[OT] Indian C programmers and "u"

[Nils Petter Vaskinn]

The naive never do. Perhaps unfortunately, your views and
"principles" will change as you live longer in the real world.

Yes they will. But not on this issue, I don't think anything will make
it _right_ to put civilians in harms way. Maybe hate, predjudice or self
interest will one day make me delude myself into thinking that it is
right, but I hope that won't happen.

Naivete (spelling?) has nothing to do with knowing the difference between
right and wrong. Beeing naive is believing that one will always choose
right. I know what principles I think are important, I know killing
civilians is wrong, but I also know that if I'm ever drafted into a war
and risking civilians would increase my personal safety then those
principles would go out the window.

Trust me.

If you can't tell naivete from cynicism, I think not.

 

[Nils Petter Vaskinn]

http://bss.sfsu.edu/tygiel/Hist427/texts/wwiicasualty.htm
Probably not accurate either, but a starting point for a
history lesson.

Interesting still, but a little lacking in detail.

Civilian casualties should be divided into those killed by the enemy and
those killed by own soldiers (as in out into concentration camps).

And it would also be interesting to see the casualties as a percentage of
the population at the time. Perhaps I'll look up the population statistics
and calculate them for myself, but that won't happen until after cristmas
if it does.

 

[John Smith]

Perhaps unfortunately, your views and
> "principles" will change as you live longer in the real world.

Yes they will.

I know killing
civilians is wrong, but I also know that if I'm ever drafted into a war
and risking civilians would increase my personal safety then those
principles would go out the window.

You seem to be agreeing with me. In any event, I would be happy
to continue the discussion amicably, but let's not do it here.

JS

 

[SenderX]

Civilian casualties should be divided into those killed by the enemy and

those killed by own soldiers (as in out into concentration camps).

Its amazing!

Alls the enemy has to do is surround themselves with civilians, and they
render liberal trash useless!





Liberal:

Oh my! We can't fight now... We might harm a civilian! I guess the enemy has
won...





The right guys:

BLAST EM!

 

[Nils Petter Vaskinn]

You seem to be agreeing with me.

No I don't. At least if I've understood you correctly, here's the two
view's as I think they are.

You: Nuking Japan was right.
Me: Nuking Japan was wrong, but I understand what drove them to do it, and
I realize I'm not so perfect that I wouldn't do it under the right (wrong)
circumstances.

Please correct me if I'm wrong about what you meant.

In any event, I would be happy
to continue the discussion amicably, but let's not do it here.

Feel very free to set follow up to somewhere where this is on topic.

 

[Nils Petter Vaskinn]

Its amazing!

That was referring to the statistics at the url mentioned previously. For
example the numbers for civilian casualties in germany doesn't give much
information when you can't tell how many were killed as a result of
fighting/bombing and how many were the result of the nazis killing them on
purpose.

I'll just assume the rest of your post refers to the rest of the thread.

Alls the enemy has to do is surround themselves with civilians, and they
render liberal trash useless!

So I guess you wouldn't mind beeing a civilian casualty say if you lived
near a military base and some terrorist organization decides to bomb it?

Oh my! We can't fight now... We might harm a civilian! I guess the enemy has
won...

I think actively hiding behind civilians is just as wrong, and does
justify a certain degree of "they broke the rules and endangered their own
civilians so they'll have to take the blame for the casualties

War is in the end about killing the enemy, but if we are going to clam to
be as morally superior as we seem to think we are we should make an effort
to minimize damage to non combatants. If you're willing to bomb an afghan
village to the ground to get at Osama bin Laden without concern for the
civilians he's "hiding behind" you're just as bad as he is. To the good
guy the end does not justify the means.

 

[Peter Pichler]

That was referring to the statistics at the url mentioned previously. For
example the numbers for civilian casualties in germany doesn't give much
information when you can't tell how many were killed as a result of
fighting/bombing and how many were the result of the nazis killing them on
purpose.

....or how many died from starvation/disease.

Anyway, what does this have to do with C? Could you please take this rant
to a more appropriate place?

Peter