Is violence against civilians sometimes justified?

[Berkut]

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.

Hmmm, that is actually a really good question.

[Eddie Teach]

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

You mean like when an Illinois mob killed Joe Smith?

[Jaron]

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

You mean like when an Illinois mob killed Joe Smith?

That was a vigilante mob action, not will of the majority.

[Eddie Teach]

The mob took a vote.

[Phillip V]

I may say no, but will probably engage in yes.

[Razgovory]

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

You mean like when an Illinois mob killed Joe Smith?

That was a vigilante mob action, not will of the majority.

The extermination order was the will of the Majority in Missouri.

[Jaron]

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

You mean like when an Illinois mob killed Joe Smith?

That was a vigilante mob action, not will of the majority.

The extermination order was the will of the Majority in Missouri.

No, that isn't so.

[grumbler]

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

I have no idea what you even started the thread to debate.  "Is violence against civilians sometimes justified?" Of course it is.   Self-defense allows me to use violence against a civilian to protect myself or others.  I can even organize with another person to collectively use violence in self-defense.

If we are talking war, then, no, the civilians cannot be the target of violence.  Hiroshima and Dresden were not targeting civilians.

If we are talking terrorism, I don't even know why you think it could be justified.

There are gray areas:  was the bombing of the King David Hotel an illegal attack on civilians, given that the hotel was being used as a headquarters by the British military and the bomb was planted under that portion of the hotel?  You can debate cases of whether or not the collateral damage was excessive, but I don't see that you can debate whether or not attacks targeting civilians as civilians can be justified.

[Razgovory]

No, that isn't so.

I'm afraid it is.  It was only reversed in the 1970's.

[DGuller]

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

They were not fucked up, they were fighting a total war.  And we'd do it today if we fought a total war like that, had nukes not redefined the concept of total war.

[Josquius]

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

They were not fucked up, they were fighting a total war.  And we'd do it today if we fought a total war like that, had nukes not redefined the concept of total war.

I'm not so sure.
In a way strategic bombing had a justification. Targeting wasn't particularly good and they wanted to knock out the enemy's industry. Plastering whole cities was the only way to be sure. Particularly with Japan.
But....it went beyond that and into pure terrorism. Killing civilians just for the sake of it in some belief that this would lower morale and hasten the end of the war. This in the modern world is just not appropriate. And besides, it's a waste of resources. It doesn't work. 
Since we have much better targeting these days even hitting a whole city in order to hit industry isn't necessary

[grumbler]

I'm not so sure.
In a way strategic bombing had a justification. Targeting wasn't particularly good and they wanted to knock out the enemy's industry. Plastering whole cities was the only way to be sure. Particularly with Japan.
But....it went beyond that and into pure terrorism. Killing civilians just for the sake of it in some belief that this would lower morale and hasten the end of the war. This in the modern world is just not appropriate. And besides, it's a waste of resources. It doesn't work. 
Since we have much better targeting these days even hitting a whole city in order to hit industry isn't necessary

I know that "the Allies committed terrorism" is a popular narrative, but do you have any actual historical evidence that this was true?  That there was a plan that involved "Killing civilians just for the sake of it?"

[Norgy]

I guess it boils down to "Is violence justifiable". And, yes, it is.

Self-defence, protecting your loved ones. Those are prime examples of justifiable violence. If you mean Glasgow kissing the next person you meet, well, less so.

One thing about us humans, we always manage to justify our actions in some way.

[The Brain]

If you dehouse people at night, using bombs, you leave yourself open to charges of targeting civilians.

[Norgy]

That's why I tend not to do that. As a general rule.