Sent from: Draugnar (54 ) Sent: 08:29 PM
"Hey, we A-bombed two entire cities in WWII. Granted, we told Japan we were going to do it and gave them time to evacuate..."

I've never heard of anything remotely resembling any kind of warning prior to A-bombing Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Could you please provide some reference?

Thucydides, I agree it is unethical. But then, where else could Hamas hold their weapons? In police stations? In non-existent military bases?

Plus Russia was practically already conquered for him when he came, there was very little unity; indeed it was the Khan who made the area so impregnable, since he made them a single nation, and defended them long enough to cement this notion.

Draugner. !st We did not give a warning on the first bomb, not that it would have done any good, they would have thought it was a bluff. 2nd In WW2 civilian targets were considered legit targets because it was TOTAL WAR. 3rd Japan killed millions of civilians for the sport of it. Ask the Chinese. 4th. Military bases are often near or in cities and as they were in Japan. 5th The fire bombing of Tokyo killed more people than both A-bombs combined. 6th Seeing the result of the A-bomb discouraged fruther use when thousands would have been used. 7th Yes we do know what would have happpened read alittle about the war the Pacific.

Actually. the warning was only before Nagasaki, and wasn't specific. Truman assured the Japanese that he would do it again if they didn't surrender. So Hiroshima was without warning and Nagasaki was with wrning, but not specific to the city.

I have a bone to pick with a history teacher who claimed otherwise, now.

As for warnings before killing civilians, from Time.com
"ndeed, Israeli military-intelligence sources tell TIME that Rayan was killed when he remained in his home after Israel had phoned and ordered those inside to evacuate - before striking to destroy command facilities in the house. Israel says it has used this "knock on the roof" practice of phoning warnings about strikes on the homes of Hamas leaders throughout the current campaign."

Sent from: youradhere Sent: 08:55 PM
"When one considers that 75% of the targets Israel has struck have been military casualties, it looks a lot better."

Ask this Norwegian doctor working in Gaza how good it looks in his hospital:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/04/gaza.humanitarian/index.html#cnnSTCText

If they don't have a place to put them, (which they do by the way), then they have no business waging war. That doesn't mean it won't happen of course.

There are open areas in Gaza that could be converted into weapons stockpiles or launchpads, which could be camoflauged and fortified, and perhaps even dressed up to look like a civilian house.

When weapons are placed where civilians actually live, there are a few possible circumstances, and I'll try to hit them all:

1) The civilians are being deliberately used to deter an attack on the area, being used against an enemy with a conscience. The civilians are aware of their role and accept it willingly as part of the war effort. In this case the civilians being killed is not a war crime in any way, the people are equivalent to militants. In this scenario, those who placed the weapons as well as the civilians are to blame for the incident.

2) Same as above but the civilians are unwilling or unaware. In this case their death is still not a war crime (it is akin the babies in Luftwaffe planes as someone mentioned earlier), but it is more unfortunate, more of a tragedy. The responsibility in the case rests solely with those who placed the weapons. In a small way, it is also the civilians' fault for not leaving, if they had known of the threat of course.

3) The militants of country B have no other place to put the weaponry besides the house. Though unlikely this is possible. In my opinion, and this is where it gets shady, it is still country B's fault for arming themselves at all, knowing that it would endanger civilians, but they are less to blame, perhaps a lighter sentencing at The Hague would be in order.

The only time country A would be at fault is if an agreement was within reach or had been reached and they continued the attack, sort of like a battle occurring after the signing of an instrument of surrender, or if country A knew that the weapons were inactive or inaccessible, or if country A knew that the weapons had been moved out. Of course, it is hoped that country A, especially being technologically advanced, will have the discernment to avoid too many deaths over an relatively insignificant few arms, but in the end they cannot be held accountable for these acts.

Hamas won the elections for legislative branch, than used a coup to gain control of the administration branch. (Much like in Germany 72yrs ago). Since than they have fired rockets, and morters etc. Israel since has used an block aid to stop military supplies and restrict some types of none military supplies. Hamas has continued to fire rockets since (90 alone in Dec 25th). If they are really concerned about the killing of their civilians they would stop the rockets. Also there are warehouses full supplies for the civilians in Gaza that are locked away.

@Thucydides

A 4th reason why the weapons are placed in civilian areas could be because Hamas knows that Isreal will have to retaliate to the rocket attacks and wants to paint Isreal as the villan of the piece and hopefully draw in other nations/militants to aid its cause. Sometimes the propaganda war is more important than the actual war.

"Sometimes the propaganda war is more important than the actual war."

Finally! And Israel is losing that battle...

Israel never wins that battle. Ever. Thats why they don't care about United Nations resolutions.

Maniac - I'd put that under number one but yes you're right I suspect this is why they do it.

Yes Thucycides. And its a shame that Europe obliges Hamas like that.

I agree. Hamas is a joke, and in all my attempted partiality I find it very hard to believe that the Palestinians are thinking rationally as opposed to emotionally when they continue to support them.

To answer the original question, a "civilian" house that is used to stockpile weapons is no longer a civilian anything. It has become a legitimate military target.

An Indian friend of mine says the current situation is "like a dog yapping at an elephant. If the elephant gets annoyed enough it will stamp on the dog." Well now the elephant is annoyed.

