It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The "innocents", do they matter? ^

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 06:14 PM
link   
This is in relation to many threads that I've been reading on ATS. When removing(killing) terrorists, or suspected ones, collateral damage is continueing to add up. I've seen it said that the "terrorists use children as a human shield". Are the children the suspected terrorists children? If they are deemed terrorists by the western factions, does that mean that they shouldn't see their children anymore? Should the offensive be held off until these tikes are no longer in the picture?

I've also seen it said that "it's the parents fault". What if Fatima doesn't share Achmed's political point of view? Not like she has much recourse. It's a different way of life there. Seems most terrorists I've seen on the Net are male.

What the hell is my problem? People being killed, that's all, no biggie.


Not really, my problem is that all of this is impersonal. We forget that Fatima cooked 3 meals today, the 2 kids enjoyed them but by association killing them all is acceptable because, "DAMN, we may have taken out a threat to the West today". :shk:

I've asked more than once today, "What were the names of those that were killed in the Pakistani attack". Yet to get a reply. No one wants to go there. Delving into that would take the anonimity out of it and we would have to think of the human aspect of what is going on. You won't hear any of this on ANY western news agency.

One last question, if terrorists kill children, as the are want to do, it's their fault. If western forces kill children, why is it still the terrorists fault?




posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
One last question, if terrorists kill children, as the are want to do, it's their fault. If western forces kill children, why is it still the terrorists fault?


I suppose some may explain it by appealing to the greater cause, but that's no excuse. Western forces are fighting for peace and against terrorism. Terrorists are fighting against peace and freedom, or so says the rhetoric. Both have their causes and may be convinced of their noble task... and of course, we in the West will get a hyped up story sanitized of all personal details wiuth the blame for such tragedies comfortably placed on someone elses shoulders.

What can't be denied is the sadness on both sides that comes from the death of a child, no matter who their parents are or what they are fighting for. They are simply innocents in the matter, having done nothing wrong.

Collateral damage is a disgusting term with regard to loss of human life, and while it may be skirted around, or implied otherwise, if children are killed by by Western factions, then it is their fault, just as it is the fault of the terrorists when they attack and kill children.

I think for some it is an issue of moral superiority. The end (killing suspected or known terrorists) justifies the means (bombing/attacking and killing innocents) for Western forces, but that is not applied to terrorist forces. It's a double standard, but in the end the result is the same: innocent children are being killed.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 08:19 PM
link   
When one is distant (or powerful) enough to avoid humanism one's victims, almost anything becomes justifiable.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 05:24 AM
link   
If I was conspiracy minded, I would think that the government is trying to desensitize us. First, try it out on a bunch of brown people who talk funny, that no one will miss. Get people used to the idea of innocents being killed for the greater good. So when it starts happening in your home town, when the police or government agents kill the many, to kill the few, people will be used to the idea.

And when the government arrests everyone in the whole building for one neighbor, people will be thankful. "Hey, at least were alive!"



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 10:57 AM
link   
I hadn't thought that far curme, possible, I guess. It's the "desensitizing", good word btw, that bothered me. People are becoming faceless numbers. I find that disturbing.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Are the children the suspected terrorists children?


Sometimes they are. Sometimes they are the neighbor children of a house that was suspected to have a terrorist there at one time or another...

Sometimes they are completely unrelated to any terrorist activity whatsoever. Their only crime is being born into their country.



Delving into that would take the anonimity out of it and we would have to think of the human aspect of what is going on. You won't hear any of this on ANY western news agency.


People want to stay as far away from the human aspect of this subject as possible, because to do otherwise would be to admit that 'we' are just as bad as those who we are fighting. To take the position of "This is war! They deserve it! Remember 9/11! It's their own fault" gives justification to the fact that US soldiers are killing innocent men, women and children.

To separate out the innocent from the guilty in their minds would mean that we need to be more careful in our relentless pursuit of these 'terrorists', who many times are simply citizens trying to protect their homes and country from the tyrannical occupying force.

It's easier to group all of 'them' together and label them as the bad guys and forget about it. In another thread that talked about the 5000 protesters in Pakistan, when asked "who could blame them for protesting?, I was told "it's their own fault".

That's the easy way. Group 'them' all together and then we don't have to think about the regular individuals just trying to live, which is the majority of the people. There are very few 'terrorists', yet we've killed over 30,000 regular people at least, to get a few 'terrorists'.



If western forces kill children, why is it still the terrorists fault?


