[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"] It's pretty simple, the sole purpose of the people that hit the Pentagon and WTC was not civilian casualties, ergo by your logic the people who died on 9/11 were collateral damage. Not true. If they wanted to destroy a symbol without killing thousands of civilians, we have plenty of those. Such as the Statue of Liberty, Mt Rushmore, etc... And they did it on a weekday when they knew the buildings would be most full of people. And they used full civilian aircraft to boot.
[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"] It's pretty simple, the sole purpose of the people that hit the Pentagon and WTC was not civilian casualties, ergo by your logic the people who died on 9/11 were collateral damage.Engrish_Major
Not true. If they wanted to destroy a symbol without killing thousands of civilians, we have plenty of those. Such as the Statue of Liberty, Mt Rushmore, etc... And they did it on a weekday when they knew the buildings would be most full of people. And they used full civilian aircraft to boot.Hey, you were the one claiming the end justify the means. And what does the statue of Liberty represent? What would they accomplish by bringing it down.
What i don't get is that people actually believe that the 9/11 attacks were carried out only to kill civilians, that's what media brainwashing can do to a man. Now, i've made this point before, i can't understand how people who were smart enough to orchestrate such a complex attack and their sole intent was civilian casualties didn't realize that attacking lets say a stadium would be much more 'rewarding'. This means that their original intent was not murder of civilians, so i guess that makes them collateral damage.
[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="Stavrogin_"] It's pretty simple, the sole purpose of the people that hit the Pentagon and WTC was not civilian casualties, ergo by your logic the people who died on 9/11 were collateral damage.Stavrogin_
Not true. If they wanted to destroy a symbol without killing thousands of civilians, we have plenty of those. Such as the Statue of Liberty, Mt Rushmore, etc... And they did it on a weekday when they knew the buildings would be most full of people. And they used full civilian aircraft to boot.Hey, you were the one claiming the ends justify the means. And what does the statue of Liberty represent? What would they accomplish by bringing it down.
What i don't get is that people actually believe that the 9/11 attacks were carried out only to kill civilians, that's what media brainwashing can do to a man. Now, i've made this point before, i can't understand how people who were smart enough to orchestrate such a complex attack and their sole intent was civilian casualties didn't realize that attacking a stadium would be much more 'rewarding'. This means that their original intent was not murder of civilians, so i guess that makes them collateral damage.
If anything, the killing of civilians was a "bonus" to them. Not collateral damage. They chose a time of day that would kill most people. They chose full civilian jets. They WANT to kill as many American civilians as possible. That's how our actions differ from theirs.
[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="Stavrogin_"] It's pretty simple, the sole purpose of the people that hit the Pentagon and WTC was not civilian casualties, ergo by your logic the people who died on 9/11 were collateral damage.Stavrogin_
Not true. If they wanted to destroy a symbol without killing thousands of civilians, we have plenty of those. Such as the Statue of Liberty, Mt Rushmore, etc... And they did it on a weekday when they knew the buildings would be most full of people. And they used full civilian aircraft to boot.Hey, you were the one claiming the end justify the means. And what does the statue of Liberty represent? What would they accomplish by bringing it down.
What i don't get is that people actually believe that the 9/11 attacks were carried out only to kill civilians, that's what media brainwashing can do to a man. Now, i've made this point before, i can't understand how people who were smart enough to orchestrate such a complex attack and their sole intent was civilian casualties didn't realize that attacking lets say a stadium would be much more 'rewarding'. This means that their original intent was not murder of civilians, so i guess that makes them collateral damage.
Regardless buddy, everybody knows that these terriost organizations don't care about civilians, they constantly are bombing innocent civilians even in their own country. So are you really trying to defend them?
No it isn't. They don't go around killing civilians intentionally.
RAGINGxPONY
I never said the word "intentionally" in my post. And like I said the 9/11 perpetrators could use the same excuse to call civilian casualties collateral damage: "We didn't kill those people intentionally, they just happened to be between our targets and us".
That is the dumbest thing I think I have ever heard, the terriosts knew that when they crashed those planes they we're killing everyone on board and that was their intention. And they knew everyone on board were civilians. Big difference from that and colleteral damage caused from drone strikes.
And the US knows that when they start bombing a country civilians are going to get killed. How is the US not intentional but the 9/11 perpetrators are then?
It's because Pakistan is incompetent and can't fight their own terriosts. If it wasn't for these drone strikes the militants in Pakistan would be safe, and they could freely go to Afghanastain attack NATO troops and than go back to there safe haven in Pakistan. Pakistan really needs to step up their game and start eliminating the militants in their own country.
