The Liberal Calculus of Collateral Damage

[Fluffy]

Surely you don't mean to say that killing ~280 people, all but 14 of which were civilians, could be unintentional?

Ehhh tricky. If I am a police sniper and I miss the terrorist and hit a hostage then this is manslaughter not murder. Do you think Israel decided to intentionally kill 260 civilians?

 

[Jaymes]

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

From what I understand we have the same problem in Iraq, and we can see what good it led to to sit there and let them take shots at us. :/ No matter what people are involved, it goes back and forth from "You killed our civilians! Now we're going to kill yours!" "You killed OUR civilians! Now we're going to kill yours AGAIN!" until everyone just explodes and all sorts of atrocities occur.

But apparently not wanting civilians to die and wanting to take action only against the people that perpetrate crimes makes me a Nazi appeaser, so perhaps I'm not quite so informed on the issue.

 

[jamaesi]

The basic principles of War remain through out time.

Like?

 

[Jaymes]

Ehhh tricky. If I am a police sniper and I miss the terrorist and hit a hostage then this is manslaughter not murder. Do you think Israel decided to intentionally kill 260 civilians?

It's going to take a lot to convince me that someone can accidentally blow up 260 civilians.

 

[Fluffy]

Yes, it does. Thank you again.

Why does that make somebody a Nazi appeaser?

It's going to take a lot to convince me that someone can accidentally blow up 260 civilians.

But there does seem to be a difference here between Israel finding a civilian and intentionally dropping a bomb on his head. Israel drops bombs with the intention of destroying strategic locations. They accept that civilians are likely to die as a result but they don't set out in order to kill those civilians.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

But apparently not wanting civilians to die and wanting to take action only against the people that perpetrate crimes makes me a Nazi appeaser, so perhaps I'm not quite so informed on the issue.

It seems fairly straight forward to me: you either fight the Nazis, condone the Nazis, or seek to appease the Nazis. What alternative am I missing? What would you have suggested Churchill do?

 

[Ody]

Like?

You must kill your enemy, before he kills you, regardless of his location or fortifications. You cannot let your enemy have a quick victory, and you must use whatever tactical manuvers within good reason, as long as they do not target civilians.

 

[Ody]

Why does that make somebody a Nazi appeaser?

The fact that she wouldn't kill a murderer...you couldn't stop nazism without war...

 

[Jaymes]

Somehow civilians don't strike me as Nazis. IIRC, I said we should go after the people that perpretrate the crimes, not the civilians. I'm missing how this makes me a Nazi appeaser.

 

[Booko]

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

It's a bit thornier than that. Who's a civilian in a "war" where people don't wear uniforms? The guys in 'Nam had a problem with that, when it came to being confronted by some 10 year old with a gun. It made them pretty crazy, the ones who had to go up against that sort of thing.

I think it's safe to say that infants are civilians. Probably most of the women and children 12 and under are civilians. How could you really tell with anyone else?

There's another problem with looking at raw numbers also. On the Israeli side, they've been living with the threat of attack for years, so they have bomb shelters available all over. Not so in Lebanon. The civilians there have very few options to sit out a bombing attack. So I'd expect the casualty rates to be higher in Lebanon than Israel, even if Hezbollah had armaments of equal capacity.

 

[jamaesi]

I did not say that, jamaesi, nor did I mean to imply it.

Then what were your motivations in posting this?

The fact that she wouldn't kill a murderer...

When did she say that?

 

[Ody]

Even the people that murder don't deserve to be murdered in return either, IMO.

Thats Utopian if used overall...
... so would you argue against the death of hitler?

 

[Jaymes]

The fact that she wouldn't kill a murderer...

I'll be sure to tell everyone that opposes the death penalty that they are in fact Nazi appeasers.

 

[Ody]

Even the people that murder don't deserve to be murdered in return either, IMO.

This is where she said it.

 

[Ody]

I'll be sure to tell everyone that opposes the death penalty that they are in fact Nazi appeasers.

Cool d00d.

 

[Booko]

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

The alternative would be for the rest of the nations to put aside their petty squabbling and find the balls to act together to stop a group like Hezbollah from grabbing half a nation in the first place.

I can think of no reason why anyone in Lebanon would think they have to aim arms at Israeli citizens as Hezbollah has for years. The Israelis left.

And anyone who thinks Americans would just mindlessly support the IDF if they went for a land grab of a neighboring country doesn't know Americans very well. We know we send a lot of money to Israel, and it would get cut off very quickly too, if Israel decided to undertake wars of conquest where there was no danger from a neighbor.

 

[Booko]

House to House fighting.

House to house fighting is no alternative. See my previous reference to US soldiers' experiences in 'Nam. With a group like Hezbollah, quite frankly you still don't know friend from foe.

We're not exactly having a lot of luck telling friend from foe in Iraq now that we've long since stopped bombing and starting working on a house to house level, now have we?

Also, house to house fighting is every army's nightmare. No general who wants to accomplish his mission would contemplate it when there are any other options.

The point is to remove the missles -- not commit suicide.

 

[Ody]

But apparently not wanting civilians to die and wanting to take action only against the people that perpetrate crimes makes me a Nazi appeaser, so perhaps I'm not quite so informed on the issue.

Because it is impossible with todays technology to have wars without civilian casualties!

 

[jamaesi]

This is where she said it.

Where did she say she wouldn't kill a murderer?

She only said in her opinion that she didn't think murderers should be murdered.

The alternative would be for the rest of the nations to put aside their petty squabbling and find the balls to act together to stop a group like Hezbollah from grabbing half a nation in the first place.

While looking closely at why they feel the need for a group like Hizb'allah to protect them...

 

[Fluffy]

The fact that she wouldn't kill a murderer...

Well in that case all but 2 countries in the developed world (excluding the USA and Japan) can be considered Nazi appeasers since they do not have the death penalty.

It seems fairly straight forward to me: you either fight the Nazis, condone the Nazis, or seek to appease the Nazis. What alternative am I missing? What would you have suggested Churchill do?

Which option would an Hiroshima like scenario fall under?