This is one of the reasons I have little time for the more collectivist official objectivism line. Yes, I agree with the first paragraph but the notion that nothing short of suicide makes you not culpable in a government's actions is just bonkers (and opposing an authoritarian state often is tantamount to suicide not just for you but for your loved ones as well).

I agree that if a war is just, civilian casualties are just a regrettable consequence that cannot be avoided and the prospect of them should in no way prevent attacks against legitimate targets which have any value to the enemy (but of course official Objectivism also reject Just War Theory as well according to their encyclical of July 21st)... but many of the most recent encyclicals from Ayn Rand Institute they give the impression that civilian casualties far from being regrettable consequence of legitimate war-fighting, they are to be maximised wherever possible because of collective guilt. In short the ARI seems to share the same view taken by the Islamic collectivists Hezbollah (who as a consequence simply shell Israeli cities blindly) that as entire nations are collectively culpable, simply killing civilians by design is a perfectly reasonable thing to do in and of itself regardless of 'military' values. Perhaps that is not the Piekoffian Objectivist position but that is the impression I am getting from them. The late Chris Tame, an objectivist through and through, never had much time for the ARI either.

Still the ARI is nothing if not consistent.

This is the hottest topic on the many blogsites I have visited over the past week. I can understand the concern, but I question the timing, and the location, of the debate.

Notice how this ethical handwringing over civilians and their fate in war only occurs when Israel goes on the offensive, or, earlier, when it is the US and her allies who take action militarily.

Notice, also, that the concern involves only Lebanese, or Palestinian, "innocents" in the commentary from one side of the conflict, while the Western side is supposed to, and does, agonize over all civilian casualties.

While I applaud the constant efforts of the US and her allies to minimize civilian casualties when possible, it is a form of self-restraint not engaged in, or demanded of, our opponents in this war.

There is no getting around the simple fact that the vast majority of our opponents' populations actively support, approve of, and celebrate terrorist acts against the civilian populations of any western country, and especially the US and Israel.

For these same people, and their apologists in the media and political arenas, to then cry foul when the violence they unleash is turned back against them is dishonest, and consciously, deliberately dishonest, at that.

Every time I see all these tears, real and crocodile, for the "victims" of the terrible Israelis or Americans, I think back to that poor old man some terrorist a**hole pushed off the deck of the Achille Lauro in a wheelchair, or the school full of kids slaughtered in Beslan.

I don't recall any of these tears, or apologies, for those actions from these same oh so delicate, morally pure people who now cry so loudly, especially when the media's around.

Or, in the words of that old jingle, "You asked for it, you got it."

Somewhat OT, but could be highly relevant to the current situation:

MEMRI has the transcript of an Al-Jazeera interview with Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah in which he states that the Lebanese government explicitly knew that Hezbollah would invade Israel and abduct Israeli soldiers. This undercuts the depiction of Lebanon as a helpless victim in some degree:

Interviewer: "Did you inform them that you were about to abduct Israeli soldiers?"
Hassan Nasrallah: "I told them that we must resolve the issue of the prisoners, and that the only way to resolve it is by abducting Israeli soldiers."

Interviewer: "Did you say this clearly?"

Hassan Nasrallah: "Yes, and nobody said to me: 'No, you are not allowed to abduct Israeli soldiers.' Even if they had told me not to... I'm not defending myself here. I said that we would abduct Israeli soldiers, in meetings with some of the main political leaders in the country. I don't want to mention names now, but when the time comes to settle accounts, I will. They asked: 'If this happens, will the issue of the prisoners be over and done with?' I said that it was logical that it would. And I'm telling you, our estimation was not mistaken. I'm not exaggerating. Anywhere in the world – show me a country, show me an army, show me a war, in which two soldiers, or even civilian hostages, were abducted, and a war was waged against a country – and all for two soldiers. This has never happened throughout history, and even Israel has never done such a thing."

Courtesy Captain Ed(Link)

I do wonder if Perry has read Yaron Brooke's article on just war theory and how it leads to less, not more justice and more, not less death. The point is that the ones responsible for the deaths of innocent civilians are those who make it necessary to attack them in order to protect the rights and safety of other innocents. Nothing in Objectivism requires or defends wanton attacks on innocents and it is disingenuous to so suggest.

Depends at the level of warfare we are. Europe had peace for 50 years due to the real threat of commiting mass civilian casualities. If Soviet Union started to pop nuclear weapons to London, Paris, Rome then Europe would be entitled to destroy Moscow and Kiev and Leningrad and this thinking about it just makes me creeps.

Also if the enemy wins anything from targetting our civilians we are also entitled to target their civilians if we have the same advantage.
Like about the gas use. If the enemy starts an operation with WMD and that makes it win a military advantage my side should use WMD if that is the only way to fight.

I also agree with veryretired this only happens when is Israel or USA do the shoting.

This is an absolutely appalling piece by a woman who is, quote frankly, delusional.

For a hard-liner though, her train of thought should not be surprising. She puts forth the exact same argument put forward by Sidique Khan in his video address from beyond the grave after the July 7th bombings- that most people are morally culpable for their government, because they voted them in.

This betrays a fundamental ignorance of domestic politics in various countries. In our instance, only a smidge over 20% of the population actually voted for Labour (a fraction of those voters returned our prime minister to office). So despite a minority of the population voting for them, Labour was given a successive term and various factions saw fit to hold the majority of people responsible for its actions.

She also forgets that many prospective governments don't carry war-mongering in their election manifestos, so how is the average voter supposed to look into the future to foresee any wars?

Her point in relation to Lebanon seems void, personally. She discusses in the context of an 'enemy government', but last time I checked, Lebanon was not an enemy of Israel, despite the hostilities running between the two territories. The Lebanese government is not responsible for the independent actions of Hezbollah (although I'm sure there are some here who will desperately try to make a link between the two). It certainly did not carry out activity against Israel. Whilst we are all aware that the Lebanese undertook a commitment to disarm Hezbollah, we are as much aware that their army is nowhere near being in a position to do so, unless it fancy's committing civil suicide.

Frankly, her blasé attitude towards a grave issue such as war is quite angering. She should give it some careful thought next time she decides to let her fingers fly on the keyboard.

Robert Speirs: Just War Theory does accept that civilian casualties are inevitable and the fact they will occur does not preclude attacking legitimate targets and it is preposterous of the ARI to suggest otherwise. What Israel is doing now in Lebanon would fit within a JWT definition of legitimate war without much difficulty. Likewise one must fight with the intention of gaining victory according to JWT, so it is NOT just a Catholic 'soft option'.

What if civilians are forced to work for the state war machine in a weapons or aircraft factory. On the one hand they are innocent and almost certainly have no choice without repercussions on them and family, but on the other hand it does make them ligitimate targets.

They have no choice, the attackers have no choice, the only one who does doesn't care about civilian life anyway. Lifes a bitch.

if the western powers had really thrown off all moral constraints about foreign populations in the recent past, then much of the Middle East would be a radioactive wasteland.

