[alancalverd]

Civilians have been involved in warfare ever since the invention of fixed defences, which can be besieged until the population starves or surrenders. Their involvement became more active in the Spanish civil war when the Nationalists decided to disrupt the Republican supply lines by strafing refugees, and was inevitable in WWII as mechanised warfare demands home-based manufacturing and resupply, so factories and dockyards, which are necessarily in population centers, became strategic targets for bombing.

Hiding military establishments under hospitals and suchlike is against the "rules", such as they are, because armed conflict will then inevitably involve civilians. If the police break down a door to apprehend a murderer, their action is not considered to be criminal damage, and journalists should be cautious in how they report civilian casualties where there is evidence that the rules have been broken by the defending side.

Not every leader is elected, since not every government is democratic.

And there's the nub of the problem. The moment you allow government to lead, you are giving military power to ambitious parasites, however they acquired their position. The legitimate and moral role of government is to represent the electorate and manage resources for their benefit, not to invade the territory of others.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Hiding military establishments under hospitals and suchlike is against the "rules", such as they are, because armed conflict will then inevitably involve civilians. If the police break down a door to apprehend a murderer, their action is not considered to be criminal damage, and journalists should be cautious in how they report civilian casualties where there is evidence that the rules have been broken by the defending side.

Hamas seem to realize that they don't have the capacity to fight in open warfare. That's why they don't follow the "rules".
On the other hand, IDF don't have the capacity to conduct precise operation to target their enemy's fighters without harming civilians. That's why they use bombs.

How many civilian casualties are allowed as collateral damage?
If a terrorist group hijack a building and hold its occupants hostages, is it OK to just destroy the building to kill them all?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

New Rule: Woke Capitalism | Real Time with Bill Maher (HBO)

There?s nothing wrong with not having an opinion on something. Especially if you don?t know what the f**k you?re talking about.

2:09 you're not actually legally obliged to have an opinion.

[alancalverd]

How many civilian casualties are allowed as collateral damage?

In modern warfare, as many as it takes to win. Of course if you are a terrorist (like Hamas, IRA, ISIS....) your primary target is civilians, not military.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

How many civilian casualties are allowed as collateral damage?

In modern warfare, as many as it takes to win. Of course if you are a terrorist (like Hamas, IRA, ISIS....) your primary target is civilians, not military.

They will also target military if they think the probability of success is high enough, e.g. an outpost or a patrol/small convoy.

[alancalverd]

 Not many soldiers in the Twin Towers, Manchester Arena, the Boston Marathon.....

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Not many soldiers in the Twin Towers, Manchester Arena, the Boston Marathon.....

They also targeted Pentagon.

[alancalverd]

....which contains mostly civilians, including, quite by chance, the Vice President who was filmed attempting to help survivors.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

....which contains mostly civilians, including, quite by chance, the Vice President who was filmed attempting to help survivors.

Were those civilians their primary targets?

[alancalverd]

Yes. That's the defining characteristic of terrorism - a branch of asymmetric warfare. The other main branch being guerrilla tactics, exemplified by the Vietcong defeating the computerised supersonic nuclear US military with sharp sticks and local knowledge.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

What made those civilians in Pentagon their primary targets? Weren't there any other places where more civilians could be hit in a single strike easier?
If Pentagon were not the US military headquarters, would they still be targeted?

[alancalverd]

The scum managed to kill about 3000 civilians in the Twin Towers for no obvious reason. The Pentagon was an obvious political target but the body count was mostly restricted to the aircraft passengers. AFAIK nobody knows what the fourth target was supposed to be.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

AFAIK nobody knows what the fourth target was supposed to be.

But we know that at least one of them did attack the Pentagon.

The third team succeeded in crashing into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the U.S. Department of Defense in Arlington County, Virginia, while the fourth plane crashed in rural Pennsylvania following a passenger revolt.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The Nazis had a popular majority

Democracy relies on the assumption of crowd wisdom, and the population in general are rational. But this assumption isn't always true.

New York Times Interviewed WILDLY IGNORANT VOTERS Who MIGHT VOTE FOR TRUMP!!!

