Was the Republican campaign justifiable?

Liam Byrne · 15-12-2011 4:41am

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Good to know.

But why did you start making points about internment then,

They're different issues.

Internment was aimed at suppressing Catholics and did nothing but further energize the IRA. The security forces were not referees they were players. Only the most delusional apologists for the dominance of Unionism/Loyalism over the Catholic community would deny this.

They are different issues, but my point was the fact that the authorities interred suspected terrorists while the IRA murdered and kneecapped suspected informers (i.e. civilians doing their duty); no trial in either case and only the IRA's word that the person was "guilty" of a non-crime. I doubt the apologists view those as innocent murder victims, but they were.

Bad and all as internment was, at least it wasn't execution adding to the murder figures.

or pretend that a percentage was more important than the actual number of people murdered?

Trust me - I'm not pretending. Looking at the percentage of civilians killed by each organisation is perfectly legitimate.

Remember too that the RUC and BA had recourse to a statutory legal apparatus making their civilian killings even more questionable.

You mentioned earlier about "different issues", so if there's a thread about RUC or BA atrocities I'll criticise them properly there.

But the fact remains that even your use of the phrase "even more questionable" implies that you're not questioning the IRA murders enough, despite your statements that you abhor the murders and do so equally.

Something can't be more questionable/objectionable than 100% wrong.

So your own statements have contradicted you.

Which is it ?

And a smaller percentage of a much larger number is still a larger number.

I haven't murdered anyone, so my percentage of criminals killed is either 0% or 100% simultaneously - does that make me a bad person or a crap vigilante ?

Chuck Stone · 15-12-2011 5:23am

Liam Byrne wrote: »

They are different issues, but my point was the fact that the authorities interred suspected terrorists while the IRA murdered and kneecapped suspected informers (i.e. civilians doing their duty); no trial in either case and only the IRA's word that the person was "guilty" of a non-crime. I doubt the apologists view those as innocent murder victims, but they were.

Seriously, you have a very immature understanding of conflict if you think that an informer is a civilian doing his duty.

If there was a thief robbing the homes of old people in West Belfast or the Bogside of Derry the people wouldn't go to a police force that wasn't a referee. Indeed I have heard anecdotes of people calling the police and being told to 'go to your own to get it sorted'.

But the fact remains that even your use of the phrase "even more questionable" implies that you're not questioning the IRA murders enough,

You've missed the point. The RUC and BA could resort to imprisoning people instead of killing them. If the IRA dealing with a repeat offender, child abuser or informant had no prison or legal apparatus to resort to. This would have added to the amount of civilians killed. There was a policing vacuum and it had to be filled somehow.

I've told you before I subscribe to the Nationalist narrative on the conflict and in particular the working class Nationalist narrative. I make no apology for that nor will I ever.

Something can't be more questionable/objectionable than 100% wrong.

So your own statements have contradicted you.

Which is it ?

In your fantasy world of neat packages and binary outcomes, perhaps, but not in the real world when there's a conflict happening and your neighbours are being battered and shot dead by people claiming to be security forces.

And a smaller percentage of a much larger number is still a larger number.

Consider this. If Hamas kills 100 people in a month of which 80 are civilians compared to the IDF killing 500 people in the same month of which 100 are civilians. Are you really trying to say that both are equally as bad as each other or would you say the Israelis are making more of an effort to target combatants?

Come on. Stop pretending there's absolutely no difference.

You have claimed you're not a pacifist but you seem to argue from that position when it comes to the conflict.

Liam Byrne · 15-12-2011 5:45am

Chuck Stone wrote: »

. If the IRA dealing with a repeat offender, child abuser or informant had no prison or legal apparatus to resort to. This would have added to the amount of civilians killed. There was a policing vacuum and it had to be filled somehow.

PLEASE tell me that you are joking ? The reason the IRA had "no legal apparatus" is because they were an illegal terrorist organisation. They has no right or authority to impose "justice" on ANYONE.

I've told you before I subscribe to the Nationalist narrative on the conflict and in particular the working class Nationalist narrative. I make no apology for that nor will I ever.

Fine. Just don't lie about treating murders equally or condemning them all equally then.

In your fantasy world of neat packages and binary outcomes, perhaps, but not in the real world when there's a conflict happening and your neighbours are being battered and shot dead by people claiming to be security forces.

.....or being kneecapped and murdered by thugs. If you keep up the one-sided biased narrative it will be impossible to discuss anything with you.

