• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Liberal Calculus of Collateral Damage

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Imagine a country under indescriminant rocket attack.

Imagine it responding with overwhelming force.

Now imagine those rockets being German V2's and that country being England. And, finally, imagine a liberal clamour demanding a proportional response and negotiation with Hitler.
 

Jaymes

The cake is a lie
From what I understand, most of the people being killed are civilians. I don't see how this is an accurate comparison.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Jensa said:
From what I understand, most of the people being killed are civilians. I don't see how this is an accurate comparison.
That would depend on what is being compared. Germany's civilian casualties numbered 1,840,000 - nearly 4 times the combined military and civilian casualties of Great Britain.

There is another comparison that I bellieve to be fully valid. Both the Nazis and Hezbolluh should be held responsible for the tragedy of the civilian toll.
 

Fluffy

A fool
What would be a more appropriate attitude towards collateral damage?

Criticising collateral damage helps to ensure that "unintentional" means only "that which could be unavoided" as opposed to "that deemed acceptable".

As a liberal, I fully support Israel's invasion of Lebanon. That doesn't make collateral damage acceptable... just necessary. The alternative is simply far worse.

Does your assessment hold for Hiroshima as well?

By murdering more civilians? :/ That's not cool no matter how you cut it.

Murder is defined to be unlawful intentional killing.
 

Jaymes

The cake is a lie
Fluffy said:
That doesn't make collateral damage acceptable... just necessary. The alternative is simply far worse.
How is killing civilians necessary, and what is the alternative?
 

Ody

Well-Known Member
Jensa said:
By murdering more civilians? :/ That's not cool no matter how you cut it.

The problem is, Hizbollah hides amongst civilians, and uses civilian areas, to fire at Israel with rockets.
 

Jaymes

The cake is a lie
Jayhawker Soule said:
In both Germany and Lebanon, Jensa?
Civilians are civilians. They don't deserve to die for living in the wrong place at the wrong time. Even the people that murder don't deserve to be murdered in return either, IMO.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Jensa said:
Civilians are civilians. They don't deserve to die for living in the wrong place at the wrong time. Even the people that murder don't deserve to be murdered in return either, IMO.
Thank you. Then you would have argued for a policy of Nazi appeasement?
 

Fluffy

A fool
How is killing civilians necessary, and what is the alternative?

Retaliation was necessary and civilian casualties in war are unavoidable. Therefore civilian casualties are necessary.

The alternative was for Israel to continue suffering attack after attack after attack. Attacks which of course were causing civilian casualties themselves.
 

Jaymes

The cake is a lie
Fluffy said:
Murder is defined to be unlawful intentional killing.
Surely you don't mean to say that killing ~280 people, all but 14 of which were civilians, could be unintentional?
 

Jaymes

The cake is a lie
Jayhawker Soule said:
Thank you. Then you would have argued for a policy of Nazi appeasement?
I would have argued for not killing civilians and going for the people that were responsible. If that makes me a Nazi appeaser, so be it.
 

Ody

Well-Known Member
Jensa said:
Surely you don't mean to say that killing ~280 people, all but 14 of which were civilians, could be unintentional?

When you think of population density, intelligence gathering, and the fact that hizbollah fights like the taliban did against the soviet union, yes it could be unintentional.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
jamaesi said:
Because WWII and this war are exactly the same! :rolleyes:
I did not say that, jamaesi, nor did I mean to imply it. So, for example, the German military often fought with distinction and rarely, to the best of my knowledge, relied on human shields.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top