Utter, utter, utter cunts.

[Coito ergo sum]

Well, it all really sucks. Absolutely.

But, it does seem like humanity is headed, at least, in the right direction.

Look at where we've come in the last century in terms of tolerance for this stuff anyway.

World War 1 lasted for 4 years, and 1,000,000 British soldiers alone died. A million British soldiers. And, as I recall, something about 7 million CIVILIAN deaths in those four years......7 million.....and double that wounded.

Even after hearing that the armistice was due to start at 11:00 on November 11, 1918, intense warfare continued right until the last minute. They KNEW the armistice was set to start in just a few hours and minutes, but kept firing away anyway! Many artillery units continued to fire on German targets to avoid having to haul away their spare ammunition. The Allies also wished to ensure that should fighting restart, they would be in the most favourable position. Consequently there were 10,944 casualties of which 2,738 men died on the last day of the war on the Western Front.

Puts things in perspective a bit....

I recall a story about a British commander who ordered his men into battle to take a town, after he and they already knew that in a few hours the armistice would take effect. Men died that morning, but not the commander.

[colubridae]

whether "actively targeting" or "passively targeting" makes not a whiff of a difference to those kids having their body parts blown off. As for what is more "evil", kind of a useless term. Both are equally shameful and wrong.

Whether "actively targeting" or "accidentally crashing into them" makes not a whiff of a difference to those kids having their body parts blown off or smashed to pieces by a too-fast moving vehicle. As for what is more "evil", kind of a useless term. Both are equally shameful and wrong.

It’s your quote I’ve used. Tell me where my version is wrong.

And if you want to play a numbers game traffic wins again. If you are so incensed about it then you should be more incensed by traffic deaths.

[sandinista]

Last time I checked bombs were dropped to intentionally kill people, cars were not driven with the intent of killing. Come on, not hard to figure out, the analogy is shit. Someone also mentioned "intention" wile bombing. Well, obviously the intention is to kill, as for who is intended to be killed, if you know going in that there will be "collateral damage" than the intent is to kill whoever happens to be in the bombing vicinity. To believe that there is never an intent to kill civilians is to not know a single thing about how the US runs a war.

[Coito ergo sum]

Last time I checked bombs were dropped to intentionally kill people, cars were not driven with the intent of killing. Come on, not hard to figure out, the analogy is shit. Someone also mentioned "intention" wile bombing. Well, obviously the intention is to kill, as for who is intended to be killed, if you know going in that there will be "collateral damage" than the intent is to kill whoever happens to be in the bombing vicinity. To believe that there is never an intent to kill civilians is to not know a single thing about how the US runs a war.

Well, then we'll just have to agree to disagree. You think that intentionally stringing a 7 year old boy up and hanging him is the same as civilian deaths in a war. That's your call.

How do you think the US runs a war? With the express purpose of killing civilians? If that was the goal, the numbers would be a lot higher than they are. The US has had complete air and sea superiority over every opponent since Vietnam.

Which countries are the ones that care more about civilian casualties in battle? Maybe some comparison between similar engagements would be helpful.

[floppit]

How do you think the US runs a war? With the express purpose of killing civilians?

Seriously, don't you think that was intended with the H bomb? Whoops - should have said bombs.

Yes - I do think countries set out to kill civilians, they deny it like hell but yes I think it is often deliberate. If to achieve the desired aims requires the deaths (known not just the risk) of civilians I don't think they abandon the desired aims - I think they kill the civilians. If not then there's a hell of a lot of 'accidents' over there.

The point is 'justification' and that's an issue for both sides not just one.

[colubridae]

Last time I checked bombs were dropped to intentionally kill people, cars were not driven with the intent of killing.

So what! the kids die equally horribly.

makes not a whiff of a difference to those kids having their body parts blown off or smashed to pieces by a too-fast moving vehicle.

It’s your quote, I just added the bit at the end. As you said “it makes not a whiff of difference.”

Come on, not hard to figure out, the analogy is shit.

I never said it was an analogy. But if you want to make your spurious claim about hanging and collateral damage, then why aren’t you equally inscensed about traffic deaths.
Unless you are making some spurious point about war, your argument doesn’t hold water.

Someone also mentioned "intention" wile bombing. Well, obviously the intention is to kill, as for who is intended to be killed, if you know going in that there will be "collateral damage" than the intent is to kill whoever happens to be in the bombing vicinity. To believe that there is never an intent to kill civilians is to not know a single thing about how the US runs a war.

Sorry are you saying that everyone else runs their wars without committing collateral damage except the US?

Look if you are agin war then say so. I am too, just don’t make spurious self-righteous claims that don’t add up.
There is a world of difference between deliberate hanging and collateral damage, just as there is a world of difference between deliberate hanging and killing by careless driving.



Actually the more I think about it the more I become unsure of the moral logic.


It’s very bad to deliberately hang someone for a purpose, no matter how strongly you believe that purpose.

But not so very bad to kill someone by carelessness, when you are fully aware that such casual carelessness will kill.

[sandinista]

again, if you can't see the difference between an automobile accident and dropping bombs on people than I see no point going further, thats ridiculous. Really. I am not "inscensed" about traffic deaths, can't believe I have to point this out, because are not intentionally running over people. On the other hand people ARE intentionally dropping bombs on people.

[Toontown]

fucking hell The Dawktorm that's one awful fucking avatar. ugh.

anyway, yah, those religious nuts are whacked. No doubt. On the other hand, its no worse than dropping bombs on 7 year olds and murdering them that way.

I agree, but only if you are actively targeting 7-year-olds with the bombs.

Which Sandinista's terrorist heros actively do. Women and children are their specialty.