RAGINGxPONY
But that's a false dichotomy. We don't need to use drone strikes to fight these militants. In fact, drone strikes are probably the most counterproductive way to fight these militants. Our entire strategy in the region is based on protecting civilians. That is fundamental to any counter insurgency.
Yeah we don't need to, but it helps. These drone strikes are responible for the deaths of many Taliban leaders and militants. Thus weakening the Taliban making it easier for the forces in Afghanastain to do their job.
It doesn't make anything easier. When fighting a counter insurgency campaign, civilian lives are paramount. Success is impossible if we are routinely killing civilians. These Taliban deaths are not worth it if they are coupled with such a high number civilian casualities. It undermines everything we are trying to achieve in the region.
The unfortunate nature of war is that, sometimes, civilians get killed. For all the advances in technology and precision guided weaponry, it's still unavoidable. The alternative is to sit at home and let people walk all over you.
Blaze787
The alternative is to not waste so much money on broken tech.
Collateral damage is an euphemism used by nations with technology to justify when they kill civilians. The 9/11 perpetrators could equally call the innocent people they killed with their attacks collateral damage if they could since their intention was not necessarily to kill civilians but to provoke a moral and economic wound on the US. Civilians just happened to be in the World Trade Center, Pentagon and the Capitol if they had achieved attacking that.kuraimen
Wrong. Collateral damage is what sometimes happens if when a military attacks a legitimate military target.
The 9/11 hijackers didn't attack a military target. They attacked a building with thousands of civilians. That's not a legitimate military target.
[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"] Not true. If they wanted to destroy a symbol without killing thousands of civilians, we have plenty of those. Such as the Statue of Liberty, Mt Rushmore, etc... And they did it on a weekday when they knew the buildings would be most full of people. And they used full civilian aircraft to boot.Engrish_Major
Hey, you were the one claiming the ends justify the means. And what does the statue of Liberty represent? What would they accomplish by bringing it down.
What i don't get is that people actually believe that the 9/11 attacks were carried out only to kill civilians, that's what media brainwashing can do to a man. Now, i've made this point before, i can't understand how people who were smart enough to orchestrate such a complex attack and their sole intent was civilian casualties didn't realize that attacking a stadium would be much more 'rewarding'. This means that their original intent was not murder of civilians, so i guess that makes them collateral damage.
If anything, the killing of civilians was a "bonus" to them. Not collateral damage. They chose a time of day that would kill most people. They chose full civilian jets. They WANT to kill as many American civilians as possible. That's how our actions differ from theirs. Good point, although i think everyone should agree that civilian casualties were not their main intent. Making a statement was and those jets were the best way for them to carry out their mission successfully. If their primary and only objective was killing of as many civilians as possible then why did they choose the Pentagon and the White House, such lousy targets for mass murder.
[QUOTE="kuraimen"] I never said the word "intentionally" in my post. And like I said the 9/11 perpetrators could use the same excuse to call civilian casualties collateral damage: "We didn't kill those people intentionally, they just happened to be between our targets and us".kuraimen
That is the dumbest thing I think I have ever heard, the terriosts knew that when they crashed those planes they we're killing everyone on board and that was their intention. And they knew everyone on board were civilians. Big difference from that and colleteral damage caused from drone strikes.
And the US knows that when they start bombing a country civilians are going to get killed. How is the US not intentional but the 9/11 perpetrators are then?
Collateral damage, it is not the military's main interest to go around intentionally killing civilians. Terrorists however, are the opposite.
[QUOTE="kuraimen"]Collateral damage is an euphemism used by nations with technology to justify when they kill civilians. The 9/11 perpetrators could equally call the innocent people they killed with their attacks collateral damage if they could since their intention was not necessarily to kill civilians but to provoke a moral and economic wound on the US. Civilians just happened to be in the World Trade Center, Pentagon and the Capitol if they had achieved attacking that.airshocker
Wrong. Collateral damage is what sometimes happens if when a military attacks a legitimate military target.
The 9/11 hijackers didn't attack a military target. They attacked a building with thousands of civilians. That's not a legitimate military target.
Like the US has never attacked a civilian target. But i guess Taliban fighters were hiding in there so i guess it's okay to bomb the hell out of it. :?
[QUOTE="kuraimen"]Collateral damage is an euphemism used by nations with technology to justify when they kill civilians. The 9/11 perpetrators could equally call the innocent people they killed with their attacks collateral damage if they could since their intention was not necessarily to kill civilians but to provoke a moral and economic wound on the US. Civilians just happened to be in the World Trade Center, Pentagon and the Capitol if they had achieved attacking that.airshocker
Wrong. Collateral damage is what sometimes happens if when a military attacks a legitimate military target.
