Je suis collateral damage

[2ndRateMind]

No one, who has followed recent events in France, and who has a liberal bone in their body, can fail to condemn the brutal murders of journalists, bystanders and police in the name of 'the prophet'.

 

But I just wonder if some double standard chickens are not coming home to roost. Why was there not a similar sized demonstration against the killing of civilians in Gaza? Why was there not condemnation against the civilian deaths in the Iraq wars? Who spoke out against 'collateral damage' in Afghanistan?

 

My suggestion is that the Western media, indeed, the west in general, does not value Muslim lives to the extent it values western lives.

 

When we value all lives equally, then, and only then, it seems to me we will have the moral high ground from which to proclaim 'freedom of speech' a universal good.

 

Best wishes, 2RM. 

Edited January 11, 2015 by 2ndRateMind

[mdfxdb]

Disagree. The west values all life. We do not use human shields or incite suicide bombers on innocents.

Those that are part of collateral damage are complicit because they are aiding and sheltering our enemies. If they will not rise up for their own freedom then they suffer the consequence of their complicity.

[2ndRateMind]

Disagree. The west values all life. 

 

 

Indeed it does. It's just that, as George Orwell put it, 'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than other animals'.

 

My contention is simply that, until all animals are absolutely equal, our sentiments about freedom of expression are founded on sand. Where there is injustice, there will inevitably be revolt.

 

 

We do not use human shields or incite suicide bombers on innocents.

 

 

Just so. My point was not about how bad they are, for which they must answer, but about our own complacently held inconsistencies, for which we must answer.

 

Those that are part of collateral damage are complicit because they are aiding and sheltering our enemies. If they will not rise up for their own freedom then they suffer the consequence of their complicity.

 

 

This is so horribly biased I am at a loss for a cutting reply. It demonstrates my point, perfectly. Our casualties are fighting for freedom. Their casualties, even non-combatant casualties, even women and children, are complicit in their own, and others, subjugation.

 

So, I'll make do with truth. Not all civilians are complicit in the regime they find themselves subjected to. Nor is it in any way reasonable to define civilians who die in wars prosecuted by the west as complicit in opposition to western 'enlightenment' values.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited January 12, 2015 by 2ndRateMind

[The Folk Prophet]

Are you really incapable of understanding the difference between a terrorist style murder rampage and collateral damage?

[PolarVortex]

If the Paris killers had murdered French Muslims instead of non-Muslims, I think it would have gotten the same coverage in the news.  And I hear sporadic reports of Christians being murdered and persecuted in large numbers in the Middle East, but it's not front-page news where I live.

[yjacket]

But I just wonder if some double standard chickens are not coming home to roost. Why was there not a similar sized demonstration against the killing of civilians in Gaza? Why was there not condemnation against the civilian deaths in the Iraq wars? Who spoke out against 'collateral damage' in Afghanistan?

 

My suggestion is that the Western media, indeed, the west in general, does not value Muslim lives to the extent it values western lives.

 

2ndRate,

 

I disagree with you on a lot of things, but I actually agree with you to a large extent on this one.  I don't think it is so much about Muslim lives as it is the "enemy".  Before you can really kill someone you have to dehumanize them, group them all into a bunch of horrible human beings who have caused their own misery and suffering.  They should be glad that we are freeing them from their miserable lives!

 

I think the massive amount of lives lost in the Iraqi war is despicable, over 100,000 civilian lives lost in Iraq and over 20,0000 in Afghanistan.  I believe at some point God will hold leaders accountable for their sins.

 

I believe there are only a few reasons to go to war.  I subscribe to the Just War Theory.  One should only attack when one has been attacked and one should not be an aggressor in any war.  Unfortunately, as a country the US has not followed this.  I also believe that just because one is "attacked" does not mean one must retaliate-it may be justified, but sometimes the consequences outweigh the benefits of it.