But that IS Peikoff's position. He has called for using nuclear weapons in the Middle East before.

The choice today is mass death in the United States or mass death in the terrorist nations.

Opinions may vary but within the context of that article, I read that as Piekoff urging the use of nukes on Middle Eastern cities back in 2001.

Notice how this ethical handwringing over civilians and their fate in war only occurs when Israel goes on the offensive, or, earlier, when it is the US and her allies who take action militarily.

Notice, also, that the concern involves only Lebanese, or Palestinian, "innocents" in the commentary from one side of the conflict, while the Western side is supposed to, and does, agonize over all civilian casualties.

I am, indeed, speechless that someone who I regarded as a an intelligent and informed commentator could make such a statement. I shall indeed join the 'Verity' types of this world in silent and seething outrage than to continue on here.

Speaking as a Jew of course ....

I shall indeed join the 'Verity' types of this world in silent and seething outrage than to continue on here.

What happened to her on here, anyway? I noticed she's kept a low profile around these parts and has suddenly sprouted up on Iain Dale's and Guido's blogs...

What DID happen to Verity, by the way? I haven't been on Samizdata in months and was surprised to see she isn't commenting here anymore. Three months ago she accounted for roughly 30% of all comments posted...

I don't see what's so wrong with veryretired's commentary. He's remarking on the double standard at work in the reporting, not suggesting that Israel should indiscriminately kill every civilian in its path. I agree with him. I have, for example, seen very few references in the media or in the blogosphere to the atrocities committed by some of the hundreds of people that Hezbollah demands in exchange for the two soldiers it picked up. For example, Paul Greenberg is the only person I know to have mentioned that trading prisoners with Hezbollah would almost certainly mean setting this creature free. I don't think it's out of line to ask the media and the blogosphere to devote a few more lines to pointing out that Hezbollah is truly a gang of thugs with no regard for civilian life.

'Samir Kuntar'.

Judging by his crimes, that's an almost-appropriate name.

Is he considered to be the worst of them? How many prisoners could be considered to be in the same 'category'?

I don't know whether or not he's the "worst," but he's certainly among the most notorious. His name is known because Israel has been willing to trade him in the past for fairly small potatoes, sparking controversy in the Israeli press.

Most of the prisoners generally covered in these demands were caught before they managed to reach their targets.
Naturally, there is also some controversy concerning people who are believed to be wrongly held.

I am unaware of a complete list of which prisoners Hezbollah is demanding this time, but I am under the impression that it is nearly all of them. Israel holds something close to 1,000 people believed to be active members of terrorist organizations.

Handwringing on all sides. Very commendable. Some puling & foot stamping too........well.
I am sure that there are few who would disagree that unless Hezbollah is eradicated totally with utmost force & despatch it will be up & doing business again next year.
We have plenty of examples of half-hearted wars & the 'let your enemy survive' principle (Sun Tzu) has been exhausted with Islamic terrorists....to no avail.
Commenters here with laptop, claret & thesaurus are not (yet) engaged in a life & death struggle against a mortal enemy...........but unless you wake up & get your act together now you can be more than sure it's only a matter of time.

The BBC in a recent article, admits they lumped dead Hez fighters in as "civilians". The whole number of civilian casualties is of utmost suspicion to the most casual observer. If you are a reporter behind Hez lines and see a destroyed convoy with pieces men in black pajamas and Iranian uniforms strewn about, you will of course report that you saw dead women and children.
I also note that reports are now coming out of dead Iranian Revolutionary Guards being sent to Syria by the Israelis, for final repatriation to Iran.

What's so special about civilians anyway? I puke every time I here newsreaders saying: "...there were (x) casualties, including women & children" Does no-one read history any more?

I'm not sure what there was in that passage to so enrage Julian, but I will readily apologize if either my meaning was obscure and offensive, or he interpreted it to mean something callous about possible Israeli casualties. (Otherwise, I don't understand the "as a Jew..." comment).

I would hate to be the cause of someone leaving Samizdata, and hope that does not happen.

veryretired: As a Shropshire born lapsed Catholic I didn't understand that either..........and there are those among us who I would not wish to have as a platoon commander if I were in the shit.

Making a moral choice often has undesirable consequences but that does not preclude us from making those choices.

I disagree with many of the things that government does with my money. I disagree with them taking much of it in the first place. Yet I continue to pay taxes with little to no protest. That does indeed make me at least a little complicit in what the government does with that money. It is a dilemma that Libertarians particularly have a blind spot for.

No one said that life was fair.

I will, once again quote what I consider to be one of the most profound statements from Heinlein's works...

I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.

Rich

Serious question: Should Israel wait for a nuke from Iran?
Iran already threatned genocide to Israel. Is Israel entitled to attack Iran knowng the only solution to stop that threat is nukes that will kill thousands of iranian civilians?

Anywhere in the world – show me a country, show me an army, show me a war, in which two soldiers, or even civilian hostages, were abducted, and a war was waged against a country...

Hasn't the man seen Troy??!!

It seems pretty silly to blame slaves for the actions of their masters.
On the other hand, it is a core principle of Democracy that the outcome of a proper plebiscite is the will of all the people, not just of those who voted this particular way. In that sense, all are responsible for actions of a duly elected government. To dispute this, and absolve citizens of a Democracy of any responsibility for their government's actions, is to deny that Democracy has meaning (as the rule of the people, not just for the people).
In practice, we find outselves between those extremes. Do we consider Lebanese people to be more like citizens or more like slaves? The more we believe that Lebanon is a functioning (rather than make-pretend) Democracy, the more we should adduce responsibility for their government's actions to its people.
I don't think this is at all collectivist, except in the trivial sense that the relationship between a citizen and its polity is governed by collectively standardized rules (of citizenship).
If the Lebanese government did not exist, then I would be more inclined to grant victim status to those Lebanese who did not sympathize with or actively support Hizbullah. Yet there is a Lebanese government, duly elected by all its citizens, which duly and lawfully chose to admit Hizbullah to its ranks, and chose of its own will that it found it more advantageous to delay any attempt to disarm Hizbullah. I understand the calculation - the risk of a new Lebanese civil war was deemed more painful than the risk of a war with Israel triggered by Hizbullah. Yet having made this choice, the Lebanese government cannot now disclaim responsibility for the outcome. And, in my view, the Lebanese citizens cannot entirely escape responsibility for the actions of their government.
If you take the view that Lebanon is not a Democracy (its elections were a sham, and the Lebanese government is a dictatorship that oppresses its people), then those subjects (no longer citizens) are to be held blameless for the actions of their government (at least to the extent that rebellion is deemed grossly impractical). In that case, Lebanese citizens (again, except for those sympathetic to Hizbullah's cause or actively assisting them) are victims not primarily of Israel, but of their own government which, being a dictatorship, is directly responsible for all that happens to them, and which, to the extent that it aided and abetted Hizbullah's arrogation of its war-making powers, has become complicit in the present war.
In the final extreme, one might argue that everyone in Lebanon is a victim of Hizbullah dictatorship. If that were straightforwardly true, then all people in Lebanon (except Hizbullah supporters) were to be deemed victims of Hizbullah's actions, and all of Hizbullah-land (erroneously called Lebanon) would be effectively at war with Israel, in the same way that Nazi Germany was entirely at war despite the number of oppressed people in its territory that wished it wasn't so.
Not so easy, is it? While I'm far from saying that the Lebanese people collectively had it coming, I am assigning significant responsibility to them for the present war and its consequences - not collectively, but to each one separately as a citizen. It is possible to (attempt to) escape this responsibility by claiming helplessness under oppression, but this does not improve a Lebanese (not-so-)citizen's claim on Israeli forebearance, but rather shifts the blame for their misfortune to the Lebanese government (or, depending on your assessment, directly to Hizbullah).
None of that, naturally, absolves Israel from observing the common rules for treatment of civilians in times of war. It means that bombing civilians as the miltary objective is off-limits, while civilian casualties in fighting military objectives are regrettable but legal (and, at least in principle, morally defensible).
And no, I'm not an Objectivist. Not as far as I know, anyway.
Cheers
-- perry

