At what number did it stop being collatoral damage?

[Swede]

One hundred thousand? Two hundred? 500K?

[Horse with no Name]

1. 1.

It stopped being collateral damage after ONE.
We never belonged there.

[Democrats_win]

3. Yep. Proof? We'd all say one if that one was friend or family.

[panader0]

2. It's over 600,000 now

but #1 is right. One death is too many. Some day people will realize that we're all in this world together. Imagine.

[patrice]

7. We are One. The thing that kills that one victim also destroys

everyone else. That's a real Pro-Life foundation.

Just because the folks in Cupcake Land can't feel this destruction in their lives doesn't mean that it isn't happening.

People who say it is better that "it is happening over there and not here" are morally corrupt and maladaptive in so many ways when it comes to the survival of our species.

[magellan]

4. "Collateral damage" is how the government refers to

..."the acceptable deaths of innocent civilians".

There is no such thing.

Because BushCo have completely dehumanized and depersonalized their actions with phrases like "collateral damage", the rationalization now turns to looking for acceptable levels of the same.

Again, there is no such thing.

Civilians always die during conflicts, that's reality. But when governments start labeling those deaths "acceptable" and try to justify limits, any moral and ethical foundation for that military action is lost.

[Rex]

5. 5,000 or 500,000 doesn't matter to the BFEE or the MIC.

They invented the term, so that killing innocent people wouldn't sound so much like murder. It is all murder to the people on the receiving end in any war. Legal standpoints from different countries like to call it killing and leave off the innocent part. More reason to make war illegal and have harsh repercussions for any country that starts one.

[patrice]

6. If you're "pro-Life", one. n/t