 

For example, the Gulf of Tonkin incident.  The US could have easily let it go, but the US was looking for a fight and found one (especially considering the second attack was pretty much made up and admitted to at the time).

[yjacket]

Are you really incapable of understanding the difference between a terrorist style murder rampage and collateral damage?

 

The difference being that one is murder by a bunch of crazies and the other is murder sanctioned by the state?

[The Folk Prophet]

The difference being that one is murder by a bunch of crazies and the other is murder sanctioned by the state?

Whereas I won't try and argue that no collateral damage is "murder", certainly it's going to far to simply label it universally that way.

[Just_A_Guy]

The difference isn't the value of those lives--the magazine, from what I gather, is actually a pretty despicable rag; and amongst the Paris casualties it's entirely possible that one or two of them had personal qualities only slightly exceeding those of a dead dog.

 

The difference is what the attack represented.  Leaving aside the question of whether the underlying conflicts were in and of themselves "just wars", the fact is that the dead civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan and the recent Israeli conflict in Gaza were a product of either mistakes, isolated incidents of individual or small groups of soldiers engaging in reprehensible conduct for which they were subject to punishment, or deliberate strategies by the enemy to maximize civilian casualties.  These casualties were collateral to, not integral to, the overall strategy of the belligerents.  They came in spite of the expenditures of billions of dollars in technologies designed to minimize civilian casualties as well as some dozens--or perhaps hundreds--of coalition lives forfeited through rules of engagement that were at times heavily slanted against the forces' own safety in order to avoid civilian casualties.

 

The attacks in Paris had a much more simple philosophy:  There are no civilians.  You are the enemy, simply because of the values you stand for.

Edited January 12, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[askandanswer]

No one, who has followed recent events in France, and who has a liberal bone in their body, can fail to condemn the brutal murders of journalists, bystanders and police in the name of 'the prophet'.

 

But I just wonder if some double standard chickens are not coming home to roost. Why was there not a similar sized demonstration against the killing of civilians in Gaza? Why was there not condemnation against the civilian deaths in the Iraq wars? Who spoke out against 'collateral damage' in Afghanistan?

 

My suggestion is that the Western media, indeed, the west in general, does not value Muslim lives to the extent it values western lives.

 

When we value all lives equally, then, and only then, it seems to me we will have the moral high ground from which to proclaim 'freedom of speech' a universal good.

 

Best wishes, 2RM. 

I'm wondering how you came to miss the frequent media and political commentary and condemnation of the killing of civilians in Gaza, the civilian deaths in the Iraq wars and the collateral damage in Afghanistan? There has been such commentary, and it has been made openly and publicly and repeatedly. Are you unaware of it? Its true that the public reaction to those events, which has been spread over many years, might not seem to be as great as the public reaction, spread over less than one week, to the French killings, but if you add up all the public and political reaction to the killings in Gaza, Iraq and Afghanistan that has taken place over the last many years, I suspect it would exceed the reaction to what has happened in France. One simple example: there hasn't been a single march in response to the middle east events you refer to that attracted the same number of marchers that were marching in France over the weekend, but if you added up all the marchers there have been in response to the middle east over the past few years, I'm sure the number would be greater.

 

I'm not sure if its correct to assume, on the basis of differing media and public reactions to events in France and the middle-east, that the west values western lives differently from the lives of muslims, and even if such an assumption is correct, then I'm not sure if that is a problem. If my good neighbour, who I have known and liked for many years were to suddenly die, or be killed, I would be greatly saddened and I would react in ways that showed my sadness. If your neighbour dies, who I have never met or known or care about, that would be a sad event, but not for me, and I would be unlikely to react in any way. I think its entirely consistent with normal human behaviour that the western media places a greater emphasis on events that occur in the west and that are likely to have some sort of impact on western people than they do on events that do not occur in the west and are not likely to have much of an impact on western people. I suspect that the non-western media behaves in exactly the same way. 