In this clip from episode 894 of I Doubt It Podcast, Brittany Page and Jesse Dollemore discuss a recent article from the New York Times in which several voters were interviewed about the upcoming election and who they see themselves voting for - as well as why.

Even in the most democratic countries, not everyone is given the right to vote. Those who are regarded as lacking the capacity to make rational decision for the wellbeing of the country are generally barred from voting, like children, criminals, and people with severe mental illness.
In the past, women and people of some races were not given the right to vote either.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

At the beginning of 20th century, discourse on moral philosophy had become more abstract, impractical for common folks. Introduction of moral dilemma like the trolley problems made moral philosophy look useful again, but most discussions I found online put too much stress on acute impact or immediate consequences. Chronic impact or accumulative or indirect consequences are rarely mentioned.

[alancalverd]

Democracy relies on the assumption of crowd wisdom, and the population in general are rational.

A successful democracy, yes. But a practical democracy often works by populism and tribalism, hence Trump, Truss, Johnson, Bush, Hitler....

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

When the assumptions turn out to be false, we won't get the expected result from a democratic society.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The Nazis had a popular majority

Democracy relies on the assumption of crowd wisdom, and the population in general are rational. But this assumption isn't always true.

New York Times Interviewed WILDLY IGNORANT VOTERS Who MIGHT VOTE FOR TRUMP!!!

In this clip from episode 894 of I Doubt It Podcast, Brittany Page and Jesse Dollemore discuss a recent article from the New York Times in which several voters were interviewed about the upcoming election and who they see themselves voting for - as well as why.

Even in the most democratic countries, not everyone is given the right to vote. Those who are regarded as lacking the capacity to make rational decision for the wellbeing of the country are generally barred from voting, like children, criminals, and people with severe mental illness.
In the past, women and people of some races were not given the right to vote either.

It reminds me of Hanlon's razor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
Hanlon's razor is an adage or rule of thumb that states: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.".

Other variations of the idea
Earlier attributions to the idea go back to at least the 18th century.[12] Johann Wolfgang von Goethe wrote in the first entry of his influential epistolary novel The Sorrows of Young Werther (1774, first English translation 1779): "[...] Mi?verst?ndnisse und Tr?gheit machen vielleicht mehr Irrungen in der Welt als List und Bosheit. Wenigstens sind die beiden letzteren gewi? seltener." ('[...] misunderstandings and lethargy perhaps produce more wrong in the world than deceit and malice do. At any rate, the latter two are certainly rarer.') [13] Another variation appears in The Wheels of Chance (1896) by H.G. Wells:

There is very little deliberate wickedness in the world. The stupidity of our selfishness gives much the same results indeed, but in the ethical laboratory it shows a different nature.[14]

A similar quote is also misattributed to Napoleon.[12] Andrew Roberts, in his biography of Winston Churchill, quotes from Churchill's correspondence with King George VI in February 1943 regarding disagreements with Charles De Gaulle: "'His 'insolence ... may be founded on stupidity rather than malice.'"[15]: 771 

Douglas W. Hubbard quoted Hanlon's razor and added "a clumsier but more accurate corollary ...: 'Never attribute to malice or stupidity that which can be explained by moderately rational individuals following incentives in a complex system.'"

It has similarity with some eastern view on morality, while immoral actions are considered to be caused by ignorance. They can be wrong in determining the terminal goal, the basic facts related to the case, or the causality relationships.

[alancalverd]

When the assumptions turn out to be false, we won't get the expected result from a democratic society.

The only expected result is that (a) you will be governed by whoever appeals to the greatest number of voters at the time of election (usual form of national democracy)  or (b) you will be represented by a person continuously mandated to work in your best interests all times (trade union democracy).

Democracy is a mechanism. Garbage In, Garbage Out, always, but form (b) offers continuous feedback so you can spot and remove the garbage.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The founders of democratic countries must have assumed that it was the best available option for them. Otherwise, they must have chosen the better option. They were confident that their citizens were mostly rational and well informed.