Is violence against civilians sometimes justified?

[grumbler]

1)  People become more flammable since WWII?
2)  Yes, that was the point, the people in this picture who were targeted are not materiel, and were not inside any materiel or nearby any materiel.
3)  Napalm bombs are not incendiary bombs?

1) I doubt it.  What would cause that?
2) Okay.
3) Though some of the incendiaries used in WW2 were called "napalm" (and they were, in fact, actual "napalm" - naptha and palm oil - unlike the substance used in Vietnam), the type of napalm used in Vietnam was not available in WW2.

[DGuller]

3) Though some of the incendiaries used in WW2 were called "napalm" (and they were, in fact, actual "napalm" - naptha and palm oil - unlike the substance used in Vietnam), the type of napalm used in Vietnam was not available in WW2.

nor were they hi by incendiary bombs

What does availability during WWII have to do with whether something is an incendiary bomb or not? 

[grumbler]

What does availability during WWII have to do with whether something is an incendiary bomb or not? 

Why do you even bring up Vietnam-era napalm in a discussion about WW2?

[DGuller]

What does availability during WWII have to do with whether something is an incendiary bomb or not? 

Why do you even bring up Vietnam-era napalm in a discussion about WW2?

Because the question is whether incendiary bombs are anti-materiel or anti-personnel.  Of course, the answer is both, people are flammable enough for the purposes.

[grumbler]

Because the question is whether incendiary bombs are anti-materiel or anti-personnel.  Of course, the answer is both, people are flammable enough for the purposes.

You are engaged in begging the question, but go ahead with that debate if you wish.  I already know the answer to that question, so will abstain from your debate; it wouldn't be fair for me to participate.

[DGuller]

Because the question is whether incendiary bombs are anti-materiel or anti-personnel.  Of course, the answer is both, people are flammable enough for the purposes.

You are engaged in begging the question, but go ahead with that debate if you wish.  I already know the answer to that question, so will abstain from your debate; it wouldn't be fair for me to participate.

I think you're the one engaged in the ludic fallacy.

[grumbler]

I think you're the one engaged in the ludic fallacy.

  Do you understand what the ludic fallacy is?  I'm not referencing any statistical models at all.  I do have first-hand professional experience is modelling air strike targeting and weaponization, but that only really informs my knowledge about what weapons would be used on which targets, and thus conclusions about what is being targeted by a given bomb load.

I think if you have a good debate with whomever you are debating regarding which versions of napalm bombs are designed for various types of targets, you will learn a lot.  Unless, of course, as I warned, you beg the question before you even begin.

Good luck!

[Razgovory]

I was diagnosed with a "ludic phallus".  Yeah, the judge didn't buy that one either.

[DGuller]

I think you're the one engaged in the ludic fallacy.

  Do you understand what the ludic fallacy is? 

Not really, I just picked it randomly from a list of fallacies.  Was that not the game we played?

[Norgy]

Nay-Palm to napalm, ok?

[grumbler]

Not really, I just picked it randomly from a list of fallacies.  Was that not the game we played?

If that is the game you wan  to play, I can play it, sure:  You are arguing post hoc ergo propter hoc.

[grumbler]

Nay-Palm to napalm, ok?

Nap-Palm to napalm, actually.

Sometimes, we talk about dropping sleepy trees.

[Ed Anger]

I was diagnosed with a "ludic phallus".  Yeah, the judge didn't buy that one either.

They told you to go to the ER if it lasted more than 4 hours.

[grumbler]

A little more evidence for Languish to consider.  It took me some time to find this, but I'd seen it before.  It is from the Air Force's Historical Analysis of the 14-15 February Bombings of Dresden, published 1945, and deals with the response of the USAAF to the stories being circulated about the bombing of Dresden in the immediate aftermath of the February raids:

Confronted with the sensational news stories and German propaganda "plants"... Headquarters, US Air Forces... demanded at once a full explanation from American air forces in Europe... and insisted that American bombing forces must not deviate from official bombing policy either as to objectives and priorities, or as to bombing methods.

Headquarters, United States Strategic Air Forces Forces in Europe, strongly emphasized the following... points in their reply... (1) it had always been the policy of American  forces that civilian targets were not suitable military objectives, (2) there had been no change in the American policy of precision bombing of military objectives...

(a probably imperfect transcription of http://www.afhso.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-110208-030.pdf).

Of course, people can argue that this is just the USAAF lying to itself, but it is evidence that the Americans, at least, were officially forbidden from targeting civilians.  I'd be surprised to find that the British, who were coordinating their efforts so closely with the Americans, would have had a completely different targeting strategy, since bothwere governed by the Casablanca Directiv, which stated that

Directive to the appropriate British and U.S. Air Force Commanders to govern the operation of the British and U.S. Bomber Commands in the United Kingdom (Approved by the Combined Chiefs of Staff at their 65th meeting on January 21, 1943)
1. Your Primary object will be the progressive destruction and dislocation of the German military, industrial, and economic system, and the undermining of the morale of the German people to a point where their capacity for armed resistance is fatally weakened.
2. Within that General concept, your primary objectives, subject to the exigencies of weather and tactical feasibility, will for the present be in the following order of priority:
(a) German submarine construction yards.
(b) The German aircraft industry.
(c) Transportation.
(d) Oil plants.
(e) Other targets in enemy war industry.

No mention of civilians as targets.

Contrary evidence may exist, but no one here has so far provided it.  The most I have seen is some read-between-the-line arguments about a memo Harris wrote to Churchill trying to get the objectives of Bomber Command changed (quoted by Tyr on the first page).

[Razgovory]

Well, Grumbler is really defensive on this issue, isn't he?  I wonder what he was doing in the navy.