Edited January 12, 2015 by askandanswer

[mdfxdb]

Indeed it does. It's just that, as George Orwell put it, 'Some animals are more equal than other animals'.

My contention is simply that, until all animals are absolutely equal, our sentiments about freedom of expression are founded on sand. Where there is injustice, there will inevitably be revolt.

Just so. My point was not about how bad they are, for which they must answer, but about our own complacently held inconsistencies, for which we must answer.

This is so horribly biased I am at a loss for a cutting reply. It demonstrates my point, perfectly. Our casualties are fighting for freedom. Their casualties, even non-combatant casualties, even women and children, are complicit in their own, and others, subjugation.

So, I'll make do with truth. Not all civilians are complicit in the regime they find themselves subjected to. Nor is it in any way reasonable to define civilians who die in wars prosecuted by the west as complicit in opposition to western 'enlightenment' values.

Best wishes, 2RM.

you do not fundamentally understand how wars are won. Colatteral damages are part of war. Complicity with the enemy is a part of war. Those that are not on our side, are against us, and need to be treated as such. Many times we do not seek a fight, but we are often presented with one. There is a reason the USA has not positively won a war for five decades or more. We simply have not got the stomach to do it properly anymore.

[Crypto]

No one, who has followed recent events in France, and who has a liberal bone in their body, can fail to condemn the brutal murders of journalists, bystanders and police in the name of 'the prophet'.

 

But I just wonder if some double standard chickens are not coming home to roost. Why was there not a similar sized demonstration against the killing of civilians in Gaza? Why was there not condemnation against the civilian deaths in the Iraq wars? Who spoke out against 'collateral damage' in Afghanistan?

 

My suggestion is that the Western media, indeed, the west in general, does not value Muslim lives to the extent it values western lives.

 

When we value all lives equally, then, and only then, it seems to me we will have the moral high ground from which to proclaim 'freedom of speech' a universal good.

 

Best wishes, 2RM. 

War, Death, and Murder is horrific. It should be righteously condemned.

 

However, there are circumstances when such terrible work must needs be carried out. Determining when is a problem in it's own right. Easy answer is defense against an aggressor.

Any media is interested in it's own communities and cultures, and as such will inherently have bias towards that. I don't think this is on purpose for the most part, simply a natural extension of a society. An interest in one's own society does not necessarily follow valuing a human life in another culture as less. At the same time, I would say most people in the west hold the value of life regardless of location in high regard. I don't think absolute consensus should be required.

I'm not sure freedom of speech and the value of human lives should be dependent on each other. Working with the good you have (freedom of speech) and trying to improve another situation (value of life) seems much more pragmatic.

Edited January 12, 2015 by Crypto

[2ndRateMind]

Are you really incapable of understanding the difference between a terrorist style murder rampage and collateral damage?

 

Of course there is a difference. One is deliberate, the other accidental. But, I suspect that, to those innocents who end up dead, that difference is pretty academic. The point is that, in the warped psychology of an extremist, collateral damage becomes the excuse for terrorist rampages. As a matter of mere tactics, we would do well to minimise collateral damage, and consider it a fatal failure when it occurs, and report it with the same prominence we allocate to the effects of a terrorist rampage in our own countries.

 

Best wishes, 2RM

Edited January 12, 2015 by 2ndRateMind

[2ndRateMind]

 

I'm not sure freedom of speech and the value of human lives should be dependent on each other. Working with the good you have (freedom of speech) and trying to improve another situation (value of life) seems much more pragmatic.

 

Hi Crypto

 

Thanks for that balanced response. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the sanctity of human life, and the right to life, are each the fundamental value and right that all others hang off. Having the right to say what you like is not much use if others have the capacity and inclination to remove your life and terminate your existence at will.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited January 12, 2015 by 2ndRateMind

[Guest]

Hi Crypto

 

Thanks for that balanced response. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the sanctity of human life, and the right to life, are each the fundamental value and right that all others hang off. Having the right to say what you like is not much use if others have the capacity and inclination to remove your life and terminate your existence at will.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

Sure, and if others have the inclination to remove your life and terminate your existence, you are left with 2 choices - die or kill them first.  Now, would you say you are going to choose to just let them terminate you?

