[IbnMardhiyah]

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

Back then civilians were targetted in order to achieve military goals, and werent really seen as incidental losses in attacks. Armies met in set piece battles and in sieges that ended in negotiated surrenders in virtually all cases. The idea of civilians accidentally being killed in a war would be pretty alien to people from early premodern times

I disagree.

What you stated isn't applicable when referring to Prophet Muhammad [saws], because he explicitly made it clear that non-combatants were not to be killed, and that entails particular care during military operations to make sure of the same.

In the Bani Judhaima incident, Khalid bin Waleed killed non-combatants and when the Prophet was told about it, he strongly disapproved and also dissociated himself from such action.

So, it happened and was known of.

[MossadConspiracy]

Originally Posted by IbnMardhiyah

I disagree.

What you stated isn't applicable when referring to Prophet Muhammad [saws], because he explicitly made it clear that non-combatants were not to be killed, and that entails particular care during military operations to make sure of the same.

In the Bani Judhaima incident, Khalid bin Waleed killed non-combatants and when the Prophet was told about it, he strongly disapproved and also dissociated himself from such action.

So, it happened and was known of.

you're right

first of all, you're right that Allah and the prophet forbid it (although I dont know if its allowed under circumstances where civilians and soldiers cannot be separated from one another, as is common today)

secondly, you're right that civilians were killed in the past. That happened, and often it was very brutal and on a large scale. I might not have made my point clearly. What i was saying is that when civilians became victims of war in early premodern times, attacks against them were generally intentional. This is what was forbidden. Since war was fought in a different manner back then, combat usually didnt extend into cities, towns or even villages unless it was brought there intentionally.

[IbnMardhiyah]

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

although I dont know if its allowed under circumstances where civilians and soldiers cannot be separated from one another, as is common today

[For Muslims] it is, but only under extreme circumstances, and not commonly preventable circumstances as seen employed by the IDF, USAF, USMC, Army, and so on.

[Aryan_]

Originally Posted by IbnMardhiyah

So basically, you just made a lot of ignorant assumptions about nabeyuna Muhammad [saws] and after that, failed to provide any evidence for your assertions.

During the campaign at Khaybar, no catapults or siege engines were used. It was all close combat, exchanges of arrows, and supply interdiction. Nothing more. There was no collateral damage, or to put it more accurately in Islamic terms, there were no non-combatant casualties.

Taif was the first time siege engines were used by the Muslims, and even then I've not heard or seen any mention that the catapults were used on buildings inside Taif itself, but rather, they were used to bombard the walls only. And again, I've found no mention of non-combatant deaths relating to the use of catapults in that siege.

Thanks for trying anyways.

Hey princess, nice to see your posts haven't lost any of their fairyness. Rock on sister.

Collateral damage is different to systemic targeting of a civilian population, don't confuse the two. Arab bows and siege weaponry were primitive and very inaccurate...hitting a wall or defenders standing on it from 50-100 yards isn't easy and there would be a lot of misses.

I know for a fact civilians were killed and injured unintentionally in the Syrian campaign, and it would be absurd to think it wouldn't have happened on earlier battles in proximity to civilian sites. Unless you think Allah picks up the rocks and arrows and places them between the enemies eyes personally.

And Americans probably cause less collateral damage than any modern army would today would, it just gets reported more.

[IbnMardhiyah]

Originally Posted by Aryan_

Collateral damage is different to systemic targeting of a civilian population, don't confuse the two. Arab bows and siege weaponry were primitive and very inaccurate...hitting a wall or defenders standing on it from 50-100 yards isn't easy and there would be a lot of misses.

So now you're backtracking on your words in an attempt to save face. Nice, but not unexpected.

I happen to be talking about collateral damage and not deliberate targeting of non-combatants so would you kindly stay on topic and refrain from bringing up extraneous items? Thanks.

Moving alonng, when it came to the Sahabaa, their archers were very accurate, to the point of being renowned for their lethal accuracy. The clans of Aws and Khazraj had been at each others throats for a long time and they had plenty of expert archers amongst them. One example amongst many is that of Ibn el-Akwas, he was only a young teenager yet it was rare for him to miss his mark, he was employed by Muslims routinely to pick off enemies from a distance at remote outposts.