Following Robert Spiers logic, The point is that the ones responsible for the deaths of innocent civilians are those who make it necessary to attack them, then there's always an excuse, always someone else actually to blame, for the consequences of one's deliberate actions.

There are echoes in all this of... We shall never be rough and heartless when it is not necessary, that is clear. (not Robert Spiers)

Some quick responses: first, thanks Perry dH for linking to the Peikoff quote. I half-remembered that he wrote something along those lines before. The Official Objectivists are, at least on some topics, barking mad. Hsieh seems to be conducting a sort of online jihad of her own against the more tolerationist bunch at the The Objectivist Center, which is a far more easy going and friendly outfit, in my experience. (Full disclosure: I know Bob Bidinotto, George Thomas and a few others at TOC).

veryretired: no, now is the time to raise this issue, when it is actually happening.

permanent expat: it is not "handwringing" to wonder about the morality of bombing civilian targets or at the very least doing one'utmost to minimise such bombing if possible. You seem to regard 99.9 percent of the Meast population as guilty simply by virtue of where they live. Sounds awfully like a sort of collectivist guilt argument to me.

Prof. Roderick Long has the best commentary yet on the war. Taking Israel's or Hizbullah's side is not the right side. Take the side of the innocents.

By most reports, Israeli bombings of Lebanon are strengthening Hezbollah’s support among Lebanese civilians, while Hezbollah bombings of Israel are strengthening the Israeli government’s support among Israeli civilians.

So here we have (what are by libertarian standards) two criminal gangs, both blasting away at innocent civilians, and the result is to increase these gangs’ popularity among the civilians being victimised! A very successful outcome for both sides.

* * * [Long qualifies Hizbullah's standing.]

As long as the people of the eastern Mediterranean continue to view this conflict through statist spectacles, Hezbollah and/or the Israeli government will continue to be the victors, while the civilian populace in both Israel and Lebanon will remain the vanquished and victimised.

Death to terrorists. Death to states.

- Josh

I think this issue runs deeper than just the West agonising over every civilian death, the direction of popular culture, media and politics is to agonise over all deaths, military or civilian, innocent or complicit. It is all part of the risk aversion trend that has steadily developed in Western societies in the post WWII era.

Not only does the government feel they have to protect its citizens from the consequences of their own actions, but they have convinced us that we should be protecting citizens of enemy and quasi-enemy states as well.

I don't believe in collective guilt, and nor do I feel any when a Isaeli jet rains fire upon a Hezbollah rocket position in an appartment block causes civilian deaths. If Hezbollah want to talk like a state, that can suffer the same consequence as an enemy state.

Having said that, I don't believe inflicting civilian casualties is an end in itself, and this conflict again demonstrates the limitations of air power in winning a conflict. Discriminate bombing is good at taking out war material and installations, but it will not eliminate the enemy. Only a ground invasion can do that, but again the risk averse nature of the West values soldiers more as lving human beings than as trained weapons. The death of a Western soldier is an afront to our sensibilities as much as a domestic road casuality, when clearly the two are entirely different.

However, the party responsible is not the nation defending itself but rather all those who made such a defense necessary, particularly the countrymen of the innocents complicit in or supportive of the aggression of their nation.

Taking Israel's or Hizbullah's side is not the right side. Take the side of the innocents.

I understand your argument about it being hypocritical for libertarians to take sides in a state versus non-state collective conflict, but pragmatism prevails sometimes. You call for the destruction of both Israel and Hezbollah, and this is all well and good, but until you weed out collectivisation, some other state or collective entity will simply rush to fill the void, and they may be even less palatable than Israel for a libertarian.

Notice how this ethical handwringing over civilians and their fate in war only occurs when Israel goes on the offensive, or, earlier, when it is the US and her allies who take action militarily.

Notice, also, that the concern involves only Lebanese, or Palestinian, "innocents" in the commentary from one side of the conflict, while the Western side is supposed to, and does, agonize over all civilian casualties.

What is there to not understand in those words, and what can possibly be objectionable about them? It's the truth, plain and simple.

Pete, there is nothing objectionable about those words, but I still think to dismiss as "handwringing" concerns about bombings of civilian targets in Lebanon/wherever is silly. Of course, much of the coverage of the conflict is indeed one-sided, although it should be noted that even some of the usual blame-America/Israel-first crowd" have been taken aback by the rocket attacks on northern Israel and civilian targets in recent days.

A lot of my perceptions, and indeed distortions, of this topic spring from the fact that I was born and raised in South Africa in the apartheid era. I was philosophically opposed to apartheid, and such action as I took against it was limited to campaigning for and supporting the Progressive Party (as it was then). To a large section of South Africans that was "working within the system" and therefore being part of it, i.e., not innocent in their view. I was also conscripted into military service. I could have been a conscientious objector and gone to jail instead, or simply emigrated then. Those were options open to me, and anyone else living there. I had a choice to make and I made it, but I always had a choice. I don’t consider that I was innocent or totally helpless. What decisions I have made in my life, were in my perception then, and have turned out now, to be generally in my own best long term interest. Making sacrifices for the “common good” is still not my style. That is for collectivists.

Moralising on the rights and wrongs of what individuals do in support of or against regimes is for collectivists. South Africa today is no less racist then it used to be, but now its an “internationally acceptable” racism, going under such names as “affirmative action” with the “justification” being to “redress the imbalances of the past”. That is bad enough but there are no timetables or criteria to signal when that has been achieved. To the individualists, that is all equally racist and morally repugnant but collectivists always have a double standard, mainly because they are never logically consistent. Guilt and innocence are variables depending on who is doing the oppressing or liberating.

