There IS NO Such Thing As "Collateral Damage"...

[DistressedAmerican]

Just people that someone else decided to kill to further their own political, economic or religious goals.

That is all.

[patrice]

1. Jesus is still here and "we" are still killing him.

That's not a metaphor, nor a symbol. It's not figurative speech.

It is a literal truth.

[Igel]

2. Sure there is.

You shoot somebody shooting at you, you miss, and shoot out the windows of the car he's standing next to.

It's damage to the side of your target. You aimed at a guy trying to kill you, you damaged a window or two.

All the rest is euphemism and extending the phrase's meaning.

[lonestarnot]

36. When a person murders the wrong person, he/she is still charged

with homicide when apprehended. Collateral damage in this war is just more murder as it was preempted based on a fucking lie.

[everythingsxen]

3. So we should have never fought WWII? (NT)

[DistressedAmerican]

4. Huh?

Where'd you make that gigantic logical leap? I said nothing of the sort.

I hate when people start putting words in your mouth where none exist. Stupid.

[everythingsxen]

5. To quote you...

DistressedAmerican (1000+ posts) Tue Jul-25-06 04:23 PM
Original message
There IS NO Such Thing As "Collateral Damage"...
Just people that someone else decided to kill to further their own political, economic or religious goals.

That is all.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

You seem to be clearly advocating for the point of view that there is no accidental deaths in war, that even accidental or unintentional deaths are just as bad as the intended deaths.

During WWII we killed thousands and tens of thousands. A lot of those were "collateral damage"; we broke the backs of Germany and Japan by bombing their civilian infrastructure into the ground.

So... ipso facto presto chango... every soldier in WWII was a murderer from your perspective and therefore, I would assume, you would feel that we should have never fought WWII.

[DistressedAmerican]

9. WOW! You Read All Of That Into One Little Line Huh?

Stop projecting your issues. I said nothing of the sort and I implied nothing of the sort. Never weighed in in any way on the acceptability or non-accpetablility of those deaths given the goals. My only issue is with the BS sanitized terminology.

The rest is ALL you. Is this your inability to see past your own biases or some lame assed attempt to smear me for debate's sake?

You should not assume. It makes you an ass (to paraphrase).

[everythingsxen]

11. Then please tell me what you meant...

When you said there is NO collateral damage. What you were saying seems pretty clear to me.

[DistressedAmerican]

14. I Have Twice.

You can't seem to read my words though. Just what you want them to mean so you can attack me.

All I said was I object to the term as is is BS sanitization of the deaths in question. I DID NOT weigh in on the acceptability of any given set of deaths given the context and the goals in question.

Why am I forced to spoon feed this a third time?

If you do not get it yet, please take your desire to argue elsewhere as you are arguing against points I never made or intended.

Like I said, I hate it when people put word into my mouth. My words are clear enough for all that chose not to read their own issues into every line.

[everythingsxen]

17. You said nothing of the sort, twice.

You made a comment and made no definition one way or the other about what you were trying to say. If you had wanted to say what you say you were trying to say you should have said "I hate the phrase collateral damage"; what you said is there is NO collateral damage. That is a big difference. I am sorry you are unaware of that.

[DistressedAmerican]

20. My Words Are Clear Enough To Everyone Else On this Thread.

Not sure why you can't seem to follow them.

Unless you are just trying to pich a fight where none exists?

Or is this the new coded way of saying I would have prefered we not stop the genocide (i.e. I'm abviously an anti-semite) to smear me?

Answer of don't. I've wasted way too much time on your smears or confusion already.

[everythingsxen]

22. This poster seems confused as well...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1730214&mesg_id=1730548

And I said nothing about you, I simply pointed out that you intentionally posted a confusing title and post, which in the context of "inside your head" may be perfectly rational, but in the real world, out of context, makes little sense at all and definitely does not infer your supposed point that you dislike the newspeak qualities of the term 'collateral damage'.

You are the one who is becoming increasingly upset and irrational with each post, I hope I have not caused this; as I said, your OP was not as crystal clear as you seem to think it was.

[DistressedAmerican]

28. No That Person Asked For Additional Discussion Beyond What I Posted.

You just asserted some BS WAS the answer to those quite appropriate questions without even asking them. See the difference?

You asseeted that I meant a bunch of stuff I neither meant nor implied. The other poster asked for more info on my position and additional discussion. One is constructive. The other is just your issues showing.

[everythingsxen]

30. I see, so I have been cordial and you have..

done nothing but insult and badger me. Which one of us is trying to pick a fight?

[DistressedAmerican]

32. Guess you still don't see the difference.

Have a nice night.