<I had to look up this quote>
"War is not violence and killing, pure and simple; war is *controlled* violence, for a purpose. The purpose of war is to support your government's decisions by force. The purpose is never to kill the enemy just to be killing him... but to make him do what you want him to do. Not killing... but controlled and purposeful violence... It is never a soldier's business to decide when or where or how - or why - he fights; that belongs to the statesmen and the generals. The statesmen decide why and how much; the generals take it from there and tell the soldiers where and when and how. Soldiers supply the violence; other people - 'older and wiser heads?' as they say - supply the control. Which is as it should be." -- Robert A Heinlein.

@Dingleberry: Country A is at war with Country B. Country A is a high tech nation. Country B is a poor nation with 1980s weaponry. If Country B is hiding military weapons in a civilian house, is it a legitimate military target?

Depends on whose side God is on.

But given the limited information you have provided, I agree with cwfilson. The house is no longer a civilian house. It is a legitimate military target.

... assuming there is such a thing a legitimate military target.

Speaker, was the Heinlein Quote from "Starship Trooper"? It makes more sense than alot of jiberish put out today. I also love the quote from your friend.

"Country A is at war with Country B. Country A is a high tech nation. Country B is a poor nation with 1980s weaponry. If Country B is hiding military weapons in a civilian house, is it a legitimate military target?"

of course it's a military target. i mean to say that the weapons themselves are a military target, not the house. i wouldn't say that hiding weapons would warrant bombing the house or anything. just searching the house for said weapons and detaining the civilians who hid the weapons would be fine.

Thank you arcadus for putting this back on track.
I agree that it is a military target, however i believe that what you propose is far to soft. In war you fight for your side and no other, and while it may sound imoral and rather callous it is simply a fact that country A is not likely to risk putting soldiers into that house when the inhabitants are clearly armed and at least to some degree hostile. Therefore they are most likely going to bomb or in some other way destroy the building and its contained cached of weapons. They will not only do this but are perfectly justified in doing so, for it is war.
"All is fair in love and war."

Also on the nature of war I wish to say thus. War is as the Heinlein Quote stated, controled violence. However it is more than that. Much more. Only in reasonably intelligent species is war seen. Insects barred from this decree. As of yet the only living species known to practice war are ourselves and chimpanzees. War serves several purposes in society. It is of course and most obviously a means to obtain an end for a group of people or governments. It is also a vehicle for the dispersal of excess materials, whether the materials be manufactured, or human population, or even excess energy among the populace. It has also been shown that it is mainly during a time of war that great leaps and bounds in the way of both technology and manners of thought are made. Aside from all of these highly practacle and even useful aspects of war also, I believe that is an activity that is deeply ingrained in the very concept of sentience and is necessary for it to exist. Lastly, I think that despite all we have a desire for limited amounts of war, without we would have few epics, few heroes and fewer stories.

"Is war a break between peace, or is peace and interlude between war? -Some greek philospher, perhaps Plato. Just as likely Aristotle. Or maybe Thucydides.

@Warsprite - Yes, its from Starship Troopers (the book, not the awful film). It is *very* well worth reading.

OnTopic:
When country B starts storing weapons in civilians homes/schools/hospitals it's not like the civilians have any choice. "Git your tank orf my lawn." will likely get you shot. And trying to leave will likely get you shot too; Country B wants you for a human shield, whether you want to be one or not.

@ Speaker True, so what do you do? Sit back when country B starts picking off your civilians and solders? What if the civilians in country B also put in place the ruling power? Are they not also in part responseable? Off subject: Read the book years ago, yes the movie stinks.

@Warsprite - They voted in a bunch of thugs who (allegedly) threw their political opponents (a lesser bunch of thugs?) off the roofs of 8 story buildings. The message is: Oppose them and you'll have to learn to fly. What responsibility can you have for the actions of a government you no longer have any control over?

What it needs is for a United group of other Nations to come in and take over the defence of both country A and country B. Ensuring, by force where necessary, the safety of all citizens of both countries.

That isn't going to happen. Why? Because the "military" forces supporting country B wont stop their fight. They know they can't win (the dog can't kill the elephant), but vengeance is better than nothing. If country A can't stop them firing on it from within country B then country UN certainly wont be able to stop them either. All they will really provide is easier targets to shoot at. YMMV.

All true, your and one of the few who seems to remember the flying thugs.;) So are you saying that Israel has little option but take action that it is doing? If your saying yes, I agree. It just seems your avoiding an firm yes or no.

<Lets not name names - some people get awfully inflamed when you do - country A, country B, the elephant, the dog.>

The elephant is in the dogs yard (at least, what used to be the dogs yard 60 years ago). There's no way round that, it is; and the dog wants it back.

Plus, the elephant wants even more of the yard than it has now and if the dog goes into some parts of the yard, without even barking, the elephant becomes enraged and tries to kill the dog on sight.

They need to agree which areas of the yard they can both use without any barking or nipping and without and trunk-swipes or trampling and without either bring up what one's ancestor did to the others ancestor all those generations ago (it really doesn't help).

The problem is the dog can't seem to see that barking at the elephant and nipping its at its feet isn't going to make the elephant leave; and the elephant wants the dog to leave the yard too, but the other yards around them wont take the dog, even if it would leave (and they certainly wont take the elephant). Neither the elephant nor the dog has anywhere else to go.