It doesn't matter what religion you are

[JHH]

whether you are liberal, conservative, Dem, GOP, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Christian or Buddhist. Whether you are Israeli, Pakistani, Iraqi, British or American. When your child is dead all that matters is your child is dead. So next time CNN use words like "collateral damage" or acceptable losses, Please" remember we are talking about a human beings

[ThomCat]

1. It's sad that some people think the death of their own

are tragic and important but the deaths of others are meaningless and worthless. That thinking will never stop war. War will stop when people recognize that all deaths are tragic and simpy refuse to kill.

[Xenotime]

2. Good luck trying to get Israel or * to think that way.

[ThomCat]

5. Which is why an end to war is a pipe dream.

:(

[cali]

27. Don't forget

the U.S. We're far worse than they are.

[cgrindley]

3. Everyone on earth knows what those terms really mean

It's not some big secret. Collateral damage and acceptable losses refer to dead humans who were killed in a certain context. They are simply more accurate ways of discussing different categories of dead humans.

EG a tire blow out, a tire puncture, a tire failure, a tread separation

[JHH]

4. Killing children is never "acceptable" to me

[cgrindley]

6. I don't think they're using "acceptable" in the same way you are

I believe that their use of "acceptable" has something to do with some military analysis.

[JHH]

8. when is it "acceptable" to you to kill children?

[cgrindley]

11. Define "acceptable" and state in a way that isn't irrational

Otherwise, I'll ask you if it'd be okay to kill Baby Hitler. And that'll invoke Godwin and end the discussion altogether.

[JHH]

13. no it would not be acceptable to kill baby Hitler would it be to you?

[cgrindley]

14. You lose

Godwin invoked.

[JHH]

17. "Godwin invoked" what does that mean?

[cgrindley]

18. It means that if you use Hitler as part of your argument

You automatically lose the argument. It's Godwin's Law. I even warned you not to do it.

[JHH]

21. you brought him up "I'll ask you if it'd be okay to kill Baby Hitler"

I was just answering you question

[cgrindley]

22. Did you actually read the post?

Here it is again:

Otherwise, I'll ask you if it'd be okay to kill Baby Hitler. And that'll invoke Godwin and end the discussion altogether.

[JHH]

25. I guess that you want to end the discussion

when ones own child is killed then ones or the others beliefs do not matter and to me it is never a "acceptable loss"

[cgrindley]

30. I didn't want to end the discussion

I just wanted to make sure that it didn't devolve into one characterized by vague appeals to emotion, rambling strawmen, fallacies of choice and so on.

It's a difficult and sophisticated topic and it's unfair to try to paint it into a black and white issue.

[JHH]

33. I think that is the point it is very simple there are NO acceptable losses

when it comes to killing children. Dead children are not just "collateral damage" take a look at this video
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14337.htm

[cgrindley]

34. Dead children are no different than other kinds of dead people

There's no moral or ethical difference between a child getting blown up in a missile strike or an adult. I believe that to award that sort of privilege is to inherently fall into an appeal to emotion, which is, of course, seriously problematic.

The question should be: are any non-combatant deaths justified during a military campaign. Or perhaps a more careful definition of who is an "agent" in the combat is required before that question can even be asked. Likewise, the question presupposes culpability resting with the force that fired the missile, which itself may be arguable.

EG for example, a family resides in Bogvania. Bogvania is at war with Trogostad. The Bogvanian family is headed by Bob, who is a junior officer in the Bogvanian armed forces. The Bogvanian armed forces has started a war with Trogostad, but fearing Trogostad's superior forces, have de-centralized their operations, so that Bob, effectively, operates his forces from his apartment. So if Trogostad bombs Bob's apartment and kills Bob and his 2 year old son, who was at fault? Is this a correct definition of what a collateral loss would be?

[JHH]

37. That is like saying kill em all and let God sort it out

[cgrindley]

39. No it isn't

It was a question, not an answer.

[JHH]

42. Well if you want to believe that killing children is acceptable then

I have nothing more to say

[cgrindley]

43. But I didn't say that

I said that there was no difference between killing a child and killing an adult.

Then I *asked* about the nature of collateral deaths in a conflict.

[JHH]

45. Do you have children I do and I would not accept their death in war as ok

[cgrindley]

46. That's a fallacy of relevance

argumentum ad populum et ad misericordiam in one subject line. Logically, I don't have to answer it, but I will this much:

Yes. I have children. Three of them. 12, 12 and 15. Girl, Boy, Girl.

My children aren't in a war zone. It's a question I don't have to consider.

So, in your opinion, there is never a situation where a collateral loss of any type is acceptable, or are you attempting to argue that a child's life is more important than an adult's life?

[Bluerthanblue]

29. you are rather strange... but I'll say this-

it is not acceptable to kill anyone out of fear of what they may 'become'-

NO ONE has knowledge of what a person will grow to be, even if the person is Jesus the Christ,
Gandhi, Einstien, DaVinci, or Tiger Woods-

And killing children, regardless of their age (we are all children in many ways) and calling it anything other than pre-meditated murder is stupid word-play. "Collerateral damage" doesn't change the fact that people are dead as a result of the bad CHOICES of those who have too much power and too little conscience.

And it is wrong-

That is "Bluers" law- break it at your peril- and you'll learn regret is one of the most painful and common ailments of living past puberty.

