The "innocents", do they matter? ^

Originally posted by intrepid
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.

If you look into what happened in Rwanda and Germany before the genocides, you will see that is exactly what happened. A dehumanization of the other, and a sanitization of the language (With regard to Rwanada, inyenzi, meaning cockroach was used to refer to the victims, as for sanitizing and desensitizing, the use of collateral damage with regard to loss of life seems to cover that one.

Originally posted by AlphaHumana
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,

Those billions and billions "spent", all end up in "someone's" pocket.

The longer we're at it, the more "we" spend, the more' those' pockets get filled.

It may also pay to look at just how many innocent people have been killed by those 'precision weapons".

I feel the real motivation for their invention, was just to make wars 'more paletable' for those watching it from the safety of their far removed, comfortable, all mod. cons.( including the wastefully unnecessary) homes.

So does anyone want to address the thousands of innocents wrongfully "detained" (and all the hell that goes with it) for years?
Or does the fear that, "You could be next", make it too hard to think beyond justifying what we're doing to, "them over there"?

What do you mean by "take responsibility for it's actions"? Do you mean a simple statement of responsibility and regret? Or maybe something more substantial like compensation?

When you go down that road (compensation) it implies that the actions of the United States are/were somehow wrong, negligent, immoral or illegal. Now, leaving aside wether they are or are not (as that is a matter of opinion, mosly), the US cannot go down that road because we must always believe that what we are doing is right and for the greater good. The President, as all his forerunners have done, must make decisions that may cost lives every day. Many times decisions are made to not do things becuase of the cost of innocent human life. However, sometimes the loss of life cannot be avoided. The needs of the many........

I wonder how many people will not die becuase of elimination of those 4 terrorists? I wonder how many people were saved by the 100's of millions of dollars donated by Americans for the Pakistan earthquake relief?

No one is blaming these villagers for bringing death and destruction down on themselves. Im sure many uninvolved people were inadvertantly killed. But...somehow I don't see an image in my mind's eye of "angry villagers" in Pakistan chasing OBL and his cronies out of town with torches and pitchforks. These murderers are being protected, and as long as they are being protected, against the wishes of the entire world, then there will be a heavy price to pay occasionally.

Originally posted by seagull
it's a matter of proximity to the loss.
...
If this makes me a coldhearted bastard, then so be it.

No, you are not a coldhearted bastard. This point is perfectly understandable and true. We cannot suffer the same for all as we would for our own, even at the national level. We hear a kid is hurting in the USA, we hurt more than if it's a kid in Egypt or anywhere else. That's human nature.

And by the same token,we feel the tragedy more if it's a horrible or tragic death. If an anonymous child dies in an auto accident, it's sad. If that same child is kidnapped, abused, and then left to die, we feel much more for that because of the tragedy of the death. The suffering.

Originally posted by Pyros
The real question is thus: are American lives more important that the lives of foreigners?

I believe in the right to protect myself. If someone threatened me or mine, I would have no problem judging their life as 'less' than mine to protect myself and my family. And that could very well happen. I've been attacked before.

However, moved by the fear that someone might attack me or my family, I would not go into the crime areas of town, and try to kill every criminal that would potentially hurt me or mine. And in the process kill a lot of innocent people and call it good. That would be insane, not to mention highly ineffective.

Something's very wrong with that scenario, yet we (the US gov't) are doing that very thing on a grand scale. We have gone to where the criminals are and we're killing everyone who fighs against us and killing lots of innocent people (children or otherwise) in the process.

Fear has driven us to these lengths. Fear of what might happen has driven us to kill innocent people and make excuses for it.

Originally posted by Pyros
the US cannot go down that road because we must always believe that what we are doing is right and for the greater good.

Why?

However, sometimes the loss of life cannot be avoided. The needs of the many........

I'm sure even Spock wouldn't approve of the killing of innocent people.

I wonder how many people will not die becuase of elimination of those 4 terrorists? I wonder how many people were saved by the 100's of millions of dollars donated by Americans for the Pakistan earthquake relief?

That's a lot of wondering that you are doing at other peoples expense.

No one is blaming these villagers for bringing death and destruction down on themselves. Im sure many uninvolved people were inadvertantly killed. But...somehow I don't see an image in my mind's eye of "angry villagers" in Pakistan chasing OBL and his cronies out of town with torches and pitchforks. These murderers are being protected, and as long as they are being protected, against the wishes of the entire world, then there will be a heavy price to pay occasionally.

This gem is just too damn priceless. And if they took action against the real terrorist, how long do you think these people would survive? :shk:

Originally posted by intrepid
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.

That's why at the beginning of my post I stated it was unfortunate when innocents are killed regardless of age. The topic seemed to have moved to children, and I was just pointing out that while yes, they are children, they are not always innocent. Are you saying that the examples I gave are a rarity in such places? It's more the norm, kids are robbed of innocence very early in those cultures.

But you're right, they're not always carrying AK-47's, but they do so quite a bit more than they do here and in Canada, wouldn't you agree?

