactical point of view. Firstly it is not the civilians who started the war and in the case of Iraq it was a dictatorship fighting the war not the people.

Targeting civilians serves no useful purpose, if anything it could make it worse for the occupation. If the war stop becoming a war against the government or insurgents and becomes a war against the people then the people will fight back. There is no way a country can win a guerrilla war with force. (examples include the Iraq war, Vietnam and the Blitz)

Answer 3

You are on to a very deep and interesting subject. While obviously the main killing goes on at the front, killing at home can have a great effect on those fighting in many ways. The thought occurs that there are very few innocents in a war. The men go to the front, the wives make munitions at home, the children collect scrap to help make the munitions. Much of the moral of the fighting man is upheld knowing he is fighting usually for his dependents, if they are in trouble he wants to come home. The civilian bombing by both the Germans and us, never broke the will of the people, in the last major war, but it did slow down and in some cases prevent munition of one sort or another being made. Even the farmer feeds the troops. The weapons of war cannot be made without civilians. These are just some of the facts of life
to be considered. As regards women and children, some of our ladies are serving with fighting troops and if I may say so, the best in the world!

Answer 4

Caring about civilians is what has brought some of our most advanced technology, but it does have its draw backs.

Being so concerned means extremely careful planning and intelligence gathering must take place, so rather than blowing up an entire area that would be guaranteed to kill the targets, time is wasted and lower odds of getting a hit are acheived by all this faffing about.
The 72% are probably made up with misconception that all people in Iraq are evil.

Quote Rose O'Donnel "I haven't been to Afghanistan, but I know its full of terrorists. Speaking as a Mother."

WTF, speaking as a mother??

As for the comment about the Brits, at least we hit the enemy, I'm looking at you United States

Answer 5

Unfortunately civilians are causalities of war... If your US Military personnel your answer should no doubt be NO, this has been drilled into my head in every single combat training course I have been through.

However if civilians are aiding in the enemy's effort you have every right to kill them. Normally you can not attack a medical personnel, however enemies in the past have used ambulances as a way to transport soldiers, thus these ambulances are a target and under ROE you have the right to blow it to bits.

The military has strict rules on ROE everything regarding excessive force, to medical stations, to the types of weapons we can use.

Bottom line civilians are not allowed to be targeted unless they are assisting the enemy.

edit:

I'm seriously curious to see where these stats came from and how legit they are, and if they haven't been tampered with or slided?

Answer 6

Unfortunately, All's Fair in Love and War. I emphasise "WAR". How many "civilians" are actually the enemy? There is no way of knowing until some of our and even their own people are injured or killed. We really cannot take a chance. World War II is a good example and history repeats itself. The worst thing that happens is when a country targets its own people.

Answer 7

The Geneva convention prohibits the deliberate targeting of innocent civilians and all those not directly linked to a conflict by either side involved in a war.

Answer 8

Generally, civilians are not targets. However, if a civillian was to charge at me armed with a weapon I would see him as a target. He ceases to be a civilian and becomes a combatant.

Terrorists could be called civillians, depending on your definition...

If you're talking about regular, unarmed civillians, then no, it is definitely NOT right to target them.

Answer 9

Targeting unarmed civilians is wrong but armed civilians are another story. War is not black and white and in any conflict there are going to be civilian casualties. Reasonable efforts should be made to avoid them but there is no way to assure civilians will not be injured or killed. The safety of our troops is most important.

Answer 10

I'd like to hear more from those who feel that it is okay to target civillians.
One of the forgotten wars in the 90s was in Rwanda when the ruling Hutus put out propaganda - but they had been doing this for years - that the Tutsis were planning to massacre them when this wasn't the case. So the government and the army massacred the Tutsis, most of whom were civillians.

I feel sad that so many years of war has hardened the hearts of some people in this country.