Consider this. If Hamas kills 100 people in a month of which 80 are civilians compared to the IDF killing 500 people in the same month of which 100 are civilians. Are you really trying to say that both are equally as bad as each other or would you say the Israelis are making more of an effort to target combatants?

Are they leaving bombs in shopping areas where they know civilians will be present ?

If so, they are making no effort, and in fact making a negative effort, as they are targeting civilians.

The facts contradict you yet again.

Come on. Stop pretending there's absolutely no difference.

Can I quote your "I'm not pretending" here ? Only I'll mean it sincerely.

You have claimed you're not a pacifist but you seem to argue from that position when it comes to the conflict.

A pacifist would object to a so-called "legitimate target" or "fighting back"; I don't.

I do object to murder of innocents.

I have made the above clear many times, even falling foul of an accusation of "condoning violence" while trying to make the distinction.....how many pacifists do you know that have been accused of that ?

So - yet again - you're ignoring facts.

Tell me this, if the Gardai or PSNI broke up a protest and you were hit over the head while they were hitting thugs, but 90% of those they hit were thugs, would you be as fixated about percentages and intent ?

Something tells me that you wouldn't.

Speaking of which - how many people were at Bloody Sunday, and how many people were murdered that day ?

Insight reckoned 30,000 marchers and "only" what - 0.1% shot ? Crikey, the British Army must have been ensuring that no-one got shot, right ?

And BTW - that's using your own warped logic, not mine.

Chuck Stone · 15-12-2011 6:33am

Liam Byrne wrote: »

PLEASE tell me that you are joking ? The reason the IRA had "no legal apparatus" is because they were an illegal terrorist organisation. They has no right or authority to impose "justice" on ANYONE.

I'm not sure if your deliberately being niave. Do you think that the IRA should have sought legal status from the Unionists/British.? Actually forget the IRA.

Do you think that Catholics would have been granted their own UDR type force with weapons supplied by the British 'referee'? Come off the stage Liam. The IRA filled a void and became an outlet for the frustrations of Catholics. Don't forget Catholics were facing pogroms from Loyalists and had little means of defending themselves.

Fine. Just don't lie about treating murders equally or condemning them all equally then.

You would consider someone living in a Nationalist area as an informer as doing his duty as a civilian who if shot was 'murdered'. i'm not sure I can take that level of naivety seriously. The world over informers are considered the lowest form of life by the communities in which they reside.

.....or being kneecapped and murdered by thugs. If you keep up the one-sided biased narrative it will be impossible to discuss anything with you.

I'm not keeping you here and I've told you which community I identify with - of course If you think that makes me biased then so be it. If you don't like then tough really.

Are they leaving bombs in shopping areas where they know civilians will be present ?

You're answering a question with a question.

The facts contradict you yet again.

No they don't.

Can I quote your "I'm not pretending" here ? Only I'll mean it sincerely.

You have a problem with me using the percentage of civilians killed. It's perfectly legitimate.

A pacifist would object to a so-called "legitimate target" or "fighting back"; I don't.

You don't get to decide what is a 'legitimate target' and what 'fighting back' is.

I do object to murder of innocents.

I think our understanding of innocence is not the same.

Tell me this, if the Gardai or PSNI broke up a protest and you were hit over the head while they were hitting thugs, but 90% of those they hit were thugs, would you be as fixated about percentages and intent ?

I wouldn't be in a protest that contained 90% thugs.

Speaking of which - how many people were at Bloody Sunday, and how many people were murdered that day ?

I believe most people had gone home to leave a group of stone throwers. I'm unsure of the numbers and details.

Insight reckoned 30,000 marchers and "only" what - 0.1% shot ? Crikey, the British Army must have been ensuring that no-one got shot, right ?And BTW - that's using your own warped logic, not mine.

You're being facetious. Are you deliberately trying to be antagonistic?

Tbh you seem to have a poor understanding of the conflict and how it affected people on the ground. As much as you wish it we don't live in a black and white world.

Noreen1 · 15-12-2011 8:52am

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I've said it before; the usual definition of "sides" in this is skewed. It's not actually loyalist v republican or anything like that.

The only true sides are those who excuse and play down murder and those who don't.

I'm not on either colloquial "side", but I am on the side who refuse to accept the murder of innocents - by anyone.