The 9/11 hijackers didn't attack a military target. They attacked a building with thousands of civilians. That's not a legitimate military target.
That's just word play, if it's a target it's a target. It doesn't matter if it's military or not.
Like the US has never attacked a civilian target. But i guess Taliban fighters were hiding in there so i guess it's okay to bomb the hell out of it. :?
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] But that's a false dichotomy. We don't need to use drone strikes to fight these militants. In fact, drone strikes are probably the most counterproductive way to fight these militants. Our entire strategy in the region is based on protecting civilians. That is fundamental to any counter insurgency. -Sun_Tzu-
Yeah we don't need to, but it helps. These drone strikes are responible for the deaths of many Taliban leaders and militants. Thus weakening the Taliban making it easier for the forces in Afghanastain to do their job.
It doesn't make anything easier. When fighting a counter insurgency campaign, civilian lives are paramount. Success is impossible if we are routinely killing civilians. These Taliban deaths are not worth it if they are coupled with such a high number civilian casualities. It undermines everything we are trying to achieve in the region.
Either way though Americas image in the middle east couldn't get much worse, so if they have the chance to take out militants they should jump on the opportunity. Especially if it is a high up Taliban leader, maybe not worth it for the everyday militants though.
That is the dumbest thing I think I have ever heard, the terriosts knew that when they crashed those planes they we're killing everyone on board and that was their intention. And they knew everyone on board were civilians. Big difference from that and colleteral damage caused from drone strikes.
parkurtommo
And the US knows that when they start bombing a country civilians are going to get killed. How is the US not intentional but the 9/11 perpetrators are then?
Collateral damage, it is not the military's main interest to go around intentionally killing civilians. Terrorists however, are the opposite.
And how many terrorists will be spawned by killing this many children? Until people learn how the cycle of violence works terrorism will never stop.
[QUOTE="kuraimen"]Collateral damage is an euphemism used by nations with technology to justify when they kill civilians. The 9/11 perpetrators could equally call the innocent people they killed with their attacks collateral damage if they could since their intention was not necessarily to kill civilians but to provoke a moral and economic wound on the US. Civilians just happened to be in the World Trade Center, Pentagon and the Capitol if they had achieved attacking that.airshocker
Wrong. Collateral damage is what sometimes happens if when a military attacks a legitimate military target.
The 9/11 hijackers didn't attack a military target. They attacked a building with thousands of civilians. That's not a legitimate military target.
And who says what is a legitimate military target? Oh yeah the same people that come up with terms like collateral damage. Euphemisms and hypocrisy everywhere!!! Excuse me if I don't take their word as an universal law.
Like the US has never attacked a civilian target. But i guess Taliban fighters were hiding in there so i guess it's okay to bomb the hell out of it. :?
airshocker
It is, per the Rules of Engagement.
So let me get this right... NATO has its own arbitrary law on what's allowed in war and what's not so that justifies the bombing of civilian targets and killing of civilians?
Yeah we don't need to, but it helps. These drone strikes are responible for the deaths of many Taliban leaders and militants. Thus weakening the Taliban making it easier for the forces in Afghanastain to do their job.
RAGINGxPONY
It doesn't make anything easier. When fighting a counter insurgency campaign, civilian lives are paramount. Success is impossible if we are routinely killing civilians. These Taliban deaths are not worth it if they are coupled with such a high number civilian casualities. It undermines everything we are trying to achieve in the region.
Either way though Americas image in the middle east couldn't get much worse, so if they have the chance to take out militants they should jump on the opportunity. Especially if it is a high up Taliban leader, maybe not worth it for the everyday militants though.
I guess we've forgotten why we start wars in the first place: To save people, not ****ing kill them. Even if it's to kill a douchebag, even if it's the biggest of them all.
Like the US has never attacked a civilian target. But i guess Taliban fighters were hiding in there so i guess it's okay to bomb the hell out of it. :?
Stavrogin_
It is, per the Rules of Engagement.
So let me get this right... NATO has its own arbitrary law on what's allowed in war and what's not so that justifies the bombing of civilian targets and killing of civilians? Yep... Pretty sad, and a poor excuse. :P
[QUOTE="kuraimen"] And who says what is a legitimate military target? Oh yeah the same people that come up with terms like collateral damage. Euphemisms and hypocrisy everywhere!!! Excuse me if I don't take their word as an universal law. No - perhaps review the Geneva Conventions.