Individualists know that they always have a choice. They have a choice not to be there where the shooting or oppression is, (difficult to act on sometimes but not impossible). In today’s global economy voting with ones feet and with ones money is probably the most powerful of all votes. If all of us do that then oppressive regimes would collapse and all governments could only use positive incentives to attract labour and people.

To many people outside of South Africa making moral judgements about the people in it seems easy and clear cut. Inside it was not so. People generally try to act in their own interest and can only act in the environment they find themselves in. Some, can try to change the environment (politically or by revolution and force) and some can move geographical location to another environment. Some accept the environment (even if opposed to it) and make do as best they can within it, as to most of us in the highly taxed statist dominated countries in Europe.

It is a common observation that people are generally tribal in the sense that they blindly follow their parents and peers. This does not mean that they have to be or that it is inherently inevitable. People's religion, outlook, economic and moral philosophy all depend mostly on what their parents thought. People still have a choice to make as to whether they follow their parents blindly or to rethink their paradigm. Whether the choice is conscious, or unconscious, it is still a choice. They are not that innocent.

By way of analogy I want to bring up another of the statist philosophies. The “nanny state” is predicated on the assumption that people are too stupid to look after themselves properly, which we as individualists know is a gross insult people in general, and a pretext for control by the political elite. The question of “innocent civilians” is similarly predicated on the assumption of mass stupidity and inevitable vulnerability. Are they too stupid to simply get out of the way and vote with their feet? Too stupid to see the consequences of their tacit or active support for Hamas, Hizballah or whoever? The World's media seems to say they must be.

This post is unfortunately somewhat rambling, and this topic challenges me to rethink many of the thoughts I have on these matters and none have crystallised into a logically consistent point that I can lay out in a nice concise manner. I don't see this discussion bringing clarity to many others either, but the thougths brought up are certainly interesting.

" It means that bombing civilians as the miltary objective is off-limits..."

That seems to be the consensus of all writers and commenters here. Deliberately targetting civilians is morally wrong.

It is hard to disagree with this. Yet...

At the end of WW2 civilians were deliberately targeted in the fire bombings of German and Japanese cities. Two Japanese cities were A_bombed. Berlin was raped by the Red army AFTER it was conquerred.
All these acts clearly were "deliberate targetting of civilians", yet I somehow cannot bring myself to condemn them.
Maybe we have to thank those acts for the 60 years of relative peace we enjoyed after WW2. Maybe the lack of bringing home the lesson of defeat to the German people after WW1 was the cuase of their support of Hitler, and the cause of WW2, and of 20 million additional victims (at least).
Germany and Japan were not democracies in any way, yet their militaristic governments clearly enjoyed the support of a majority of their citizens. It is true, in great part, that without the support of the citizenry no government can embark upon large scale military adventures.

As to Lebanon - seems Israel is targetting mainly Shiite areas and giving the population ample warning, so they can flee and civilian casualties be avoided.
The Shiites are the power base of Hizbollah, they give them shelter and soldiers, they elect them to the Lebanese parliament, they are the cause why the Lebanese army cannot disarm Hizbollah. The Shiites need to be taught what the Germans have been taught - that their actions have consequences.

Having said all this, I join everyone, and express my pious wish that there be no more civilian (or any other) casualties.

Whenever a country goes to War it should certainly only do so on the premise of winning!!

If the Allies of WWII had the restraints that are imposed today they never would have won the War against Nazi Germany.

Democracy entails responsibility! Civilian poplulations have to take full responsibility for their choices and when a government can be voted in by only 20% of the vote as one writer suggests here, that responsibility requires that the population should demand a change in the Electoral system.....silent discontent is tantamount to vociferous approval. Most people are NOT mind-readers.

The only way War can be won is to totally subjugate the civilian population into reviling the horrors of War resulting in a long lasting desire for peace in the majority of hearts. This happened to Germany and Japan. The War was clearly lost and the loss to the population so great that succeeding gererations saw no gain in future Wars. The European Union was the result of the horrors of WWII.

After subjugating, humiliating and almost eliminating ones apponent can then the hand of friendship be offered in rebuilding a society with strong ties to the victor. Again Germany and Japan are clear models of success.

The constraints of political correctness only prolongs the horrors that are yet to come. Kill and destroy until there is no resistance left in hearts and minds is the only way to long lasting peace. The contstant fear of instilling hate in future generations becomes reality only when half-hearted and unfinished Wars take place.

Mothers have to pay the price for instilling the wish in their children to go to War. And as for the innocent children with the slogans of their parents in their mouths, better they pay the price now then continue the cycle of violence in future generations. These are the hard facts of life. No-one is innocent and without responsibility.

To be considered a Human Being is not a birthright, it is a priviledge. A priviledge only gained from ones thoughts and as a consequence from ones actions.

Whenever a country goes to War it should certainly only do so on the premise of winning!!

If the Allies of WWII had the restraints that are imposed today they never would have won the War against Nazi Germany.

Democracy entails responsibility! Civilian poplulations have to take full responsibility for their choices and when a government can be voted in by only 20% of the vote as one writer suggests here, that responsibility requires that the population should demand a change in the Electoral system.....silent discontent is tantamount to vociferous approval. Most people are NOT mind-readers.

The only way War can be won is to totally subjugate the civilian population into reviling the horrors of War resulting in a long lasting desire for peace in the majority of hearts. This happened to Germany and Japan. The War was clearly lost and the loss to the population so great that succeeding gererations saw no gain in future Wars. The European Union was the result of the horrors of WWII.

After subjugating, humiliating and almost eliminating ones apponent can then the hand of friendship be offered in rebuilding a society with strong ties to the victor. Again Germany and Japan are clear models of success.

The constraints of political correctness only prolongs the horrors that are yet to come. Kill and destroy until there is no resistance left in hearts and minds is the only way to long lasting peace. The contstant fear of instilling hate in future generations becomes reality only when half-hearted and unfinished Wars take place.

Mothers have to pay the price for instilling the wish in their children to go to War. And as for the innocent children with the slogans of their parents in their mouths, better they pay the price now then continue the cycle of violence in future generations. These are the hard facts of life. No-one is innocent and without responsibility.

To be considered a Human Being is not a birthright, it is a priviledge. A priviledge only gained from ones thoughts and as a consequence from ones actions.

The esteemed Simon Jenkins ends his comment piece on the Guardian's CiF site thus.

"I would sail the first Red Cross ship into Beirut harbour. But I would sink the first aircraft carrier."

As HMS Illustrious is on its way to the region I assume that he's packing his bags with his Silkworm manual ready to read on the plane. Just incredible. Loathing of Israel is now spilling over into outright treason.