 

So yeah, it's not as simple as that in Gaza or any of the war-related ones where you have the chicken-or-the-egg scenario of who is really the one who wanted to kill the other and who is the one who just wanted to kill the other so they don't kill them first...

Edited January 12, 2015 by anatess

[FunkyTown]

 

Sure, and if others have the inclination to remove your life and terminate your existence, you are left with 2 choices - die or kill them first.  Now, would you say you are going to choose to just let them terminate you?

 

So yeah, it's not as simple as that in Gaza or any of the war-related ones where you have the chicken-or-the-egg scenario of who is really the one who wanted to kill the other and who is the one who just wanted to kill the other so they don't kill them first...

 

I'm wholly on 2RM's side on this one:

Anybody who would hide in the middle of a bunch of innocent people, planning acts of terror is a monster. Collateral damage is terrible.

If violent radicals would only leave behind their human shields and all gather in a single spot in the desert, that issue would be resolved.

2RM: You are one hundred percent right. Those people are very bad. So is the guy who decided that some media outlet being a jerk is an acceptable reason for a shooting spree.

[Guest]

   

I'm wholly on 2RM's side on this one:

Anybody who would hide in the middle of a bunch of innocent people, planning acts of terror is a monster. Collateral damage is terrible.

If violent radicals would only leave behind their human shields and all gather in a single spot in the desert, that issue would be resolved.

2RM: You are one hundred percent right. Those people are very bad. So is the guy who decided that some media outlet being a jerk is an acceptable reason for a shooting spree.

 

Ahhh, FT...

 

Very, very creative post.  It almost won you the internet... Almost.

[Crypto]

Hi Crypto

 

Thanks for that balanced response. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the sanctity of human life, and the right to life, are each the fundamental value and right that all others hang off. Having the right to say what you like is not much use if others have the capacity and inclination to remove your life and terminate your existence at will.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

I agree, freedom of speech would be fairly useless if someone else could arbitrarily choose to end your life. I think for the most part that in the West this type of thing is prevented.

[2ndRateMind]

I agree, freedom of speech would be fairly useless if someone else could arbitrarily choose to end your life. I think for the most part that in the West this type of thing is prevented.

 

Uh huh. But if we are agreed that the sanctity of life is the utmost value, and the right to life the utmost right, we must, for the sake of consistency and to avoid hypocrisy, extend that value and right to everyone, regardless of race, creed, nationality, politics, gender, sexuality etc., and treat any violation of it with equal seriousness. Regrettably, that regard includes those who may have a problem with the west, and it's liberal, enlightenment attitudes. It certainly includes those who are their victims; the human shields, child suicide bombers, etc.

 

The only people it doesn't include, from what I can see, are those who deliberately forego it and take up arms to prosecute their special brand of asymmetric war against us. We are entitled to self-defence, which is only the expression of that right to life for our own sake we are extending to others. We are not, however, entitled to a trigger happy, gung ho, ramboesque style of conventional warfare that does not count the civilian cost of it's operations, and does not much care about that cost, either. We need to know who we kill, and how, and why, so we can justify - or not - these deaths against the freedoms we enjoy, and decide whether or not the carnage is worth it.

 

In case you hadn't noticed, this kind of assessment is the very thinking that makes us the good guys, and separates us from those who kill wantonly and indiscriminately.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited January 12, 2015 by 2ndRateMind

[Blackmarch]

No one, who has followed recent events in France, and who has a liberal bone in their body, can fail to condemn the brutal murders of journalists, bystanders and police in the name of 'the prophet'.

 

But I just wonder if some double standard chickens are not coming home to roost. Why was there not a similar sized demonstration against the killing of civilians in Gaza? Why was there not condemnation against the civilian deaths in the Iraq wars? Who spoke out against 'collateral damage' in Afghanistan?

