Is violence against civilians sometimes justified?

[Zanza]

You can also Google the answers to your question why the Allies targeted civilians. Or you just look at the previous page of the thread where someone already did.

[grumbler]

Dresden, as far as I understand it, was a one-off. A rather terrible one-off. A show of force not so much made to beat Germany into submission, as that was a done deal pretty much, but to show the Soviets what airpower could do.

The irony of this argument is that it is precisely correct, but not for the reason assumed.  The three February raids were made at the request of the Russians, for whom the movement of German forces through Dresden was a major concern.  The March and April raids were to demolish the repairs the Germans had made in the aftermath of the February attacks.

[grumbler]

You can also Google the answers to your question why the Allies targeted civilians. Or you just look at the previous page of the thread where someone already did.

Unfortunately, Google does not answer the question, nor do any posters on any previous pages of the thread provide evidence that the allies were "killing civilians for the sake of it."  In fact, searching Google for that phrase yields only three uses:  one referring to the Syrian Army, one referring to ISIS, and one referring to Israel (thought he latter is arguing that thee Israelis are not "killing civilians for the sake of it."

Can you direct me to the web page that contains evidence that the Allies were "killing civilians for the sake of it" in WW2?

[Zanza]

I am not Google.  It is trivial to discover what the targets were and that it was also civilians.  If there is an argument to be made in order to advance a discussion it should be made.  Mere factual questions should be Googled.

[Norgy]

Dresden, as far as I understand it, was a one-off. A rather terrible one-off. A show of force not so much made to beat Germany into submission, as that was a done deal pretty much, but to show the Soviets what airpower could do.

The irony of this argument is that it is precisely correct, but not for the reason assumed.  The three February raids were made at the request of the Russians, for whom the movement of German forces through Dresden was a major concern.  The March and April raids were to demolish the repairs the Germans had made in the aftermath of the February attacks.

I love it when you make me realise how stupid I am, gramps.

[grumbler]

I am not Google.  It is trivial to discover what the targets were and that it was also civilians.  If there is an argument to be made in order to advance a discussion it should be made.  Mere factual questions should be Googled.

You argued that the answer to my question "what evidence do we have that the Allies 'killed civilians for the sake of it'" was on Google, and I pointed out that it was not.  Your response now is that it is on Google.  That's the most feeble weasel i have seen in quite some time.  Do you have evidence, or do you not?  That's not something that google can answer.  If there is an argument to be made in order to advance a discussion it should be made.  Mere factual questions should be Googled.

[grumbler]

I love it when you make me realise how stupid I am, gramps.

Sorry you feel stupid, grandma. 

[Razgovory]

Is violence against Grumbler sometimes justified?  Or what about it you were aiming at a bowling ball or swingset and violence just happened to Grumbler?  Discuss.

[Jaron]

grumbler should never be capitalized, Mormon killer.

[Razgovory]

grumbler should never be capitalized, Mormon killer.

I forgot to reply to your threat not to buy anything from Missouri.  The only thing we produce here is beer and Meth.  Not a lot of sales in Utah.

[Eddie Teach]

Jaron only buys the blue stuff.

[11B4V]

"There are no innocent civilians. It is their government and you are fighting a people, you are not trying to fight an armed force anymore. So it doesn't bother me so much to be killing the so-called innocent bystanders."-LeMay

"Dresden? There is not such a place any longer." "I want to point out, that besides Essen, we never actually considered any particular industrial sites as targets. The destruction of industrial sites always was some sort of bonus for us. Our real targets always were the inner cities."-Harris

In March 1942 Churchill's War Cabinet adopted the 'Lindemann plan', whereby civilian targeting became official. Working-class homes were preferred to upper-class because they were closer together, and so a greater flesh-incineration-per-bomb could be achieved. The Jewish German émigré Professor Frederick Lindemann, Churchill's friend and scientific advisor had by then become Lord Cherwell. He submitted a plan to the War Cabinet on March 30th urging that German working-class houses be targeted in preference to military objectives, the latter being harder to hit. Middle-class homes had too much space around them, he explained. He was not prosecuted for a ghastly new war-crime, hitherto undreamt-of. Thereby all cities and town over 50,000 inhabitants could be destroyed, or at least brought to ruin. The War Cabinet realised that no inkling of this must reach the public.

IMO it's not hard to make the leap the allies deliberately targeted civilians.

[Valmy]

IMO it's not hard to make the leap the allies deliberately targeted civilians.

Of course they did. You don't fire bomb Tokyo to keep it from being an effective troop transport hub.

I repeat: during WWII everybody was out of their fucking minds. But you don't have to be a genius to look around at our response to terrorism to see how likely it is everybody lose their minds again.

[11B4V]

IMO it's not hard to make the leap the allies deliberately targeted civilians.

Of course they did. You don't fire bomb Tokyo to keep it from being an effective troop transport hub.

I repeat: during WWII everybody was out of their fucking minds. But you don't have to be a genius to look around at our response to terrorism to see how likely it is everybody lose their minds again.

But we were the good guys.

[Zanza]

I am not Google.  It is trivial to discover what the targets were and that it was also civilians.  If there is an argument to be made in order to advance a discussion it should be made.  Mere factual questions should be Googled.

You argued that the answer to my question "what evidence do we have that the Allies 'killed civilians for the sake of it'" was on Google, and I pointed out that it was not.  Your response now is that it is on Google.  That's the most feeble weasel i have seen in quite some time.  Do you have evidence, or do you not?  That's not something that google can answer.  If there is an argument to be made in order to advance a discussion it should be made.  Mere factual questions should be Googled.

Is your argument now that a particular phrase you picked does not find results? Your inability to use Google is funny, but not something worthy of further consideration.