Johnathan Pearce

Pete, there is nothing objectionable about those words, but I still think to dismiss as "handwringing" concerns about bombings of civilian targets in Lebanon/wherever is silly. Of course, much of the coverage of the conflict is indeed one-sided, although it should be noted that even some of the usual blame-America/Israel-first crowd" have been taken aback by the rocket attacks on northern Israel and civilian targets in recent days.
Taken in isolation then no, concerns about targetting civilians and civilian deaths is not silly. But I have to agree with veryretired that this concern is oddly absent when Jews are sitting there taking it. Israel pulled every civilian and soldier out of Gaza one year ago. Hamas showed its gratitude by using Gaza to shower Israel with 1000 missiles since. Since Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon, Hezbollah has shown its gratitude by rearming to a frightening degree. Where's all this talk of proportionality then? Where's all this concern about civilians while the are taking? Nowhere, that's where it is. Yet when Israel starts punching back the world's concerned citizens contort themselves in agony. Well I don't buy it. It's all phooey.

Let's be clear, Israel's demands are no more than any other nation's. They insist on no more than to have its existence recognised, accepted and to have secure borders. Much of the muslim world demands that Israel be crushed. And the we're supposed to treat them as equals? Israel's firepower is so overwhelming, and the provocation of Israel so great, that the continued and persistent leniency of Israel is astonishing. That something between 300 and 400 civilians (a figure which includes Hezbollah dead I believe) is a testimony to the restraint, control and decency of the IDF.

I can honestly say I haven't seen the shock and outrage at katyusha's aimed at Israeli civilians (as if attacking the IDF with the aim of bringing about genocide is acceptable!) in the last couple of weeks. Plenty of shock and outrage at a 'devastated' and 'destroyed' Beirut, much of which seems suspiciously free of rubble. No, it's just the usual whine from the usual suspects whenever the Jews have the temerity to defend their civilians and borders.

The MSM is waging a dirty war against Israel.How sad that some people here are giving it their moral sanction.

I have just been reading Johnathan Yardley's review of "Among the Dead Cities" by A.C.Grayling, and therein lies much food for thought. However, I have to agree, in principle, with commenters Christopher & Jacob.
Johnathan Pearce: I wish morality came into it; it simply doesn't. Churchill's rhetorical "Are we animals? are we taking this too far?" is the thought that springs to mind whenever overwhelming force is used to 'make a point'..........in any circumstances. And no, I don't condemn folk because of their geographic location; as I have reminded commenters here many times, this enemy has its fifth column inside our own gates.
This war is very different from those within living memory. It has been very clearly stated (Is everybody deaf?) by militant Islamists that their goal is total destruction of Israel & the death of Jews everywhere; the latter being Hitler's goal too.
In his war against the UK & Empire it was not Hitler's intention to wipe us off the face of the map; only to subjugate us. That is not an option for Israel.
I am not pro-anyone but the mortal danger of radical, militant Islam must be eradicated, even at the cost of the lives of complaisant bystanding civilians who, let it be remembered, received ample warning of coming onslaughts.

Pete - I assume that English is your first language so I find it hard to believe you did not read my words wrongly. I have repeatedly stated that I find the one-sided coverage of the conflict to be a joke. That is not what this article is about. It is about the morality or otherwise of mass attacks on civilian targets. You and others seem okay with that, and such attacks may be unavoidable. But I think it too easy for folk to fall into the trap that Hsieh has and brand whole chunks of the Earth's population as "the enemy" who need to be given a hammering. That is not quite what I would associate with readers of an individualist blog.

But then I guess we get all sorts on the comments here.

johnathan, are you suggesting that individuals on an Individual Blog should conform to your mindset?

You might want to try keeping your condescending comments confined within the confines of your own conformist mind or else form a forum for "members only".

Christopher, of course not. I am just making an observation, that's all, as to the irony of an individualistic blog carrying comments from folk who think it is okay to wipe out whole groups of civilians. I don't see anything condescending about that.

Johnathan Pearce

Touche. I said:

Taken in isolation then no, concerns about targetting civilians and civilian deaths is not silly.

To be clear, deliberately targetting civilians not acceptable. But it is not a black and white thing. A battery of Katyushas is taken out by an F-16, let's say. But that battery happens to be located next to an apartment block which is also destroyed in the attack, resulting in civilians killed. Does that constitute an attack on civilians? I say no, but body parts paraded for the cameras with emotional reports about innocent civilians being killed don't shed any light on how these civilians came to be killed.

My beef is with the one-eyed reports of so many correspondents and here we disagree, because I have still to see the slightest evidence of the usual suspects being even a little concerned at Hezbollah attacks on Israeli civilians. Yet I still see reports of Israeli actions couched in anything from disapproval to outright condemnation without any of the same being levelled at the beasts whose only tactic is to kill civilians. And here comes the BBC, right on cue:

ISRAELIS ACCUSED OF 'HUMAN SHIELDS' TACTIC
The Israeli army has been accused of using Palestinian civilians as human shields in an operation in northern Gaza. According to the Israeli human rights group, B'tselem, six civilians including two minors were subjected to the illegal tactic during an incursion into the town of Beit Hanoun last week.

If true then it's despicable. But we are talking about the BBC here so that's a towering 'if' right now. Now I've seen hundreds of BBC reports from this part of the world over the years and not a single one has focussed on the use of human shields by Palestinains or Hezbollah. Not one has highlighted the placing of mortars and missile batteries in schools, apartment block and hospitals. Not one has mentioned the tactic of using ambulances to ferry men and arms. Yet each of these are common tactics used by the enemies of Israel. None of this lessens the suffering of genuine innocents in a war zone but until the media starts dealing Israel a fair hand I'll regard much of the reporting as phooey.

As 'patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel', so is taking the moral high ground that of the apologist. We are witnessing a war 'to the death' and if Johnathan had a knife to his throat (or that of his new bride?) you would quickly see his principles go out of the window.
I have it on good authority that Verity's absence can be directly attributed to Johnathan's 'mindset'. Pity. on both counts.

permanent expat, I am not taking the "moral high ground" as you call it, but stating some basic qualms of mine and others like Perry about what Diana Hsieh wrote. For the umpteenth time, I reject her idea that a whole population, in the millions, can be considered guilty by association and therefore be put to the sword willy-nilly. This is not exactly a difficult or tortuous argument to grasp, is it?

This has been a powerful topic with many insightful comments. It's a pity that it will not be seen by the many who could benefit from the wisdom herein, especially those who are now directly involved and might have the most to gain.

I have it on good authority that Verity's absence can be directly attributed to Johnathan's 'mindset'.

For the record, the woman left after I chided her for telling another commenter he had no right to comment on certain political subjects, as if she was trying to edit this site. I lost my temper and told her how annoying she was. I probably should not have done so but she was awful, often rude to new commenters who were trying to find out a bit about what this site is about. I am not sorry she has gone, to be honest. Shame, she could be rather funny at times.

"At the end of WW2 civilians were deliberately targeted in the fire bombings of German and Japanese cities."