AlphaHumana,

The United States goverment has also spend countless billions in the creation of weapons that work polar to your token of appreciation for precision techonology; we have a goverment which has in its access nuclear weapons which can devestate large cities without the slightest discernment between innocent and enemy; and this goverment has expressed it's inconsideration of human life by this sole act of mariginal intelligence conjured in mere days to kill a man whose capture could consequentialy help stagnate Al-Queda and lead to the utter dismantle of such an organization.

27jd,

I'm quite sure that documentry on Afhgan children also did not provide a reason as to why the United States who liberated such a country were not funding massive efforts to reducate these children into a mentality which would let them criticaly discern between indoctrinated dogma, and rational objective thought, correct?

Both my roomates are Muslim and both can recite the Qu'ran by heart in thier sleep, and i've never seen them spout fundamentalist zeal; in fact, i'm quite sure the example you have provided cannot be assigned towards all the children of Afghanistan, but just a select few that were used to make this documentry for deceptive and manipulative purposes.

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.

Then you should take a good look at the crime rate that occurs among teenagers in the United States compared to these countries.


Pyros,

You're correct; the will of this administration has been abhorant in every regard and praticularism; this administration acted on marginal intelligence to kill a man who could have consequently stagnated Al-Queda. In forsight, we see nothing but irational acts of aggression and idiocy.

Luxifero

Originally posted by 27jd
But you're right, they're not always carrying AK-47's, but they do so quite a bit more than they do here and in Canada, wouldn't you agree?

Here definately but in the States where kids are brought up with fireams(not everyone) I don't know if I'd agree with that.

Originally posted by Pyros
What do you mean by "take responsibility for it's actions"? Do you mean a simple statement of responsibility and regret? Or maybe something more substantial like compensation?

I don't know who you're addressing, but to take responsibility is to TAKE RESPONSIBILITY. It's not something you give (a statement or compensation) it's something you take. To tell yourself, I am responsible for the life (or death) of that child. To admit it to yourself. To take the responsibility upon yourself for the life. To stop brushing it aside with comments or thoughts such as:

These murderers are being protected, and as long as they are being protected, against the wishes of the entire world, then there will be a heavy price to pay occasionally.

To really take responsibility in the heart and feel the responsibility for the death of a child, regardless of who it is. Public statements and compensation are irrelevant and meaningless.

But see, if people really took responsibility, really got close enough to feel the responsibility, they'd have to stop. Nobody, except the criminally insane, can kill innocent people, truly take responsibility, and then keep doing it. They must justify it with statements like the one above, that PREVENT the taking of responsibility, to continue to kill or continue to support it.

Originally posted by Pyros
What do you mean by "take responsibility for it's actions"? Do you mean a simple statement of responsibility and regret? Or maybe something more substantial like compensation?

I think that a statement of responsibility and regret might be appropriate. Compensation would also be nice, but I'm not quite that unrealistic. Compensate one person, and you've opened the floodgates.

Now, leaving aside wether they are or are not (as that is a matter of opinion, mosly), the US cannot go down that road because we must always believe that what we are doing is right and for the greater good. The President, as all his forerunners have done, must make decisions that may cost lives every day. Many times decisions are made to not do things becuase of the cost of innocent human life. However, sometimes the loss of life cannot be avoided. The needs of the many........

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Doing what's right for the greater good. These are admirable qualities but they do sound rather, well, socialist. I thought the US was about the liberty of the individual.

I do agree that the US always needs to feel it is right. The thing is that when you are a know-it-all, people don't like you very much. Thinking you are right and being right are not the same thing. A simple expression of regret might do more good in the long run than you would think.

I wonder how many people will not die becuase of elimination of those 4 terrorists? I wonder how many people were saved by the 100's of millions of dollars donated by Americans for the Pakistan earthquake relief?

*puts tongue firmly in cheek*

I often wonder if Hitler gassing the Jews might not have been a good thing. Think of all the future crimes that could have been committed by them. He may have put to death someone that was 50 times more evil than he was. Wow, I sure am glad he saved us from that guy.

*removes tongue from cheek*

The US had accumulated some goodwill with those donations, but I fear that 'political capital' has now been spent. Let's just hope the people of Pakistan don't decide to change the government. The US needs all the friends it can get in the Middle East, even if they are just using you for your money.

No one is blaming these villagers for bringing death and destruction down on themselves. Im sure many uninvolved people were inadvertantly killed.

You haven't been frequenting the same threads that I have then.

I have one simple question, what do you do if a terrorist who you have targeted since 9/11 is finally located in a residential house that is full of civilians. You don't know if you will ever get another chance to kill him, so, what do you do?

I ask this because this is the type of decision our military leaders must make every day. It�s easy to sit here and discuss in theory how we can always avoid civilian casualties, but when it comes to the real world its not that simple.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
I have one simple question, what do you do if a terrorist who you have targeted since 9/11 is finally located in a residential house that is full of civilians. You don't know if you will ever get another chance to kill him, so, what do you do?