It isn't. And it's about time people start admitting that.





posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by parrhesia
I think for some it is an issue of moral superiority. The end (killing suspected or known terrorists) justifies the means (bombing/attacking and killing innocents) for Western forces, but that is not applied to terrorist forces. It's a double standard, but in the end the result is the same: innocent children are being killed.

I have to agree with parrhesia. Many people seem to feel that the end justifies the means in the 'War on Terror'. Unfortunately, the opposite holds true. The means (bombing/killing innocents) will justify the ends (increased anti-American sentiments). Killing women and children will not win the US any friends in the Middle East, or anywhere else on the planet.

For those who do have no problem with the innocents being killed, I would like a little intellectual honesty. The deaths are the fault of the person who killed them. If an American child is more valuable than a Middle Eastern child, then just say so. I will disagree and think it is disgusting, but I may at least have some respect for the honesty.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Intrepid
Great post. It's always heartening to see some integrity displayed.




One last question, if terrorists kill children, as the are want to do, it's their fault. If western forces kill children, why is it still the terrorists fault?


Indeed, that's the problem. We're fighting a war on terrorism, and we're using terrorist tactics. But terrorism in any form is wrong!


The logical disconnect is simply stunning. Most of the pro-govt., pro-war people who contribute to ATS have made it explicit: terrorism is only wrong when the enemy does it.

I commend you, Intrepid, for raising the issue. The hypocrisy can't stand, it simply can't.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Duzey
For those who do have no problem with the innocents being killed, I would like a little intellectual honesty. The deaths are the fault of the person who killed them. If an American child is more valuable than a Middle Eastern child, then just say so. I will disagree and think it is disgusting, but I may at least have some respect for the honesty.


An interesting challenge. Well, lets put this in perspective. First, one must ask this basic question: is the life of a child more valuable than the life of an adult? Any why? And if a terrorist bomber is 12 years old, does he receive any dispensation, versus that of a 22 year old?

Conventional wisdom says that all human life is valuable and with worth, and should be protected equally, irregardless of sex, race, nationality, religion, ...and age. Therfore your example of a middle-eastern child versus an American child is really not valid, as you are obviously trying to sensationalize your question to gain impact. The real question is thus: are American lives more important that the lives of foreigners?

History shows us that it has always been American foreign policy to favor the lives of American citizens over foreigners. In WWII we ruthlessly killed over 100K civilians in the span of just over a few days at Hiroshima and Nagasaki to prevent the substantial loss of white, male, American lives. Without so much as an extended debate. I think that a cursory examination of US foreign policy, and the foreign policy of most other nations, for that matter, would show that governments kill foreigners to protect their own. Especially those governments who are elected by those very people they are charged to protect. I would submit that nothing would get an elected leader removed from office faster than sacraficing the lives of his constituants for the sake of foreigners, especially those foreigners who hate us to begin with.

It isn't an issue of moral superiority. That implies that American approve of the needless killing of innocent lives. That thought is repugnant to most of us. However, as the world goes 'round and the game is played, innocent people are gonna get killed. I would say that it is more an effect of geopolitical darwinism, if anything.

And yes, the life of my daughter is much more valuable (to me) than the life of any other middle-eastern child. Not because of moral superiority. If you want to sing "We are the world" and believe that all peoples of all nations should have the same rights and priviledges as we Americans, then let them kill your child. You can take solace in the fact that the child of the tribal elder who teaches his people to hate and kill us, was spared at the expense of yours. Maybe that makes you morally superior to me, but I prefer to be morally inferior and have in intact family.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 12:43 PM
link   


In WWII we ruthlessly killed over 100K civilians in the span of just over a few days at Hiroshima and Nagasaki to prevent the substantial loss of white, male, American lives. Without so much as an extended debate.


That's an oversimplification. If we had invaded the home islands, millions of Japanese would have died in the carnage. The move may have been motivated partly by feelings of American exceptionalism, but in retrospect the decision may very well have saved millions.

Japan surrendered, and the home islands were never invaded.

Just had to point that out.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by curme
If I was conspiracy minded, I would think that the government is trying to desensitize us. First, try it out on a bunch of brown people who talk funny, that no one will miss. Get people used to the idea of innocents being killed for the greater good. So when it starts happening in your home town, when the police or government agents kill the many, to kill the few, people will be used to the idea.

And when the government arrests everyone in the whole building for one neighbor, people will be thankful. "Hey, at least were alive!"


This point ties in with the thread on the number of "detainees" since 9/11, that by the way, so very few people have bothered to address.

It isn't just those innocents who have been killed that should make us stop and think, but also the thousands, including American, U.K. and Australian citizens, who have been "detained" for years without charge or guilt established.

What has become of the people released from such a terror?

How is their experience effecting their lives today?