The 50 archers at Uhud were selected specifically for their prowess with the bow, and at such a strategic location, accuracy would have been paramount.

In the campaigns against Persia under the command of Saad ibn Abi Waqqas, archers were employed from a distance to specifically put out the eyes of the elephants in the Persian army, which was their Achilles heel.

I know for a fact civilians were killed and injured unintentionally in the Syrian campaign, and it would be absurd to think it wouldn't have happened on earlier battles in proximity to civilian sites.

In Islam we don't have the concept of "civilians". We have only combatants or non-combatants. Your assumptions lack substance because its well known that Prophet Muhammad [saws] strictly forbade the killing of non-combatants. If you have proof that it did happen under his command, then bring it forward otherwise take back what you said about nabeyuna Muhammad, salallahu 3alayhe wasallam.

And Americans probably cause less collateral damage than any modern army would today would, it just gets reported more.

Now you're just spewing out a whole lotta BS.

Americans routinely target civilians as seen in Afghanistan and Iraq. They routinely target journalists as seen with Arab and European cases. They deliberately targeted Hiroshima and Nagasaki killing hundreds of thousands of non-combatant civilians even though there was no need to do so - Japan was already broken and on the verge of surrender, and many American military officials were against the nuclear strikes. Along with other Allies, they firebombed Dresden even though there was no need to do so. In Vietnam they dropped napalm, deliberately killing civilian non-combatants even though there was no need to do so.

Kindly sit down and stfu, thanks.

[Variable]

Originally Posted by IbnMardhiyah

In Islam we don't have the concept of "civilians". We have only combatants or non-combatants. Your assumptions lack substance because its well known that Prophet Muhammad [saws] strictly forbade the killing of non-combatants. If you have proof that it did happen under his command, then bring it forward otherwise take back what you said about nabeyuna Muhammad, salallahu 3alayhe wasallam.

Where all pubescent males in the Banu Nadir combatants?

They deliberately targeted Hiroshima and Nagasaki killing hundreds of thousands of non-combatant civilians even though there was no need to do so - Japan was already broken and on the verge of surrender, and many American military officials were against the nuclear strikes. Along with other Allies, they firebombed Dresden even though there was no need to do so. In Vietnam they dropped napalm, deliberately killing civilian non-combatants even though there was no need to do so.

Kindly sit down and stfu, thanks.

While I don't agree that there is a concerted and deliberate targeting of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, I do agree that the negligence and non-challant attitude toward civilan life amounts to something criminal. The Japan thing is definitely debatable.

[Aryan_]

Originally Posted by IbnMardhiyah

So now you're backtracking on your words in an attempt to save face. Nice, but not unexpected.

I happen to be talking about collateral damage and not deliberate targeting of non-combatants so would you kindly stay on topic and refrain from bringing up extraneous items? Thanks

All I've mentioned is examples of collateral damage. I could mention times where Muhammad targeted non-combatants too though.

Originally Posted by IbnMardhiyah

Moving alonng, when it came to the Sahabaa, their archers were very accurate, to the point of being renowned for their lethal accuracy. The clans of Aws and Khazraj had been at each others throats for a long time and they had plenty of expert archers amongst them. One example amongst many is that of Ibn el-Akwas, he was only a young teenager yet it was rare for him to miss his mark, he was employed by Muslims routinely to pick off enemies from a distance at remote outposts.

The 50 archers at Uhud were selected specifically for their prowess with the bow, and at such a strategic location, accuracy would have been paramount.

In the campaigns against Persia under the command of Saad ibn Abi Waqqas, archers were employed from a distance to specifically put out the eyes of the elephants in the Persian army, which was their Achilles heel.

Not all Arabs were dedicated archers, and at times other soldiers would take up the bow and arrow including at some times the servants and wives of the soldiers.

Americans routinely target civilians as seen in Afghanistan and Iraq. They routinely target journalists as seen with Arab and European cases. They deliberately targeted Hiroshima and Nagasaki killing hundreds of thousands of non-combatant civilians even though there was no need to do so - Japan was already broken and on the verge of surrender, and many American military officials were against the nuclear strikes. Along with other Allies, they firebombed Dresden even though there was no need to do so. In Vietnam they dropped napalm, deliberately killing civilian non-combatants even though there was no need to do so.

