Is violence against civilians sometimes justified?

[Grinning_Colossus]

The topic refers to any use of organized violence in which the primary target is civilians (excluding law enforcement). This includes things like Hiroshima, Dresden, and terrorist suicide bombings.

[Valmy]

As collateral damage?

Never as the primary target.

[Grinning_Colossus]

Excluding collateral damage.

[The Brain]

Tell me more of the civilians.

[Eddie Teach]

Do the civilians in question post on Languish?

[The Brain]

Does the suicide bomber count as civilian?

[derspiess]

Are the civilians in question Steelers fans, perhaps?

[lustindarkness]

Is nuking the whole middle east considered violence against civilians?

[Martinus]

Is nuking the whole middle east considered violence against civilians?

No, that would be collateral damage.

[Drakken]

Does the suicide bomber count as civilian?

Counts as a dead man walking.

[Grinning_Colossus]

Wow, my expectations were really off. I guess the ghost of Curtis LeMay has finally stopped haunting Languish and passed on to Valhalla.

[Josquius]

Of course not.
By modern standards the people of WW2 were fucked up

[Jaron]

If the majority wills it, violence against minorities is always justified.

[Eddie Teach]

Of course not.
By modern standards the people of WW2 were fucked up

Modern people have no room to judge. Look at what our governments countenance without an existential threat.

[Valmy]

Of course not.
By modern standards the people of WW2 were fucked up

WW2 made everybody lose their shit and do horrible things. But are we really any better? I don't think so.