The old question, "No women, no kids" right?

[Jody Holeton]

Dear all,

Read this:
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/03/24/young.detainees/index.html


As more and more kids and women do this sort of thing.........

Does anyone feel that the West's view on terrorism and killing will change?

As more and more child soldiers and women enter the "battlefield", will that effect how soldiers and MAs train?

[Exorcist_Fist]

In the middle east back in the day the deal was:

Conquer.
Kill all the men.
Enslave the women.
Kill or neuter the male children.
Enslave the female children.

As I recall one of the arguments against the truth of the Bible used to be that there was no historical record of a people called the "philistines". Turns out that there was some evidence. It's just that when the original Israelites were settling the area the first time around, they obliterated everything philistine they could find, until you were luck if you could find a tin cup four kingdoms over with a little mark at the bottom that said "made in philistinia".

If I were a bloodthirsty sort of guy, I might say that in certain circumstances this has something to recommend to it. Still, if you go around killing everyone else, soon they only people left to kill... And of course if the rest of the world wises up to your new method of wiping out resistance, it can get minorly upset.

[Exorcist_Fist]

From the article.

Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, who was killed in a targeted Israeli airstrike on Monday, had issued a religious edict forbidding the use of children in terrorist attacks.

[ulvulv]

Originally posted by Silent Dan
In the middle east back in the day the deal was:

Conquer.
Kill all the men.
Enslave the women.
Kill or neuter the male children.
Enslave the female children.



I

You really have done some quality studies in the history of evil there

The first rules in history, banning millitary actions against monks, children, women, disabled and the elderly, was in fact in Persia.
It was Abu Hanifa, who was the leader of a law-institute in Bhagdad about year 750, who formed the rules, which should be followed strictly in all warfare .

The Romans, much later, divided between Bellum Romanum, and Bellum Hostile, war against people they respected, and war against those they did not respect. In warfare against those they did not respect, no deed was to evil, as they viewed them as animals, not human beings.

Your small martial maxime seem more roman than persian if you ask me.

[Exorcist_Fist]

Sorry Roar, I never consider the internet a place for detailed scholastic discussion. At best its good for a laugh, and some sarcasm. Kind of like life, if you think about it.

As for your differentiation between the Roman and Persian methods, its nice. The problem is that the Romans did fight in the Middle East. Also, the example of the philistines predates Abu Hanifa. When I say back in the day, I mean way way back in the day. 750 CE is not that far back. I will grant that I perhaps should not have limited my description of "EVIL" to just the middle east, since that method of conquest has been practiced in quite a number of places.

EVIL does seem a bit strong to me, btw. Killing and Enslaving isn't so evil is it? I mean, it still goes on today, all the time...

[Iain]

Kids have been used as shock troops for a very, very long time. Child soldiors have been used in Africa for decades. Child soldiors also fought as parts of SS formations. Our views on the use of kids during war didn't change when we were doing it...

It's a horrible thing, but not a new one. If the kid or woman has a gun, you kill them. That's the way war works. War was never waged solely by males between the ages of 18-35. Even considering the fact that the bulk of combattants in wars are males, death does not only occur on the front lines. Non-combattants have borne the brunt of the suffering in most wars, be it due to industrial bombing, economic privation, or good old fashioned rape and pillage.

I'm not saying that what has been done is not absolutely despicable, but I find it hard to believe it will substantially change anyones attitude. We are forever having the horrors of war exposed to us in new and sickening forms, and it has so far failed to impress anything on the population at large. I'd even argue that there has been a steady re-glorification of killing across the western world as our veterans slowly become members of a forgotten generation. Incidents like this will generate some short-lived outrage, and might even be useful for peddling some propaganda, but change peoples 'attitudes' it will not.

[jest]

I read an interesting article a few years ago about the continued distinction -usually in victim numbers- between men versus woman and children (for example: "100 people died in the fire, including 40 women and children."). The point was that assigning some kind of intrinsic difference to female adult victims than to males really wasn't helping emancipation much.
I realise this isn't quite in line with the topic, and apologise for threaddrift, but it just popped into my head when I read the thread title.

[Jody Holeton]

DEar jest,

Yup. I have been thinking the same thing for years. Concerning race, sex, age, job and net worth......

Are some lives more expendable?
What is the cutoff point?
Is it because of chivalry that women need to be protected?
Why aren't women put in for the draft?

Lots of questions..........

[Iain]

Women aren't put in for the draft because they are viewed as the primary bearers and raisers of children. Taking women away from children was tantamount to taking the ability of a child to lead a normal and healthy life away from it. Times have changed somewhat, and if there was ever another large-scale draft, I could see certain portions of the female population being reasonably drafted.

However, women also tend to suffer to a greater degree as captives of the enemy than men do. Incidences of men being systematically raped to death by a group of enemy soldiors are minimal when compared to the the number of women.

I'd say as soon as men all take equal responsibility for their spawn -child support is a poor substitute for a father-, women can be equally drafted. Besides, if we drafted everyone, who would stay home and make all the bullets?

[jest]

No disagreement here Iain, women will most likely remain the primary family foundation for the time being, so I agree with a relatively smaller number of female soldiers.
However, I do think that the old cliché (maybe I should have shifted this to Cady's thread?) of separating adult female victims of non-war related incidents from males is becoming a wee bit stale.

[Icando]

A bit off topic (not that that's unusual on e-budo!) but I always liked the way the Mongols (Ghengis Khan - no he can't) used to take cities when they invaded. First of ask the city to surrender or they will all die if they don't. Usually the first city doesn't surrender, but then after all being killed apart from a select few who are released to spread the good news the next city starts to see things differently. Certainly kept the mongol casualties down.

Getting a bit more on topic I always thought that children made much better soldiers cos they can be brain-washed much better than adults. There seems to be lots of child soldiers used in Africa at the moment for this reason. Adults seem to have a problem converting into sadistic remorseless killers (unless they've trained with Ashida obviously) whereas kids take to it like a duck to water.