[ThomCat]

9. You are right.

To the military "acceptable" means "their civilians," as opposed to ours.

[cgrindley]

10. I don't think it means that, either

Don't they mean like an actual ratio of some kind?

[ThomCat]

16. That would be sick if it were true, and I've never heard anything

to that effect.

"For every 1 person we intend to kill it's okay to kill 3 other people too." That would be the definition of a war crime.

[cgrindley]

19. Probably not an actual ratio like that, more like

Blowing up this dam will result in utter disruption of the enemy's supply lines but will kill 500 people. That sort of thing.

[ThomCat]

7. I doubt that's true.

Collateral damage is supposed to be "people we accidentally killed while we were trying to kill someone else." But it appears to very common that the civilians were the real targets, and calling them collateral damage is a way of lying and saying they weren't the intended targets.

Collateral damage now frequently seems to mean "Those civilians we deviced to slaughter." But that isn't an accepted meaning, because it isn't the official meaning. So I think you are wrong that everyone knows what those terms mean.

[cgrindley]

12. I disagree

I'm pretty sure that if you asked 10 random people, they'd all say that it meant "people we accidentally killed while we were trying to kill someone else or destroy something important".

Whether or not the military is using their own term correctly is another matter altogether. I'm with you on that one.

[ThomCat]

15. If I keep using the term Peanut Butter,

but whenever I use it I'm really referring to raw steak, then it doesn't matter what people think it means. It is being used to mean something entirely different, and it's being used that way to deceive people precisely because it has a generally accepted meaning.

That generally accepted meaning doesn't mean that it's really peanut butter on the plate. Reality is what it is.

So if the army keeps using the term Collateral Damage, that doesn't make it really so.

[cgrindley]

20. I don't think they always use it incorrectly

Sometimes they do, and sometimes they don't. It's like the words peanut butter means peanut butter half the time and raw steak the other half. It's actually a more insidious way of manipulating language because we can't just throw it out as propaganda every single time.

[ShortnFiery]

26. Oh yes, all you have to do is say Oops! I didn't mean it and it's

like those kids were NEVER KILLED. Newsflash: They're just as DEAD and their parents will grieve just as much as those who are accused of targeting civilians.

IMO, it's all murder if you HONESTLY didn't do everything within your power to avoid civilian casualties. NEITHER waring party has done that. :(

[cgrindley]

31. That's the whole thing

there are certainly some situations where the strategic importance of a target, even with the highest level of precautions against civilian deaths, will still kill a few innocent parties. It's bound to happen periodically. Happened all the time in WWII.

[ShortnFiery]

35. What we have been seeing on both sides is NOT "periodic"

The killing on innocents is INDISCRIMINATE on both sides.

BTW since WWII we have these fancy smancy "precision guided" missiles.

The Hezbollah are launching "shots in the dark" while the sophisticated Israeli Military is practicing collective punishment by SYSTEMATICALLY destroying an entire Nation. Both sides are committing war crimes but Israel's digressions are much more egregious because it has the technology to NOT trash Lebanon's infrastructure. :(

[cgrindley]

40. Does anyone have any real data

on how precise these precision guided bombs actually are... eg does anyone remember how wonderful the Patriot Missiles apparently were during Gulf War I, and then we found out that they didn't actually hit shit.

[ThomCat]

36. That doesn't excuse this level of carnage

where it's clear that the carnage was the goal.

Your defense ASSUMES that the deaths were unintended consequences.

[cgrindley]

41. I thought we were discussing the concept, not any particulars

I honestly haven't read anything on the Lebanon War for about a week. I think that there's too much propaganda on both sides to be able to form any sort of valid opinion. I'm waiting for a while.

This discussion was on the concept of collateral damage and acceptable losses.

[ComerPerro]

23. except for muslims. according to the media, they aren't people

[Bluerthanblue]

24. even beyond the child, to the adult, to the old crone- we are ALL

human beings- brothers and sisters in this world-

And no one, no matter what they may say, do, or think, can void their membership in the family of humanity- It sometimes makes people 'feel' better to think of fellow humans who behave, live or believe in things that we personally cannot embrace "animals" or "inhuman"- but the reality, the truth is... we are all connected, for good, and at our worst.

Every life is a life that began as an innocent child- were we all to treat each other as if 'we' were 'them' we'd have 'heaven on earth'-

And each one of us are either part of trying to make that happen, or willing to keep the status quo.

[JHH]

32. here is a link to a video that makes the point for a cease fire

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14337.htm

[The2ndWheel]

28. We're talking about global geo-politics involving

states, organizations, institutions, and governments. Those entities use phrases like collateral damage. Individual life doesn't come into play in that equation.

[never cry wolf]

38. Here here, and Bravo....

Well stated... K & R....

[Cleita]

44. They are taking those phrases to extremes that weren't intended

that way. Collateral damage used to mean civilians that got in the way, or that no one knew about after an assessment that the targets to be hit were strictly military, for instance bombing bases or navy ships. Even the Japanese, when they bombed Pearl Harbor were attacking military targets, not civilian neighborhoods because there might be military in them.

What is going on in Lebanon is murder not collateral damage. There never are acceptable losses IMHO, but the military sometimes calculates that there would be so many casualties of military for an action taken. This is not meant to be civilians. But I guess we crossed that line when we bombed Dresden in WWII.