We're agreed there.
There is a difference though, between excusing murder, and trying to understand the reasons conflicts such as NI occur.

Without understanding and acceptance, there will never be true peace.

I don't know how much time you spend in NI, Liam. I visit it fairly frequently. Thankfully, it's a very different place nowadays to what it was in the 80s - but anyone who thinks that tensions aren't simmering under the surface, and could flare again, given the right impetus, is delusional.

There's no reason to fear NI now, but there's no reason to be complacent either.
So, point-scoring in debates is useless. So is blanket condemnation. I think real dialogue is the way forward - and real dialogue is neither point scoring, nor all out condemnation - it's telling the truth - all of it.

J Cheever Loophole · 15-12-2011 9:23am

KeithAFC wrote: »

If I was a Republican, I would be ashamed of Sinn Fein and all they stood for.

But you're not - you're a member of the "PUL community" and yet you don't seem to be so eager to admit your shame around the reasons why there was the need for a civil rights movement in the first place!! :rolleyes:

JustinDee · 15-12-2011 9:51am

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The IRA filled a void and became an outlet for the frustrations of Catholics

. . . and hijacked this movement into a terrorist campaign for criminal rackets, assassinations, sectarian killings, vigiliantism via punishment beatings and killings, abductions, slaughter of innocents just minding their own bloody business and of course, their unrealistic agenda of thirty-two counties.
Origins were obvious and in many ways, honourable but their aims and modus operandi aligned with their opponents not too long afterwards, even without the likes of Bloody Sunday.

I find it incredible that people forget (conveniently or otherwise) all this and try to justify what they did or minimalise it.

J Cheever Loophole · 15-12-2011 10:10am

JustinDee wrote: »

. . . and hijacked this movement into a terrorist campaign for criminal rackets, assassinations, sectarian killings, vigiliantism via punishment beatings and killings, abductions, slaughter of innocents just minding their own bloody business and of course, their unrealistic agenda of thirty-two counties.
Origins were obvious and in many ways, honourable but their aims and modus operandi aligned with their opponents not too long afterwards, even without the likes of Bloody Sunday.

I find it incredible that people forget (conveniently or otherwise) all this and try to justify what they did or minimalise it.

And that makes it all the more regrettable that the grievances that prompted the civil rights' marches could not have been recognised as fair and legitimate, and thus addressed, as opposed to the civil rights movement being banned, vilified, intimidated, beaten off their own streets and in the case of at least one marcher killed, all of course under the guise of upholding law and order!! :mad:

Fratton Fred · 15-12-2011 10:16am

J Cheever Loophole wrote: »

And that makes it all the more regrettable that the issues around the civil rights' marches could not have been recognised as fair and legitimate, and thus addressed, as opposed to the civil rights movement being banned, vilified, intimidated, beaten off their own streets and in at least one instance killed, all of course under the guise of upholding law and order!! :mad:

Which is the exact reason Martin Luther King spoke out against direct action, because as soon as that happens your campaign can be written off as a terrorist one.

The IRA made it very easy for the British press to write the whole thing off as nationalism rather than civil rights, because the IRA grabbed the headlines and they were never about human rights.

Noreen1 · 15-12-2011 10:39am

J Cheever Loophole wrote: »

And that makes it all the more regrettable that the issues around the civil rights' marches could not have been recognised as fair and legitimate, and thus addressed, as opposed to the civil rights movement being banned, vilified, intimidated, beaten off their own streets and in at least one instance killed, all of course under the guise of upholding law and order!! :mad:

Exactly.

Whether people choose to admit it or not, the IRA gained vast numbers of recruits after Bloody Sunday. (and probably gained even more support when the British Government failed to recognise it for the atrocity that it was.)

The IRA had no significant support before that, despite the inequality endured by the Nationalist community.

A peaceful attempt was made to gain Civil rights, and it was ruthlessly quashed. Had appropriate action been taken at the time, (ie. Errant "Security forces" adequately disciplined, and people of all persuasions treated equally)I have no doubt that the majority of deaths in Northern Ireland could have been avoided.

Yes, there would still have been extremists of both political persuasions, but an impartial peace-keeping force could have minimised casualties.

Unfortunately, that didn't happen - and we ended up with an appalling, and needless, loss of life.

No amount of keyboard warriors can change that basic truth.
People have a right to self-defence - they have no right to intimidate, much less murder - anyone. That goes for all sides.