[sandinista]

fucking hell The Dawktorm that's one awful fucking avatar. ugh.

anyway, yah, those religious nuts are whacked. No doubt. On the other hand, its no worse than dropping bombs on 7 year olds and murdering them that way.

I agree, but only if you are actively targeting 7-year-olds with the bombs.

Which Sandinista's terrorist heros actively do. Women and children are their specialty.

Who's "heros"? Is life "Your either with us or with the 'terrorists'"? Not for me. I'm with neither.

[JimC]

Collateral damage means that you were trying to kill someone but ended up killing someone else instead. Car accidents are not deliberately fatal (except very rarely perhaps.)

Very true, but the key fact in the analogy is that the actor did not intend to kill the victim.

I think the issue can be that, at times, military forces (of various countries) may not really make a hell of an effort to reduce civilian casualties to a minimum...

Maybe not really intentional, but a good deal more culpable than "accidental"...

[colubridae]

I understand. I am just pointing out that your ‘righteous indignation’ over collateral damage is politically motivated. You claimed:-

makes not a whiff of a difference to those kids having their body parts blown off

If you are so indignant about children dieing horribly where is your righteous indignation over traffic deaths.

Do you think the children die a peaceful, quite statistical death. If so seek out some AE personnel and ask. They will tell you that in traffic accidents the children die horribly. Mutilated; in great pain, great suffering and great fear. Often their parents do not arrive in time to give some comfort.

And numbers. OK the stat I gave was 6 per day. That’s every day since the ‘first’ war in iraq in 1990. And that stat is for the UK, which has a ‘good’ accident rate. Extrapolate up for the whole world. Where is your righteous indignation now.

No my friend, you are trying to make political capital out of children’s suffering. I find that despicable.

[floppit]

I understand. I am just pointing out that your ‘righteous indignation’ over collateral damage is politically motivated. You claimed:-

makes not a whiff of a difference to those kids having their body parts blown off

If you are so indignant about children dieing horribly where is your righteous indignation over traffic deaths.

Do you think the children die a peaceful, quite statistical death. If so seek out some AE personnel and ask. They will tell you that in traffic accidents the children die horribly. Mutilated; in great pain, great suffering and great fear. Often their parents do not arrive in time to give some comfort.

And numbers. OK the stat I gave was 6 per day. That’s every day since the ‘first’ war in iraq in 1990. And that stat is for the UK, which has a ‘good’ accident rate. Extrapolate up for the whole world. Where is your righteous indignation now.

No my friend, you are trying to make political capital out of children’s suffering. I find that despicable.

and again....

When a nation is invaded and 100,000s civilians killed those civilians have zero say, it is something done by one country to another. Car accidents are something nations do to themselves.

Col - by your logic I can kill any number of people as long as my objective was other than to kill them, I might know I will kill them, I might decide my objective is worth their deaths, I might show little attempt to treat the wounded or avoid the young, - none of that matters as long as the primary objective was not to kill the civilian. But then, surely, deep down even you realise however warped (and it is) the hanging of a boy might be - it is still NOT the primary objective to kill the child, the objective is to scare the onlookers shitlessly into submission. The words 'Shock and Awe' come to mind....

[colubridae]

Col - by your logic I can kill any number of people as long as my objective was other than to kill them, I might know I will kill them, I might decide my objective is worth their deaths, I might show little attempt to treat the wounded or avoid the young, - none of that matters as long as the primary objective was not to kill the civilian. But then, surely, deep down even you realise however warped (and it is) the hanging of a boy might be - it is still NOT the primary objective to kill the child, the objective is to scare the onlookers shitlessly into submission. The words 'Shock and Awe' come to mind....

Whoa maybe I’ve not made myself clear. I am as appalled by anyone at these deaths.

I am simply pointing out that Sandinistas indignation is politically motivated.

His/her opening point was that the hanging and collateral damage are equivalent because it doesn’t matter to the children, they still die horribly.

All I am asking is where is his/her indignation over equally horrifying traffic deaths.

[Coito ergo sum]

Collateral damage means that you were trying to kill someone but ended up killing someone else instead. Car accidents are not deliberately fatal (except very rarely perhaps.)

Very true, but the key fact in the analogy is that the actor did not intend to kill the victim.

I think the issue can be that, at times, military forces (of various countries) may not really make a hell of an effort to reduce civilian casualties to a minimum...

Maybe not really intentional, but a good deal more culpable than "accidental"...

Sure, more culpable than accidental, but not as culpable as premeditated and deliberate.

And, the fact of the matter is, the western forces, like the UK and the US do make effort to reduce civilian casualties. History shows that. The UK and the US firebombed the city of Dresden, for example, indiscriminately killing German civilians. In Iraq, great pains are taken to avoid civilian casualties.

[Coito ergo sum]

Col - by your logic I can kill any number of people as long as my objective was other than to kill them, I might know I will kill them, I might decide my objective is worth their deaths, I might show little attempt to treat the wounded or avoid the young, - none of that matters as long as the primary objective was not to kill the civilian. But then, surely, deep down even you realise however warped (and it is) the hanging of a boy might be - it is still NOT the primary objective to kill the child, the objective is to scare the onlookers shitlessly into submission. The words 'Shock and Awe' come to mind....

The idea was relative culpability.

Nobody is saying that collateral casualties and deaths are "good" and that one can indiscriminately kill as long as one can colorably claim that one's objective is elsewhere. What I'm claiming, and what I think Col is claiming, is that it is bad to kill accidentally, and it is bad to kill unintentionally but due to one's intentional actions directed elsewhere, but it is far worse to string a 7 year old up premeditatedly and deliberately and hang him.