Did it ever occur to you that those on the other side see it exactly the same way?

They see soldiers in a crowd of their fellows, maybe they will never get the chance again, so what will they do?

I am not justifying it. Just saying your argument works both ways.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
I have one simple question, what do you do if a terrorist who you have targeted since 9/11 is finally located in a residential house that is full of civilians. You don't know if you will ever get another chance to kill him, so, what do you do?

It's irrelevant what I would do, but if I were the leader of a country at war, I would probably take him out. But if there were going to be innocent people killed, I would be damn well 100% sure he was in there. Then at least there would be something good come out of the deaths of innocent people.

If I had heard that he was probably there or had been invited there, I wouldn't consider it worth the lives of he innocents. After all how much damage can one lone terrorist do? Killing him would have done nothing more than to create a space for someone else to take and made the resolve of his 'followers' stronger.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
I have one simple question, what do you do if a terrorist who you have targeted since 9/11 is finally located in a residential house that is full of civilians. You don't know if you will ever get another chance to kill him, so, what do you do?

Doesn't the US have a bunch of specially trained people for just those kinds of operations? Rangers, SEALS, snipers, highly trained soldiers? Swoop in, grab all of them and then let the ones you weren't looking for go.

Or is it easier to say 'kill them all and let God sort them out' and then send in an unmanned drone?

It's also easy to sit here and talk of civilian casualties as a way of life and to be expected. Unfortunately, they are human beings with families that love and miss them. They had lives, hopes and dreams.

Did it ever occur to you that those on the other side see it exactly the same way?

I�m pretty sure the US military has HQ�s and bases where the terrorists can attack if they want to fight out military. The reason they don't do that is obvious. Terrorists on the other hand don't have fixed location or bases, they fight and live among the populace, this forces us to attack them there.
You didn't answer my question by the way.

[edit on 18-1-2006 by WestPoint23]

Originally posted by parrhesia

Did it ever occur to you that those on the other side see it exactly the same way?

They see soldiers in a crowd of their fellows, maybe they will never get the chance again, so what will they do?

I am not justifying it. Just saying your argument works both ways.

Not up to date on everything that�s been said in this post but here�s my shot

that's a valid point, but when you start breaking it down, it seems like they (terrorist) go out of their way not to target military/govt. agents and just go out for the people in general.

if you use the same exact tactics of suicide bombing, car bombs and the such against military/police personnel and government members instead of targeting mosque, markets, discotecs, schools, bus stops (mixing in frequent targets in Iraq and Israel) then it would be a different story. except by some of recent attacks in Iraq by Iraqi insurgents (not foreign jihadist/terrorist) the last or 30 years of middle eastern terrorist seem to only target military/govt. personnel as a bonus or collateral damage as we say.

another point, compare to collateral damage in the days of old, we only kill less than a tenth of what was acceptable 50 or 60 years ago. I think it's the complete opposite of desensitization. if we had to put up with a struggle like wwII with our current sensibilities we wouldn't really stand a chance. People were dying by the hundreds daily, thousands monthly back in ww2, if we were facing a half way decent opponent, that was keeping us on our toes military (come on Iraq feel in days), like say our current thinking back in WW2 we would be force to capitulate half way through the conflict. I mean we have a little over 2,000 dead in what 2 years of fighting, weren�t there mission in over germany were that many people were lost in a single day.

[edit on 1/18/2006 by Oblivions void]

Originally posted by intrepid
Here definately but in the States where kids are brought up with fireams(not everyone) I don't know if I'd agree with that.

Yeah, but they are taught to handle guns safely, and never to point them at anybody, which of course doesn't always happen, but at least they're not encouraged to kill as they are in Africa, etc.

But if there were going to be innocent people killed, I would be damn well 100% sure he was in there.

Yeah that all sounds fine but just how are you going to be 100% sure? Especially if this location is in an area like the Peshtun region of Pakistan, which is infested with a pro Taliban populace?

If I had heard that he was probably there or had been invited there, I wouldn't consider it worth the lives of he innocents. After all how much damage can one lone terrorist do? Killing him would have done nothing more than to create a space for someone else to take and made the resolve of his 'followers' stronger.

I don�t know, how much damage can a suicide bomber do? Let me see here, risk the lives of more US citizens and US soldiers, or act on my intelligence, even though I know civilians may die. It�s a tough choice, it really is, but I�m always going to place the US people first.

Doesn't the US have a bunch of specially trained people for just those kinds of operations? Rangers, SEALS, snipers, highly trained soldiers? Swoop in, grab all of them and then let the ones you weren't looking for go.

Yes we do, but time is of the essence, and doing that type of attack will put more US troops in danger and it will decrease the level of success. Sending in Spec Ops has more unknowns then sending in a Predator.

Originally posted by intrepid
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?

Well, if war is necessary to bring peace, so be it. But I really doubt killing "top" muslims will ever do something for terrorism. There are 2 billion muslims out there...that's 2 billion possible terrorists. How do you deal with that?