That is the dumbest thing I think I have ever heard, the terriosts knew that when they crashed those planes they we're killing everyone on board and that was their intention. And they knew everyone on board were civilians. Big difference from that and colleteral damage caused from drone strikes.
parkurtommo
And the US knows that when they start bombing a country civilians are going to get killed. How is the US not intentional but the 9/11 perpetrators are then?
Collateral damage, it is not the military's main interest to go around intentionally killing civilians. Terrorists however, are the opposite.
Who says which were the main interests of the 9/11 perpetrators? they themselves said that their interest was to hit the US both morally and economically as a way to end the US presence in their land. Their purpose was not solely to kill civilians.
Like the US has never attacked a civilian target. But i guess Taliban fighters were hiding in there so i guess it's okay to bomb the hell out of it. :?
Stavrogin_
It is, per the Rules of Engagement.
So let me get this right... NATO has its own arbitrary law on what's allowed in war and what's not so that justifies the bombing of civilian targets and killing of civilians? There is a vast difference between collateral damage and targets.
So let me get this right... NATO has its own arbitrary law on what's allowed in war and what's not so that justifies the bombing of civilian targets and killing of civilians?Stavrogin_
Not NATO, the US. And as this thread has already said, there is sometimes collateral damage. We don't hit civilian targets unless they're being used by militants.
[QUOTE="kuraimen"] And the US knows that when they start bombing a country civilians are going to get killed. How is the US not intentional but the 9/11 perpetrators are then?kuraimen
Collateral damage, it is not the military's main interest to go around intentionally killing civilians. Terrorists however, are the opposite.
Who says which were the main interests of the 9/11 perpetrators? they themselves said that their interest was to hit the US both morally and economically as a way to end the US presence in their land. Their purpose was not solely to kill civilians. It was their main purpose to kill civilians, in order to accomplish their objective.
As Stalin once said, "1 death is a tragedy, 1 million is a statistic". Stalin would know, he killed millions of people himself.
Honestly its tragic and I think even a single civilian life lost is a terrible thing, but in a war its unavoidable. Both sides will be responsible for friendly fire and civilian deaths, and that's the cost of a war.
[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] And who says what is a legitimate military target? Oh yeah the same people that come up with terms like collateral damage. Euphemisms and hypocrisy everywhere!!! Excuse me if I don't take their word as an universal law. No - perhaps review the Geneva Conventions. I don't see any mention there of collateral damage or military targets but still those conventions and all international engagement rules were made by developed, industrialized nations. Small underdeveloped nations like Afghanistan or Pakistan had no say there. Whoever makes the rules always wins the game.
And who says what is a legitimate military target? Oh yeah the same people that come up with terms like collateral damage. Euphemisms and hypocrisy everywhere!!! Excuse me if I don't take their word as an universal law.kuraimen
Collateral damage is a pretty widely used term. Also, the Geneva Convention says what a legitimate military target is.
I'm not trying to defend the military, I'm just saying what's true...
parkurtommo
Hello parkur....that is not my quote in your chain....please remove it. What the.. sorry I didn't do that on purpose :|It's okay.....just didn't want others to attribute posts I didn't make to myself. I get enough people that can't handle my opinions as is.:P
Part of war...now if you can get the adversary to play nice...it won't happen.LJS9502_basic
War is not a soccer match, if you're comparing war with sports and then argue that the Taliban's guerrilla warfare is 'unfair' and 'not nice' then one might argue that the other side is not playing fair too. They are using tanks, airplanes, drones and all sorts of advanced weaponry to defeat the enemy, plus they outnumber them. That's like Team USA showing up on a soccer match with 20 players on the pitch who are over equipped and then complain why the Team Taliban are ignoring the offside rule and fouling players all the time.
Come on, we all know better than that. There is no play nice, play fair in war. Each side uses its strong sides to attack the adversary's weak sides.
[QUOTE="kuraimen"]And who says what is a legitimate military target? Oh yeah the same people that come up with terms like collateral damage. Euphemisms and hypocrisy everywhere!!! Excuse me if I don't take their word as an universal law.airshocker
Collateral damage is a pretty widely used term. Also, the Geneva Convention says what a legitimate military target is.
A widely used euphemisms is still an euphemism. Besides that definition of military target is so general that you can pretty much justify attacking anything using it. Including the Pentagon, the Capitol and the WTC.