Why aren't we talking about what they have suffered?

Where are all the interviews with these people for us to concider?

Will we have the right to complain when it is us taken away and locked up for years, just because we can't prove we didn't do what we don't exactly know we've been accused of?

Just like another 'Great war', it started with just rounding up the 'problem people', which of course is always someone else, untill we find out that anyone can be seen and treated as a 'problem person', but by then no one is game to say, "These 'tactics' are unjust." for fear of being labled a 'problem person' and likewise being "detained" or "disposed of".

I do believe our lack of compassion for our 'enemies', obsession with our own self praise and overall lack of justice, will come back to bite us, with deadly effect.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pyros
An interesting challenge. Well, lets put this in perspective. First, one must ask this basic question: is the life of a child more valuable than the life of an adult? Any why? And if a terrorist bomber is 12 years old, does he receive any dispensation, versus that of a 22 year old?

Why must I ask this question? This isn't what we're discussing. We are discussing the loss of innocent lives, not suicide bombers or adult vs. child. If a child is caught with a bomb strapped to them then the situation is slightly different than a civilian home being bombed.


It isn't an issue of moral superiority. That implies that American approve of the needless killing of innocent lives. That thought is repugnant to most of us. However, as the world goes 'round and the game is played, innocent people are gonna get killed. I would say that it is more an effect of geopolitical darwinism, if anything.

I never said that all Americans approve of the loss of innocent lives, I said that many people feel the ends justify the means. If it such a repugnant thing, admit that and stop blaming other countries for the acts of the US government and military. Take responsibility for it. (not you specifically, just a general comment)

Not being American, I can safely say that I think that other people are entitled to the same basic human rights as Americans. Again, if the American public wishes to think that it is superior to all other countries, fine. Admit it, be honest and don't get so put out when people from other countries think that the US is a selfish country concerned only with it's welfare at the expense of others.

I don't think of myself as 'morally superior', just sick of the double standard that exists.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 01:12 PM
link   
It's not a matter of sensitivity, or lack thereof, it's a matter of proximity to the loss. My niece, or nephew dies by accident or by malice, I am devestated beyond possibly my ability to recover. A child dies in the bombing of a "terrorist" hideout, or in a bus-train collision somewhere in the world, I am sorry, but not devistated. Intellectually, I know it's a horrible loss for someone, but emotionally it's not a huge blow. This doesn't make me a monster, or anyone else either. It makes me human, I live inside my own head, and my heart is given to those I'm closest to. I cannot bleed for everyone who loses someone dear to them. I would soon go insane. If this makes me a coldhearted bastard, then so be it. Sorry.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Like many said the results justify the actions and as long as is a dirty nasty terrorist that will come to the US and kill our children is ok to kill their children first.?

"After all they will grow up to be just as much a tread to our way of life as their adult terrorist parents are."

But who is the treat when US and other European nations have been the ones invading their lands.

Who's way of life is really in danger

"Our children are good Christian children their children are just but pagan children that believe in Allah, he is not God we have to liberate them."

Who dictate what religion is the right one and which one is the wrong one

I heard this type of rhetoric all the time, when people ends telling themselves things like this anything is right.

Nobody actually looks into the reasons as why an ethnic race goes into becoming terrorist by the US standards.

We are feed that we are bringing freedom and democracy so killing a few is good because it will save the rest along the way.

But what are the terrorist fighting for?

Perhaps they don't want changes in their religious believes or their way of life perhaps the reason the hate the west is because their lands as been rule by many by force or perhaps they hate the western type of life because is corrupt and against their ancient believes.

These people are from where civilization sprouted, they have been what they are since ancient times.

Why the western wants to change them now? Why now they are terrorist and a tread to world?

Perhaps because the importance of oil in the region.

European nations and the US has invaded their lands, are they supposed to accept them and be happy with erasing centuries of believes?

Are they less human than us in the west?

Why is so hard to let them be in their borders? Why their people keeps dying because western trying to give them freedom and democracy.

What kind of freedom kills children?

It's so many questions and the western thinks that they know all the answers.

"So is ok to kill them because they are not like us, they are not christians"

Very sad.



[edit on 18-1-2006 by marg6043]



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 01:30 PM
link   
I think a simplistic formulae can by applied herein; If child x is killed due to prextual of death of person y, then it is wholly justified; if person y kills child x in a preventative effort, then it is also justified.

The entire context of the Pakistani deaths is irrational just on the account that the United States deemed it rational to kill number 2 than keep him alive for a much more productive stance on this war on terror. The deaths of those children just add more fuel to the anti-war fire. This is not a war, it's an attack on ambigious groups in ambigious regions of the world and on quiescent persons.