There can be no justification for saying
"He/She is Unionist/Nationalist - therefore is a "legitimate target". "
The only legitimate target is one who puts your life at risk, the rest of the Community are innocents - on both sides.

Anything else just makes such people complicit in appalling butchery.(Not aimed at you, specifically, Cheever loophole - aimed at those who excuse any murder that was not self-defence).

Noreen1 · 15-12-2011 10:43am

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Which is the exact reason Martin Luther King spoke out against direct action, because as soon as that happens your campaign can be written off as a terrorist one.

The IRA made it very easy for the British press to write the whole thing off as nationalism rather than civil rights, because the IRA grabbed the headlines and they were never about human rights.

In fairness, they weren't originally about Human rights. However, I don't think it's reasonable, or accurate, to
deny that many of their members became recruits as a result of the denial of Human rights.

Maybe we need to consider that the aims of the leadership, and the motivation of the members, were probably very different things?

Edit: Actually, when I think about it - the motivation among the IRA rank and file probably varied considerably. Many joined after Bloody Sunday, we know that much. How many joined with a view to a United Ireland, based on despair that they would never be treated equally in the UK? How many had vague aspirations towards a United ireland previously, but would never have taken up arms without the catalyst that was Bloody Sunday? How many joined because they had lost a friend or relative? And how many joined out of a furious desire to protect their own Community?

We'll never know - but we need to at least recognise that the IRA were a varied group of people, with varied aspirations - And the same could be said, in all fairness, for those who joined Loyalist paramiltary groups.

Liam Byrne · 15-12-2011 11:18am

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I'm not sure if your deliberately being niave. Do you think that the IRA should have sought legal status from the Unionists/British.?

Whaaaaaat ???? How did you deduce that ???? Or are you deliberately making up rubbish in order to make me appear naive ?

The IRA was an organisation that murdered innocents; of all the things that I'd wish they would do, registering is the one that I hadn't even considered.

Not murdering or kneecapping obviously wasn't higher on your list of suggestions.

You have a problem with me using the percentage of civilians killed. It's perfectly legitimate.

I have a problem with you putting ahead of the number of murders in order to biasedly prove your point.

You don't get to decide what is a 'legitimate target' and what 'fighting back' is.

Never said that I did. The dictionary does that. If Person A thumps you and you thump completely unrelated Person B, it's not fighting back, it's lashing out.

I think our understanding of innocence is not the same.

Sorry ? Are you trying to imply that the innocent civilians murdered were "guilty" of something ? Answer carefully because that's an unbelieveable claim to make;you won't allow me to use an acceptable definition of "fighting back", and then you want the option of redefining "innocence" all to yourself ? Laughable!

I wouldn't be in a protest that contained 90% thugs.

Way to go copping out of the question!

Unbelieveable!

I'd guess that shoppers wouldn't have thought they'd be in a city among fictional "legitimate targets" either, but they were still blown up.

I would respectfully suggest that you are simply trying to duck the question because you know that the answer will show your "percentage" mindset as completely hypocritical.

It's a typical of apologists and biased mindsets - the inability to be consistent or treat like with like.

Fratton Fred · 15-12-2011 11:47am

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Republicans didn't have the option of building internment camps and jails so they could throw hundreds of the enemy in them whether they were innocent or guilty.

Or in other words, "we are allowed to have a shoot to kill policy, but we will kick and scream if you do".

No?

karma_ · 15-12-2011 12:03pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

The IRA was an organisation that murdered innocents; of all the things that I'd wish they would do, registering is the one that I hadn't even considered.
.

You could substitute the RUC, UDR, British Army or Loyalists into your statement and it would still be true.

karma_ · 15-12-2011 12:10pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Which is the exact reason Martin Luther King spoke out against direct action, because as soon as that happens your campaign can be written off as a terrorist one.

The IRA made it very easy for the British press to write the whole thing off as nationalism rather than civil rights, because the IRA grabbed the headlines and they were never about human rights.

Hold on a second, you're rewriting history here. The British Army stole the headlines and quashed any hope the civil rights movement had on Bloody Sunday. Had that not have happened then the movement could have worked.

J Cheever Loophole · 15-12-2011 12:18pm

Noreen1 wrote: »

Anything else just makes such people complicit in appalling butchery.(Not aimed at you, specifically, Cheever loophole - aimed at those who excuse any murder that was not self-defence).