Dumbass. There was plenty of reason to nuke Japan, they deserved it. If they didn't want to be nuked, they shouldn't have declared war. And thats not racist, if the chinks, gooks or dilydallys had their way the entire of Japan would be levelled in response to their occupation.

Anyway, collateral damage is a very distinct different concept to the deliberate targeting of civilians. You should read up on terminology before you try. I know it gets you all hot and bothered under your blouse when I tell you this but you really should stick to what you know...so tell us princess, which lip gloss and nail polish do you use to match your accessorised in season manbag? What sort of manicures are you having these days?

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

the siege weapons used by early arabs could not have been very advanced or destructive

Arabs used captured Sassanid mangonels and employed them as early as the first capture of Damascus. They were pretty destructive.

[Skinwalker]

Originally Posted by IbnMardhiyah

In the campaigns against Persia under the command of Saad ibn Abi Waqqas, archers were employed from a distance to specifically put out the eyes of the elephants in the Persian army, which was their Achilles heel.

I would say that in this case the elephants were "collateral damage".

[roberto]

Originally Posted by bluey

Are you trying to say that the U.S Military is innocent of what the article suggests?

I think you forgot to read this:

"The U.S. Air Force admits showing films of violent pornography to pilots before they fly bombing raids. "

Substanciate

[roberto]

Originally Posted by IbnMardhiyah

Uh, newsflash roboto ... they are uncaring, unfeeling, brutal savages. How else do you explain the fact that they refer to the thousands of innocents they kill as "collateral damage" and how else do you explain their absolute disregard for half-a-million dead Iraqi children?

I suggest instead of ranting you look up the meaning of "collateral" and also take a look at the reasons and pepertrater of violence in Iraq and indeed throughout the world

[ModerateGuy]

Originally Posted by Aryan_

Dumbass. There was plenty of reason to nuke Japan, they deserved it. If they didn't want to be nuked, they shouldn't have declared war. And thats not racist, if the chinks, gooks or dilydallys had their way the entire of Japan would be levelled in response to their occupation.

Wow, I've hear a lot of good justifications for the nuking of Japan and this sure isn't one of them.

And then you used the words "not racist", "chinks", and "gooks" in the same sentence?

Damn man....why bother debating if you're going to lose all your credibility in one shot?

[ModerateGuy]

Originally Posted by IbnMardhiyah

Actually, I don't spend a great deal of time telling other people how stupid they are.

You're right....taglines like "Thanks for trying anyways.", " Kindly sit down and stfu," is not condescending or demeaning AT ALL.

Again, I applaud you for your eloquence and the homework you've done in your debates. You're obviously an intelligent individual with a passion for your opinions.

But your arguments clearly show that it's a biased opinion....("America BAD!!!!"....I get it.) Digging up a whole mess of facts doesn't always convey the truth if those facts are taken from a singular perspective...especially from someone with an agenda. Facts can lie....when selected carefully to support a particular argument...they do so everyday. I would be fairly confident that I could support nearly ANY argument with a solid base of facts...given enough time and the right angle.

Need me to debunk climate change? Sure, give me a couple of days and I'll show you all KINDS of facts that show nothing is going on with the environment.

How about gun control?

Abortion?

You name it, I'll dig up the facts and support any argument.....

Doesn't make it true...but damn....it'll sound good!

The TRUTH is there's good and bad everywhere....and instead of generalizing whole nations, cultures, and groups....we should go after those who commit crimes individually and not label others who unfortunately share a few traits in common.

(First up, George Bush...he's a criminal in my book. But don't condemn ME just because I was born on the same continental plate as he was.)

Originally Posted by IbnMardhiyah

Three fingers ...

Right back at ya bub...

[roberto]

Originally Posted by IbnMardhiyah

[For Muslims] it is, but only under extreme circumstances, and not commonly preventable circumstances as seen employed by the IDF, USAF, USMC, Army, and so on.

There's an awful lot of Muslims worldwide who do not follow that teaching and in fact seek to maximise the deaths of innocent people as a deliberate policy