A reading:

"We were going after military targets. No point in slaughtering civilians for the mere sake of slaughter. Of course there is a pretty thin veneer in Japan, but the veneer is still there. It was their system of dispersal of industry... I'll never forget Yokohama. That was what impressed me: drill presses. There they were, like a forest of scorched trees and stumps, growing up throughout that residential area. Flimsy construction all gone...everything burned down, or up, and drill presses standing like skeletons."

These are all very fine questions. For instance; in these contexts, is there a difference between "guilt" and "responsibility"?

You know what? Whenever I see a discussion like this, I'm haunted by Solzhenitsyn's question very early in Vol. I of "Gulag" --

"Why did we not resist?"

He's absolutely right to ask that. The central matter, to me, surrounds the implications.

" According to the Israeli human rights group, B'tselem, six civilians including two minors were subjected to the illegal tactic ..."

I want to explain what the "illegal tactic" is.

In the course of an anti-terror operation the IDF surrounds a building where terrorists are believed to be hiding. Then there are two options: 1. IDF soldiers enter the building and risk being hit by the terrorists. 2. The buliding is brought down, risking killing innocent people.
The IDF used a tactic whereby it forced some Arab neighbour to go into the building and warn all people inside to come out and surrender before the building is demolished. It was supposed the terrorists won't kill their neighbour.
This "illegal tactic" seems perfectly ok and humane to me (though I can see why some people might differ).

However, it was challenged in court by the Israeli group Be'tzelem , and the Israeli Supreme court declared it illegal, ordering the IDF to stop it.

I just wanted to make clear that when you read "ISRAELIS ACCUSED OF 'HUMAN SHIELDS' TACTIC"
the meaning is extremely different from the human shield tactic the Arabs use: stockpiling and firing rockets from the middle of a civil population concentrations.

In fact, the above headline is another example of intentional anti Israel bias of the BBC.

Someone please explain to me how a country like Israel can have a peace deal with Hizbollah? A terrorist organisation that has as its goal the eradication of the State of Israel.

And if you can't explain that to me then I suggest you wake up and smell the Coffee.

It's a simple case of "us or them".

There is no peace possible with Islam or its adherants, moderate or fanatic.

Evil exists in this world. The only way to fight evil is to eradicate it...its that simple, and if one does not have the stomach for the fight, prepare to lie down and die doing nothing.

And by the way Johnathan, do I have to instruct you on the subtleties of the english language? I will not copy and paste here to prove my point....just read your own post carefully. I would say it's pretty obvious.

You should count yourself priviledged that your article jostled me out of my mid-day siesta to sit here and write something...or would you rather it went unnoticed?

Johnathan: You don't have an exclusive patent on 'qualms'. No thinking person could agree with Tsieh's hypothesis & I thought that could, from the outset of this discussion, be taken for granted. Obviously not from all the metashillyshallying. If the objective of this thread was to denounce Tsieh, it was completely unecessary, it was 'seppuku' on her part.
My qualm is that we do not appear to see the grievous danger we are in. Maybe when our backs are finally against the wall, as in the 'Vorspiel' being enacted in Israel/Lebanon, we shall come to our senses.

There is no peace possible with Islam or its adherants, moderate or fanatic.

So, are you arguing that ALL Muslims must be wiped out? If not, what exactly?

I have it on good authority that Verity's absence can be directly attributed to Johnathan's 'mindset'.

Johnathan told her to 'fuck off'. So off she fucked. I gotta say it's not as lively round here since then.

I just wanted to make clear that when you read "ISRAELIS ACCUSED OF 'HUMAN SHIELDS' TACTIC"
the meaning is extremely different from the human shield tactic the Arabs use: stockpiling and firing rockets from the middle of a civil population concentrations.

I agree. They are using the same term for two very different tactics. However, I don't think there's anything remotely OK about the Israeli tactic (and no, it's not verified that they are actually using it at all).

If the IDF officer said to some passing locals "If you would like to approach that building and ask the occupants to surrender then we will not have to blow it up, thereby saving the lives of the occupants", and if the local said "no thanks, actually, I prefer to cower in my basement with my family", and if the IDF officer then called an airstrike on said building, then I guess I wouldn't have a huge problem.

But I think the situation being discussed was one where the civilians had no choice but to take part in the war as an effective way of reducing IDF casualties. This is not more reasonable than detaining random locals and interrogating them for intel, or making locals distribute your propaganda for you. Invading armies should not coerce local civilians into do anything. Ends do not justify means.

My qualm is that we do not appear to see the grievous danger we are in.

Fair point, of course. I don't think there is much debate here as to how serious the threat is. You only have to Google old entries here (I wish we could sort our archives out, Perry) to see the dangers highlighted repeatedly. If I wrote about the dangers of militant islamism I'd be just preaching to the choir. Not much point in that. The really interesting point is what we do about it without losing sight of our principles.

Johnathan, there is no such thing as a moderate muslim. I who have spent many months in Islamic countries never encountered ONE. I did however; meet people who disregarded the precepts of their faith.

There have been many posts on Islam in this blog where the subject has been beaten to death...I have nothing new to add to the many commentaries made on this Blog.

I am suggesting that the West is at War with Islam and should fight to win the War, irrespective of "civilian casualties". When Terrorism becomes an Act of God by the perpetrators there is no distinction between a good or bad muslim.

Who are the "terrorists"? Are they only the ones blowing themselves up? NO. They are the Grandmothers, Mothers, Fathers, Sons and Daughters, Husbands and Grandfathers supporting the activities of Hamas or Hizbollah or any other name they care to choose.

People are not responsible for only their actions, they are also responsible for their thoughts....for out of these beginnings come the actions.

I see Islam as the biggest threat facing our Civilization in this the 21st Century. If destroying this threat implies killing millions of its adherants then my answer to your question is a resounding YES.

After much research and heart-rending introspection I see no other alternative.......what does one do with a rabid animal? Destroy it.

Humanity can only begin after a War....not during it. War is never humane and it is just pure hypocrasy to think that a War can be fought humanely. Fight to win or surrender. Those are the only options.

Well, Christopher does not directly answer my question, but the overall tone of his comments suggest a thirst to wipe muslims out. All of them.

Shameful.

Oh Johnathan.....losing sight of your bloody principles when you're going to hell in a handcart!
What are we going to do about it, you ask. Good question. Perhaps ask someone with some experience? A maimed Londoner? A katushyad farmer's wife? Mrs. Leon Klinghoffer?
Eventually we shall have to do what the Israelis are now doing. Even you must realize that.
Verity was rude....and funny...and spoke her mind without shillying...and she offended some....oh dearie me. My own sensibilities are often offended in these pages but I realize that, as you say, it takes all sorts.......but I suppose you will go to the slaughter with your principles emblazoned on your shattered arm.

Johnathan, there is no such thing as a moderate muslim.

Spot on, in my experince, which was growing up in a multicultural paradise in east London and knowing plenty of muslims. I wouldn't put anyone's money on a muslim being 'moderate' behind closed doors. But then, I don'tknow how a muslim can be 'moderate'. Islam is simply not moderate. You cannot be a believer and be moderate. Until that is recognised the handcart will continue going to hell.

