Is killing civilians an acceptable secularly-grounded tactic in some circumstances?

I am opening this poll to find out whether or not I am crazy.  Recently I heard some folks say, "Yes, in the case of Palestine" for secular or religious reasons.  Like an idiot, I thought the answer was "never."  I had thought that Dresden, Nagasaki, and Hiroshima had taught us that.  I thought that even the painful sympathy we feel for a man such as Nat Turner would teach us to say "never" even when the cause is righteous and the rage perfectly reasonable.  So how about it?  No excuses.  Own it, whatever you think. 

Mine is the first vote for "never."

I personally think/don't think this is an awesome question since what it asks is almost irrelevant, but what it brings up is wonderful.

"Never"

I want to go along and be like, Yeah Never! And I'll sign some petition, but war is government (read: government is war), and the necessity of government represents the failure of humanity, and "Never" does not exist in war because governments (majoritarian-democratic, tribal, and all other romantic ideals) and the demarcations they necessitate for financial gain (national borders, etc.) are in and of themselves violent acts against all people. "Never" is not a word governments use, since "never" assumes that every dollar has already been made and that everyone has converted to your brand of religious fascism. There's always another dollar, and always another soul.

So yeah, of course, "Never," but the poll itself assumes that the very catalysts of war as we know it—institutionalized and ossified idealogical money-obsessed governments run by fuck-heads—(read: not temporary and voluntary organizations of like-minded individuals) are always already inherent, universal, necessary, and forever relevant. This, of course, I disagree with.

As Digable Planets once said, "Let's point our heaters the other way..."

Of course for the sake of detournment I read "heaters" as literally a heating device, since DP might have been talking about who knows who.

This poll also assumes an agreed upon definition of "civilian." As if!!! Engaged parties will always define "civilian" in the most narrow terms so as to include as many "enemies" as possible. Hence, Ward Churhill's "Little Eichmans" comment, as well as OSB's et al belief that anyone benefitting from US foriegn policy is, as GWB would say, an enemy combattant. As well as GWB's "not with us against us" fascistic line-drawing. And THEORETICALLY they are right. Within the system of dogmatic religion-worship, national borders, and market-based economies where survival is VERY REALLY pegged to the bouyancy of healthy commerce or the allegiance to someone's personal impression of a dead guy(saw), a non-combattant is anyone not in line with these agendas. But we the enlightened also play into this, and for good reason, in the way we might say that if someone doesn't do something about a friend who they know is being abused, then they too are guilty. Guilty by association and all that. This GBA I do asscribe to.

So I'm owning the fact that, duh, never kill civilians, and duh, war involves 2-ton bombs that decimate everything from fruit-trees to little kids arms and all the rest of that f-ing evil bullshit. And, duh, we can thank our reliance on gov't to solve our problems for the exploded child's head half way around the world.

I also believe in "Never kill civilians" because I believe in holding governments up to unattainable standards so they will crumble under their own low self esteem.

Civilain, pavilian, mammilian.

Doto had it on.  It wasn't so much a poll as a provocation to discussion.  Part of what I wanted to show is that if you answer yes to the other categories and not Palestine you have to concede the point on Palestine as well.  Those who argue for killing Israeli civilians do so by saying it will end the war, the situation in Palestine is Apartheid, or the situation in Palestine is genocide.  Doto got it right too when he asked, "What is a civilian?"  Those who argue for killing Israeli civilians consider every Israeli a potential combatant.  There are no Israeli civilians in their minds.   I also hoped that by using examples from the US and UK, I could ask those who support killing civilians in the case of Palestine why do you want to become what you hate? 

Further, I would like to challenge those people who told me they support killing civilians in the case of Palestine to go to Palestine and take the places of those who you would have do your killing for you.  Let those Palestinians live in your home in your house in the suburbs with the pool.  You take your wives and your children and go live in their house.  You raise your children for that life.  If you really think that sort of killing will solve this problem, then do it yourselves.  Do you want that for your family?  If you wouldn't want it for your children, why do you want it for theirs?