 

My suggestion is that the Western media, indeed, the west in general, does not value Muslim lives to the extent it values western lives.

 

When we value all lives equally, then, and only then, it seems to me we will have the moral high ground from which to proclaim 'freedom of speech' a universal good.

 

Best wishes, 2RM. 

depends on the bias of who's in charge I'd wager.

[Guest]

Uh huh. But if we are agreed that the sanctity of life is the utmost value, and the right to life the utmost right, we must, for the sake of consistency and to avoid hypocrisy, extend that value and right to everyone, regardless of race, creed, nationality, politics, gender, sexuality etc., and treat any violation of it with equal seriousness. Regrettably, that regard includes those who may have a problem with the west, and it's liberal, enlightenment attitudes. It certainly includes those who are their victims; the human shields, child suicide bombers, etc.

 

The only people it doesn't include, from what I can see, are those who deliberately forego it and take up arms to prosecute their special brand of asymmetric war against us. We are entitled to self-defence, which is only the expression of that right to life for our own sake we are extending to others. We are not, however, entitled to a trigger happy, gung ho, ramboesque style of conventional warfare that does not count the civilian cost of it's operations, and does not much care about that cost, either. We need to know who we kill, and how, and why, so we can justify - or not - these deaths against the freedoms we enjoy, and decide whether or not the carnage is worth it.

 

In case you hadn't noticed, this kind of assessment is the very thinking that makes us the good guys, and separates us from those who kill wantonly and indiscriminately.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

I'm not sure I understand what this thread is about...  Are you trying to say that the west (or the people you refer to as "us") are currently ramboesque?

[mdfxdb]

 

The only people it doesn't include, from what I can see, are those who take up arms to prosecute their special brand of asymmetric war against us. We are entitled to self-defence, which is only the expression of that right to life for our own sake we are extending to others. We are not, however, entitled to a trigger happy, gung ho, ramboesque style of conventional warfare that does not count the civilian cost of it's operations, and does not much care about that cost, either. We need to know who we kill, and how, and why, so we can justify - or not - these deaths against the freedoms we enjoy, and decide whether or not the carnage is worth it.

 

In case you hadn't noticed, this kind of assessment is the very thinking that makes us the good guys, and separates us from those who kill wantonly and indiscriminately.

 

Again you demonstrate a lack of understanding of what it takes to actually win a war.  If we want to win a conflict, then all of our enemies must die.  If people associate with our enemies they need to die, if our enemies use human shields, then regrettably they must die.  

 

If we want to make sure to minimize innocent casualties, then we need to create a "safe zone" (aka concentration camp) wherein all those who are with us go to those safe areas, and all those who do not get killed.  

 

It is because of our attitude towards casualties, and war in general that creates wars that linger on for extended periods of time.  Especially when we as the West have the upper hand in terms of destructive power.  

[2ndRateMind]

I'm not sure I understand what this thread is about...  Are you trying to say that the west (or the people you refer to as "us") are currently ramboesque?

 

My essential point is that, if we value life, and all lives equally (and I'm not at all sure we do), then we need to be ready to stand accountable for each innocent, civilian death dealt in our name, with our complicity. 

 

Best, 2RM.

[Guest]

My essential point is that, if we value life, and all lives equally (and I'm not at all sure we do), then we need to be ready to stand accountable for each innocent, civilian death dealt in our name, with our complicity. 

 

Best, 2RM.

 

Of course.  And we are.  Are you saying we aren't?

[2ndRateMind]

I'm saying that I sense a certain reluctance - not necessarily on this forum, but generally, in society - to face this responsibility. It is easy to condemn murder by religious fanatics. It is not so easy to admit some degree of culpability for collateral damage amongst Muslims. But without accepting such accountability, I foresee a whole future of blood feud, which is, of course, precisely the agenda of the terrorists.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.