[QUOTE="kuraimen"] I don't see any mention there of collateral damage or military targets but still those conventions and all international engagement rules were made by developed, industrialized nations. Small underdeveloped nations like Afghanistan or Pakistan had no say there. Whoever makes the rules always wins the game. No, there's no mention of collateral damage there. That was in response to you saying that who determines what a legitimate military target are the same people who made the term "collateral damage". However, they do specify what legitimate military targets are.
Stavrogin_ wrote:LJS9502_basic wrote: Part of war...now if you can get the adversary to play nice...it won't happen. War is not a soccer match, if you're comparing war with sports and then argue that the Taliban's guerrilla warfare is 'unfair' and 'not nice' then one might argue that the other side is not playing fair too. They are using tanks, airplanes, drones and all sorts of advanced weaponry to defeat the enemy, plus they outnumber them. That's like Team USA showing up on a soccer match with 20 players on the pitch who are over equipped and then complain why the Team Taliban are ignoring the offside rule and fouling players all the time.
Come on, we all know better than that. There is no play nice, play fair in war. Each side uses its strong sides to attack the adversary's weak sides.
So it's our fault we have the better technology? I'm not defending the US' actions but come on, that was a bad argument...
Wow, this post is a mess, but i'm sure you can understand it.
[QUOTE="parkurtommo"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Hello parkur....that is not my quote in your chain....please remove it.
LJS9502_basic
What the.. sorry I didn't do that on purpose :|It's okay.....just didn't want others to attribute posts I didn't make to myself. I get enough people that can't handle my opinions as is.:P I just deleted the message, too much of a mess. :P
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Part of war...now if you can get the adversary to play nice...it won't happen.Stavrogin_
War is not a soccer match, if you're comparing war with sports and then argue that the Taliban's guerrilla warfare is 'unfair' and 'not nice' then one might argue that the other side is not playing fair too. They are using tanks, airplanes, drones and all sorts of advanced weaponry to defeat the enemy, plus they outnumber them. That's like Team USA showing up on a soccer match with 20 players on the pitch who are over equipped and then complain why the Team Taliban are ignoring the offside rule and fouling players all the time.
Come on, we all know better than that. There is no play nice, play fair in war. Each side uses its strong sides to attack the adversary's weak sides.
I'm not comparing anything....don't take my posts out of context. Where did I mention sports? It's a fact that when war is waged on owns turf there will be collateral damage. Now without an enemy to fight....war doesn't happen. So unless the enemy stops their aggression....war will continue as will civilian deaths. If you are looking to blame someone....blame those that started the war with aggressive acts toward the US. Otherwise....the cost of war is on their heads. Simple really...*shrugs*
Collateral damage, it is not the military's main interest to go around intentionally killing civilians. Terrorists however, are the opposite.
parkurtommo
Who says which were the main interests of the 9/11 perpetrators? they themselves said that their interest was to hit the US both morally and economically as a way to end the US presence in their land. Their purpose was not solely to kill civilians. It was their main purpose to kill civilians, in order to accomplish their objective.
If their main purpose was to kill civilians they would have attacked a dam or something like that that could have potentially killed millions of people. Their targets were highly symbolic.
[QUOTE="kuraimen"]And who says what is a legitimate military target? Oh yeah the same people that come up with terms like collateral damage. Euphemisms and hypocrisy everywhere!!! Excuse me if I don't take their word as an universal law.kuraimen
Collateral damage is a pretty widely used term. Also, the Geneva Convention says what a legitimate military target is.
A widely used euphemisms is still an euphemism. Besides that definition of military target is so general that you can pretty much justify attacking anything using it. Including the Pentagon, the Capitol and the WTC.I don't see a justification for the WTC.
A widely used euphemisms is still an euphemism. Besides that definition of military target is so general that you can pretty much justify attacking anything using it. Including the Pentagon, the Capitol and the WTC.kuraimen
I don't really care what you call it, to be honest. And I know you didn't even read the page because it isn't vague. It's quite specific on what can and can't be attacked.
I'd like to hear you explain how the WTC is a military target.
If their main purpose was to kill civilians they would have attacked a dam or something like that that could have potentially killed millions of people. Their targets were highly symbolic.
kuraimen
How does the symbolism matter? They ONLY attacked civilians in the WTC. How is that justified?
Collateral damage is a pretty widely used term. Also, the Geneva Convention says what a legitimate military target is.
LJS9502_basic
A widely used euphemisms is still an euphemism. Besides that definition of military target is so general that you can pretty much justify attacking anything using it. Including the Pentagon, the Capitol and the WTC.I don't see a justification for the WTC.
How about destabilize the US economy and moral so they can stop supporting their military? Attacking civilian targets to destroy the moral of a people has been used before in war including by the US.
Log in to comment