I've seen it said that the "terrorists use children as a human shield".


This is simply a poor justification of deaths of the children that occur persistently in the war on terror; terrorists do not use children as shields, and the ones that do, have known to be strictly isolated incidents; and when children are killed, they were of the sad fate to have been embowered in cross fire.

US foreign policy is based on the poorest of moral theory one can contemplate and administer. Deontologicaly, it regressed from universality of moral law; it does not even act in reverence of Law as Kant would have proposed, nor does it in accordance, it simply creates a Nulla poena sine lege paradox; the U.S cannot be penalized for laws that do not exist; and since the U.S has universal impunity to such laws, and since George Bush is the sole precentor of divine command theorists, it becomes justified. The U.S purposely disclaimed Pakistani sovereignty on marginal intelligence that has quite obviously been suspect due to facticity of Pakistani officials touting non-compliance with U.S intelligence before this rash act of irationality; what we see here is a uni-polar administration that has little consideration for human life, not even that of it's own as it sent thousands of soldiers marching across the ocean towards an objective that was doomed years in it's planning, or those of others.




Intellectually, I know it's a horrible loss for someone, but emotionally it's not a huge blow


We're a species that has universaly acted up on emotions bar intellectual thought. You cannot expect others to contemplate situations as you have, especialy those of tribal soceities whose education institutions nay elect rationalism and analytical thought in lieu of dogmatic theology.

Luxifero



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 02:12 PM
link   

It isn't an issue of moral superiority. That implies that American approve of the needless killing of innocent lives. That thought is repugnant to most of us. However, as the world goes 'round and the game is played, innocent people are gonna get killed. I would say that it is more an effect of geopolitical darwinism, if anything.


That's the most accurate snippet of the thread, imo. Most of the people here seem to believe that forces don't care and/or are actively targetting innocent civilians. If we didn't care about killing innocents we wouldn't have spent billions upon billions developing precision weapons that are designed to harm only what we're aiming at. If we didn't care about innocents the conflict in Iraq would have been over in an instant, as we simply would have just levelled the entire country. All of our servicemen that we've lost are due to our sensitivity and compassion in not simply killing everything that moves.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlphaHumana
That's the most accurate snippet of the thread, imo. Most of the people here seem to believe that forces don't care and/or are actively targetting innocent civilians. If we didn't care about killing innocents we wouldn't have spent billions upon billions developing precision weapons that are designed to harm only what we're aiming at. If we didn't care about innocents the conflict in Iraq would have been over in an instant, as we simply would have just levelled the entire country. All of our servicemen that we've lost are due to our sensitivity and compassion in not simply killing everything that moves.


Well wouldn't you think that a sniper(s) would be more effective in instances like this than munitions?



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 02:19 PM
link   
I can only speak for myself, but I don't believe the US is purposely targeting women and children.

What I have a problem with is the terrorists and parents being blamed for the deaths of children killed in bombing. Like the sign in the china store says 'You broke it, you bought it'. All I want is for the US to take responsibility for it's actions and not look around for someone else to blame.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pyros
And yes, the life of my daughter is much more valuable (to me) than the life of any other middle-eastern child. Not because of moral superiority. If you want to sing "We are the world" and believe that all peoples of all nations should have the same rights and priviledges as we Americans, then let them kill your child. You can take solace in the fact that the child of the tribal elder who teaches his people to hate and kill us, was spared at the expense of yours. Maybe that makes you morally superior to me, but I prefer to be morally inferior and have in intact family.


I have to agree with Pyros. It is extremely unfortunate when any innocent person is killed, regardless of age. I also see it as a mistake to assume because one is young, they are innocent. Children in that culture are indoctrinated from birth, they don't always have the same innocent childhood we associate with here in the west. I saw a documentary on Afghan children, there was a kid who couldn't have been over 8 years old, who had memorized every verse of the quran, and when he was taken to Pakistan, he saw women whose faces were not covered, and he thought he was going to hell for seeing their faces, he also thought they should be killed, along with all kafirs (non-believers). Also, look at the children in Africa walking around with AK-47's, they have absolutely no problem killing whomever.

These are not always the Barney the Dinosaur watching, innocent little kids who we shelter from as much negativity as possible here in the west. Not all young creatures are innocent and harmless, a cobra can kill you as soon as it hatches.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Oh come on 27jd, taking an example and painting it broad is demeaning to the children and to the topic at hand.

Look it another way, the children are "not always" carrying AK47's.


BTW, I didn't say children, I said innocents, that includes men and women.




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join