Sorry Noreen - shouldn't be aimed at me full stop - I have always been anti-violence and there can be no excuse for what happened, from all sides, over the course of the troubles.

Fratton Fred · 15-12-2011 12:19pm

karma_ wrote: »

Hold on a second, you're rewriting history here. The British Army stole the headlines and quashed any hope the civil rights movement had on Bloody Sunday. Had that not have happened then the movement could have worked.

So the march in Derry that day was the only civil rights protest that ever happened in the north?

Besides, if the army hadn't murdered those people, the IRA were there ready to attack the army, hijacking the demonstration.

karma_ · 15-12-2011 12:43pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So the march in Derry that day was the only civil rights protest that ever happened in the north?

Besides, if the army hadn't murdered those people, the IRA were there ready to attack the army, hijacking the demonstration.

No they weren't, that is pure unadulterated speculation on your part. And no that wasn't the first Civil rights march in the North either, nor was it the first one attacked. It was however the day that broke the back of the movement, which was tragic as it was making progress.

The Westerner · 15-12-2011 1:15pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

It's a typical of apologists and biased mindsets - the inability to be consistent or treat like with like.

Do you think that your argument, i.e. attempting to be 100% consistent re the deaths of civilians in conflict, and seemingly attempting to disconnect their deaths from the motives and actions that caused them in order to maintain this consistency, holds water versus events in history?

For example, the RAF & USAAF killed more civilians in bombing German & Japanese cities than the German Luftwaffe and the Japanese air force did bombing the opposition’s cities. In fact, bar the Oregon balloon bomb incident in May 1945, which killed six American civilians, that was the only time the Japanese managed to hit the continental USA.

In attempting to be 100% consistent, do you consider more important the fact that these actions killed civilians so then you would then condemn both sides equally in order not be accused of having a biased mind-set?

I’m guessing you would be biased against the ideologies of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, so which is more important to you, the deaths of civilians in actions taken against them, or the defeat of these ideologies?

I’d happily be accused of having a biased mind-set to ensure their defeat!

Chuck Stone · 15-12-2011 1:52pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Or in other words, "we are allowed to have a shoot to kill policy, but we will kick and scream if you do".

No?

FFS!

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I've said earlier in the thread that I don't think Republicans have much to complain about when they give out about shoot-to-kill. Live by the sword and die by it and all that.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I think that if people signed up to be on one side or the other and then got killed it's kinda tough ****.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I think of it as more of a conflict than a war. For me a war is between two states. As regards the assassination of IRA operatives, well, live by the sword die by the sword would be my opinion on that.

The IRA can't really complain about the method of their operatives being killed seeing as they employed similar methods themselves.

Fratton Fred · 15-12-2011 2:01pm

karma_ wrote: »

No they weren't, that is pure unadulterated speculation on your part. And no that wasn't the first Civil rights march in the North either, nor was it the first one attacked. It was however the day that broke the back of the movement, which was tragic as it was making progress.

Oh, ok, Martin McGuinness carrying a machine gun was just his imagination.

maccored · 15-12-2011 2:02pm

Nope - i meant the UDR. By the way, you are aware there was a crossover between the UDR and the UDA right up until the UDR was disbanded?

trendyvicar wrote: »

I assume you mean UDA not UDR?

I never claimed they weren't "sectarian bully boys" (there were plenty of them in both communities), what I claimed was that most of them weren't active terrorists - hence there presence within The UDR was hardly controversial in 1973.

By the way, you are aware that one of the reasons The UDR was set up by The UK State was to provide a safety valve for angry Unionists who otherwise might have joined a militant Loyalist group? So it was inevitable that in those early years there would have been some crossover.

Fratton Fred · 15-12-2011 2:03pm

Chuck Stone wrote: »

FFS!

I was merely helping you get your point across ;-))

maccored · 15-12-2011 2:04pm

I honestly cant say - certainly not where I came from anyway - - that the PIRA were sectarian bullies (maybe they were elsewhere, i dont know). I never had any hassle from the IRA - but I had plenty of it from the RUC, Army and UDR.

trendyvicar wrote: »

What would you have called PIRA?

maccored · 15-12-2011 2:08pm

I thought it was pretty common knowledge that the UDA just called themselves the UFF when they wanted to kill a few people. When they llegally wanted to kill people they called themselves the UDR. All the same thing. Miami Showband killings is proof of that.