Is english your "first" language Johnathan?

I know most people don't listen, but you Johnathan seem to fall into the category of those that can't read.

I do not need impaired, self-styled journalists trying to make a personal interpretation of what I write. A little "secret reading between the lines" supporting their little agendas.

If you don't like someones assessment of a situation, try taking a few deep breaths before you start spurting out moralistic, self-indicting puerile comments in public.

Encouraging healthy debate rather than stiflying it seems to me to be the more appropriate course of action for any serious Blog, or do what I suggested before; start one for "members only".

christopher, okay, so you want to exterminate Muslims.
That is your "assessment of the situation". As for encouraging "healthy debate", all you have done is to expose yourself as a hysteric and a bigot. I'd be grateful if you left.

Johnathan: Your inability to see shades of grey doesn't astonish me one bit. You are incapable of reading between the lines that some commenters make, such as the 'kill all muslims' remark. How naïve can you get? You know bloody well what Christopher meant but choose to make a literal interpretation. We are not all fools, Johnathan, and believe me if there's shame to be alloted you should be given the biggest helping.
I am an 'Aryan' but can tell you that the Jews aren't going to walk meekly into another & more drastic Auschwitz just to support your high principles. You are too self-righteous to see that Israel is fighting for your survival too. Frankly, I think they should make an exception in your case.
Childishly upset, you ask/tell commenters with whom you disagree to quit. As someone said: Wake up & smell the coffee!

Johnathan, there is no such thing as a moderate muslim.

What rubbish. I met plenty of them in Bosnia during the war.

Also Christopher, the question is not "should legitimate targets be attacked if civilians might be killed", at least that is not the question being asked HERE.

No, Johnathan's article was about people who seem to be saying that not that collateral civilian losses are a regrettable consequence of legitimate military action but rather that there was nothing regrettable about collateral civilian losses.

In other words rather than saying "I am sorry these people died but in war innocent people die as a consequence of either looking like military targets or their proximity to military targets" but rather "I do not give a damn if civilians die, nuke 'em all and let God (or Leonard Peikoff) sort 'em out".

Perry: We all know whose side you had to be on in Bosnia. The Serbs were simply more murderous.
"Any man's death diminishes me....." Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, Ayatollah Khomeini, Hitler......................
Please let us not confuse our apples & oranges. If you can, unlike some others, accept some well-meant criticism: You should eschew barbecued sausage & mash; it's obviously not good for you.

I met plenty of them in Bosnia during the war.

Yeah, and I've known plenty who seem like that too. Until you can't hear them. No, this isn't lazy bigotry, I grew up in an area with a high muslim population. I hung out with muslims, played football with muslims, studied with muslims and in my experience 'moderate' muslims are a damned rare breed.

We are not all fools, Johnathan, and believe me if there's shame to be alloted you should be given the biggest helping.

Shame for what? For calling out a commenter who believes that millions of Muslims must die if that is necessary to crush their societies, destroy their religion? Is it "shameful" to argue for the minimisation of civilian casualties if that is consistent with defeating terror?

Is it "shameful", to argue, as I have, that we must retain our status as beings ruled by long-term moral principles? What is shameful about that?

To get back to my original point, the idea of a collective guilt is one that I find abhorrent as it brackets an entire group on the same plane. You might as well describe the world as collections of dumb pack animals.

The choir will now sing number 666
"All things bright and beautiful..."

Johnathan: You are beyond the pale....I would be grateful if you left.

I have to say, having lived in the Middle East for three years, there are plenty of Muslims out here who come across as moderate. But when push comes to shove, and we all have to choose sides, those Muslims who side with the infidels are few in number indeed.

Stop any Arab and push his opinion on Israel's existence. You can put your house on what his views are.

Perry that you met so many "moderate muslims" in Bosnia is really encouraging indeed:)

Armed with the Koran in english and an Arabic version online I sat with a muslim friend during the time of the cartoon controversy and went through certain passages of that illustrious document together.

He denied that the arabic version had anything to do with the english translation and said it was all lies.

This person was an Egyptian ballet dancer; how much more moderate can you get? So, of course no debate or even discussion of those beleagered passages was possible.

I read the article which sparked this debate, but no-where did I read that Diana Hsieh ever suggested that there was "nothing regrettable about collateral civilian losses".

Similarily, no-where did I write "kill all muslims".

Inference or reading between the lines is totally subjective and serious debate should always avoid misusing personal opinions as direct quotes.

And do you really believe that when politicians get up and say the platitude "We regret the loss of any innocent life" that that suddenly transforms the deed?

We all know whose side you had to be on in Bosnia. The Serbs were simply more murderous.

I was on the Croatian side. I also met Muslims and Serbs (yes, Serbs) fighting for Croatia with the šahovnica on their shoulders, either in the HV, HVO or a local militia.

"Any man's death diminishes me....." Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, Ayatollah Khomeini, Hitler...................... Please let us not confuse our apples & oranges. If you can, unlike some others, accept some well-meant criticism: You should eschew barbecued sausage & mash; it's obviously not good for you.

I have no idea what you are talking about

And do you really believe that when politicians get up and say the platitude "We regret the loss of any innocent life" that that suddenly transforms the deed?

I think that if someone does not in the slightest regret the loss of innocent life then they are suffering from a highly undesirable mental derangement. In fact it would regard that as an axiom.

My view is that a person who regrets an unfortunate loss which happens as a consequence of an action that must nevertheless be done regardless, is rather more mentally healthy than someone who is thinks such losses are either trivial or even desirable.

The fact people with both such positions might end up doing the same things may matter little to innocents being killed (or then again it might) but that is not really the point of the discussion.

Observing that someone who simply does not care if innocents die as a consequence of legitimate action is a person not to be admired sounds like a perfectly reasonable observation to make. I do not regard expressing regret for the loss of innocent life as a platitude just because I would not as a necessary consequence of that regret say the military action which caused the innocents to die was undesirable.

I have long thought that the true danger to Western or Anglophile civilization from the Islamicist challenge is not that they would ever be able to overwhelm us culturally or militarily, but that the relentless pressure and continuous threat of violence from their fanatics would tend to coarsen our own sensibilities.

By this, I mean some of what is happening on this thread, only magnified many times over.

By attacking, the Islamic terrorist has exposed fault lines in our culture, driving us to more extreme positions than those we would normally take.

Those who have less concern with the consequences of retaliating adopt ever more callous and dismissive attitudes. I feel this particular danger in myself and try to guard against it.

Those who have serious moral qualms about using violent methods in general, or who have a healthy mistrust of any state military action, not without good reason, find themselves arguing against actions that they can understand, but are a concern on ethical grounds.

And, as I see here in this and some other threads, harsh words and angry judgements are posted by those who, on any normal day, and absent the pressure of violent attack and the necessity of formulating a response both effective and reasonably moral, would be amiable disputants about ideas and problems of mutual concern.