KeithAFC wrote: »

I didn't say the UDA was a political party but like it has been said, they set up road blocks and meetings etc. The vast majority of people in the UDA didn't fire a gun. The UFF (wing of the UDA) did that.

I think that pretty much common knowledge.

karma_ · 15-12-2011 2:08pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Oh, ok, Martin McGuinness carrying a machine gun was just his imagination.

Was there IRA members in Derry on that day? No one could deny there was not, but to use that as some sort of argument that an IRA attack was planned to coincide with the march is just idiotic. How come there were no IRA attacks during other Civil rights marches, you're just using that as some sort of twisted justification for what came next.

The cold facts are that 100% of the violence that occurred against the Civil Rights movement were by the security forces or Loyalists.

Liam Byrne · 15-12-2011 2:15pm

karma_ wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

The IRA was an organisation that murdered innocents; of all the things that I'd wish they would do, registering is the one that I hadn't even considered.
.

You could substitute the RUC, UDR, British Army or Loyalists into your statement and it would still be true.

Agreed, and I've never, ever suggested otherwise.

If there was a thread saying "Was the Loyalist campaign justified", I would be making almost identical posts.

Liam Byrne · 15-12-2011 2:22pm

The Westerner wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

It's a typical of apologists and biased mindsets - the inability to be consistent or treat like with like.

Do you think that your argument, i.e. attempting to be 100% consistent re the deaths of civilians in conflict, and seemingly attempting to disconnect their deaths from the motives and actions that caused them in order to maintain this consistency, holds water versus events in history?

For example, the RAF & USAAF killed more civilians in bombing German & Japanese cities than the German Luftwaffe and the Japanese air force did bombing the opposition’s cities. In fact, bar the Oregon balloon bomb incident in May 1945, which killed six American civilians, that was the only time the Japanese managed to hit the continental USA.

In attempting to be 100% consistent, do you consider more important the fact that these actions killed civilians so then you would then condemn both sides equally in order not be accused of having a biased mind-set?

I’m guessing you would be biased against the ideologies of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, so which is more important to you, the deaths of civilians in actions taken against them, or the defeat of these ideologies?

I’d happily be accused of having a biased mind-set to ensure their defeat!

If any of those actions targetted civilians then I would have the same view.

There is an uncomfortable caveat in relation to innocent people who happened to frequent a valid target at the time (e.g. a civilian visiting a military base) but if bombs were left in public areas then yes, my argument would be consistent.

It's the argument that I have made against the US invasion of Iraq......getting rid of Saddam was justifiable and worthwhile (let's overlook who installed him for the sake of the topic) but bombing the entire city of Baghdad made it an unacceptable act / campaign, regardless of any overarching aim.

You cannot maintain a high moral ground if you murder innocent people.

Liam Byrne · 15-12-2011 2:26pm

karma_ wrote: »

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Oh, ok, Martin McGuinness carrying a machine gun was just his imagination.

Was there IRA members in Derry on that day? No one could deny there was not,

If you subscribe to Chuck's percentages view*, then if they managed to kill a few IRA members the other deaths are inevitable and regrettable but not surprising or overly objectionable.

* I don't, btw - just pointing out the inconsistency of those who do.

The Westerner · 15-12-2011 4:37pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

If any of those actions targetted civilians then I would have the same view.

Even if World War 2 had a different outcome (i.e Germany & Japan won) you would hold the same view? Do you not think that such an outcome would, more than likely, have led to the deaths of millions more civilians than happened in reality. Germany, for example would have probably completed their policy of exterminating ‘undesirable races’.

There is an uncomfortable caveat in relation to innocent people who happened to frequent a valid target at the time (e.g. a civilian visiting a military base) but if bombs were left in public areas then yes, my argument would be consistent.

Not 100% now. You’ve added a condition to your own statement re civilian deaths.

getting rid of Saddam was justifiable and worthwhile (let's overlook who installed him for the sake of the topic)

Yes.

but bombing the entire city of Baghdad made it an unacceptable act / campaign, regardless of any overarching aim.

But following on from this, unconditionally stated this is incorrect. Luis Moreno Ocampo (Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court) outlines his concerns re the US in Iraq in this wiki article on the principle of Distinction, as related to the application of International Law regarding the waging of war.

You cannot maintain a high moral ground if you murder innocent people.

You won't abandon the totality of this statement even if it led to the Axis Powers of WWII being victorious?

Was the Republican campaign justifiable?

Comments