As I have said before, the capacity of the West to enact horrendous consequences on the Islamic world is magnitudes above and beyond anything the terrorists could ever hope to achieve, and only our own forebearance from such action protects the Moslem populations of the world.

But the damage to our own culture from discarding those moral qualms completely, and indulging in our most vengeful and violent fantasies of retribution would be substantial, and continue for generations.

Rather than abusing and accusing each other due to disagreements and heightened emotions brought on by this situation, especially since we know very well the overall dilemna is not going to be resolved for quite some time no matter what we do or say today, I urge the various commenters here to be a little less certain that they have the truth in hand, and that the one arguing with them is deluded or morally suspect.

Terrorism threatens us as any danger threatens---it causes the usual social conventions that smooth our differences to be discarded in the heat of action, and impatient accusation replaces the attempt to find reasonable common ground.

Demanding uniformity of belief and allegience to doctrine has always been incongruous on a site devoted to the independence and variety of human ideas, and is out of place in this discussion as well. I long ago rejected the Objectivist camp, and the formal Libertarian Party, because they required just such uniformity and allegience, and I was unable to submerge my own cranky, contrary, and generally improper viewpoints to such discipline.

We can, and should, be able to agree or disagree without self-righteousness towards or ostracism of those whose opinions demonstate their own honest attempt to come to grips with some very difficult questions.

We all have enough faults, blind spots, and gaps in both our knowledge and our reasoning such that it is becoming to be less condemnatory, and more willing to accept the fact that not all will adopt the same approach, or arrive at the same end result.

The fact that we sincerely struggle with these moral issues, while it appears many of our opponents have no such misgivings, is a sign of strength, not weakness, of resilience, not fragility.

It is fanaticism that is brittle, not the careful debate of serious matters by thoughtful people in an open and respectful forum, which Samizdata here so generously provides us. It is a cause for celebration, not vituperation.

Pass the wine, and start another argument. I'm all in.

veryretired, as ever, the sanest man on this thread. I lose my cool too often, although I am not sure how to be cooly analytical in the face of folk who don't say that loss of innocent life is bad, but deny the innocence at root. That way fanaticism lies. It scares the hell out of me. And I am sure Christopher is a good person, but his posts scare me.

My view is that a person who regrets an unfortunate loss which happens as a consequence of an action that must nevertheless be done regardless, is rather more mentally healthy than someone who is thinks such losses are either trivial or even desirable.

I think Perry puts it perfectly.

By "transform the deed" I meant make killing morally acceptable in any form. I was not asking for a mental assessment of the fictitous politician.

Why do you both (Perry and Johnathan) always feel required to assert your deep felt need for moral authority? I know from your previous posts Perry that you for example, do not believe in God: then what may I ask are you planning on doing with your perceived little victories in here? Is there a Bloggers Heaven I am not aware of?

VeryRetired.....I have always admired your sensitive and eloquent posts in many discussions in here. You truly are the voice of reason and understanding. Thankyou.

Perry: Your bearded barbecue pictures....Saus & Mash in one............Oh, never mind.

veryretired: You're right of course so, as the wonderful Peggy Lee sang: ".....then let's keep dancing, let's break out the boooooze & have a ball, if that's all there is."

Christopher, as a lapsed Anglican-turned atheist, I certainly don't need a "god" to tell me what to do. I certainly do think that human actions can be and should be constrained by moral considerations, such as the fact that in resisting terror and aggression, we should not cause any more harm than strictly necessary. So, in some contexts that might mean I would support, say, a mass bombing of a city if that was the only achievable way of halting a war that threatened to drag on for years and cause massive deaths. I think the US use of the atom bomb can arguably be justified on that basis. Dresden fails the test. And so on.

What bothered me about your posts earlier up and forced me to go red was the assumption that such constraints, such considerations, don't matter. But I also think there is a broader point here. If we use massive force and still fail to achieve our goals, we will only make our enemies even madder, and badder. That is not just bad ethics, it is also dumb.

I am watching Channel 4 news tonight which is incredibly one-sided in its coverage of the war. You will get no argument from me that this is a disgrace

I have difficulty with the concept of 'innocent civilians'. In most countries, armed forces are people who choose to put themselves in a position of increased risk for the good of the state (i.e. its people). Civilans are, excluding the old, young and sick, people who chose not to do so. I cannot see that the latter deserve more sympathy than the former.

make our enemies madder & badder.

You are surely having us on.....or has your wiring totally disintegrated?

If one takes the argument from abstract moralising and looks at the practicalities, terrorism is a tactic that uses our morals and revulsion of "innocent casualties" as a weapon against us. Terrorists targeting civilians, works spectacularly well for them and it works for them both ways. The Madrid train bombings was a case of total success. It caused the populace at large to vote a government out and generated fear. They happily use their own civilians as shields using our revulsion of "innocent" casualties against us again to protect them from unrestricted and immediate retaliation, and gain PR out of any “collateral damage”. My argument centres on taking that weapon away from them. That does not mean deliberately targeting civilians per sé, but not deliberately trying to avoid them either.

Terrorism is a case of war by proxy. In the case of Hezballah the Iranians supply the weapons but the local Shiite population certainly supplies the moral and some logistical support. I still claim they are not totally innocent. Their support of Hezballah is also given in the certain knowledge that they, as civilians, are not going to be direct targets of retaliation. Take that assurance away and they might not be so ready to support a proxy war on their behalf. We really need to take their strongest weapon away from them. They deliberately target our civilians. We should at least make their civilians pay a price for their cheerleading.

very retired,

[...]the relentless pressure and continuous threat of violence from their fanatics would tend to coarsen our own sensibilities[...]

With that I very nearly agree. But I don't think it's the threat of violence itself that has done it It isn't very great. But it coincides with a period of extreme lability of mood in publics weaned on the welfare state, suggestible in the face of authority, and susceptible to panic by even the imagination of hardship. A virtual threat is more potent than a real one in such circumstances, and the broad antirational rhetoric of the Islamists is perfectly apocalyptic in tone: incomprehensible, but very sonorous. That offers an opportunity for our own fanatics, brutes, and powermongers (whether they characterise themselves as pro- or anti- war) to share in stirring the herd-poison.

Johnathan I agree with you completely. The only difference we have is my belief in a God of Love.

I like veryretired "feel this particular danger in myself and try to guard against it." The danger being of hardening my heart...this is a daily battle.

Forums like yours offer people a chance to air their concerns and reflect and maybe even arrive at hopeful solutions. I and others i.e Verity are not the enemy. We are all concerned citizens of the World.

In the spirit of Veryretired let us all celebrate the freedom of the Internet; the last bastion of free speech which gives a chance for people from all over the world to speek directly to one another.

Let us not fight amongst ourselves looking for small differences and bantering about semantics, but rather share our common goal and dream for a more humane and tolerant world.