[6000eliot]

43. Of course they were murderers.

You think they didn't go to war to further religious, political, or economic goals? I would rather call the people who sent them to fight murderers, though.

[patrice]

8. The idea is to mis-characterize those with whom you disagree, and

thusly "proove" them "wrong".

The mis-characterizations usually start out as false dichotomies.

[patrice]

6. This is not WWII. n/t

[Bluerthanblue]

7. thats right- we shouldn't have- the

minute Hitler began killing people he should have been terminated.

period-
done.

This answer makes as much sense as your question, and has as much validity.

[patrice]

10. How would that have given our economy new power? n/t

[Bluerthanblue]

13. it wouldn't have, but we were begining to climb out of the

hole by that time anyway-
Actually it might have been much better not to have had the artificial 'boom times' after the war, which led to the gluttony and the 'bigger is better' mentality, and then to the 'we are so powerful, we can rule the world' mentality which led to vietnam, and then to Iran contra, and now to where we are today---- screwed.

War is a very poor investment in the future. The intrest rate is way too steep, and it is not a safe way to build an economy that will last-

[patrice]

24. "gluttony"? "bigger is better"??

Do you profane *The* *Great* *Generation*? I'm shocked. How dare you?

:sarcasm:

[Mr_Spock]

23. Doh, good for nothing one-line post award

that is not an argument

[everythingsxen]

26. I was apparently confused by the OP...

as I read it all cases of collateral damage were being condemned; later in the sub-thread the OP reveals that they were pointing out the hypocrisy and newspeak qualities of the term. I unfortunately do not eat the same breakfast cereal, so I didn't get the secret decoder ring to infer that.

*IF* it were the case though that all instances of collateral damage were being condemned, I would stand by my post and yes Mr_Spock it is a valid argument. I would think someone with your name would appreciate logic.

[Mr_Spock]

27. I do

appreciate logic. There have been many instances of justifiable collateral damage (my opinion for what it's worth).

[DistressedAmerican]

29. Funny How You Were More Than Happy To Infer A Whole Lot Of Other Stuff.

Guess that makes me the issue.

"as I read it all cases of collateral damage were being condemned"?

Allow me to correct:
"as I read into it all cases of collateral damage were being condemned"

[everythingsxen]

33. Again you continue to attack me...

because you wrote a misleading post; I do not feel I read anything into it, I simply read it as I saw it.

Somehow you expected me to "read into" it's meaning as being about the use of language as a tool of propaganda; instead I saw it as a generalized attack on the concept of collateral damage and acceptable losses.

You should re-read your OP. It's the one at the top of this thread.

[DistressedAmerican]

34. You Have Yet to Show Me What Was Misleading About The Post.

It is not misleading.

You jumped to the conclusion that it meant a bunch of stuff it did not. Plain and simple. When I asked you where I implied that you just reposted the whole OP ans asseted that it did imply that and that I was "intentionally misleading". Sorry. I did not intentioanlly mislead anyone. YOU read into what I had written.

Was it less explicit in its implications that you would have liked? Maybe. Was it "intentionally misleading"? Of course not. What would I have to gain by "intentionally misleading" anyone here? Your repeated assertion is the attack I reject. Along with your incorrect assertion about my motives well beyond the content of my post. I guess you missed the last line, "that is all"?

It is you who are insulting. I intentionally misled no one. You just projected your assertions onto me then accused me of misleading you. Big difference.

[everythingsxen]

35. Your original post...

There IS NO Such Thing As "Collateral Damage"...

Just people that someone else decided to kill to further their own political, economic or religious goals.

That is all.

(I have added bold and underline to the thread title, as that is how it "stands out" from the rest of the text. The bold on the first line of the main body was how it appeared in the OP.)

You have "NO" capitalized, to indicate importance, in this case the importance regards the subject "Collateral Damage". When you say "There is no such thing as "Collateral Damage"", that can mean two things: it can mean that the phrase "collateral damage" is a euphemism and thus it does not exist as a real world thing; apparently this was what you intended. However it can also mean: Collateral damage does not exist at all, all deaths from war are intentional. This is what is supported by the body of your post: "Just people that someone else decided to kill to further their own political, economic or religious goals"; saying that "someone" just "decided" to kill people is what murder is, thus I think I have pretty clearly shown that your post is confusing at best.

While I do not have a Master's degree in English, I am sure there are at least one or two here on DU who would no doubt back my claim up, that I am not "reading" anything out of your post that isn't there already.

As far as my more recent claim that you posted an intentionally misleading thread, I suppose that is somewhat unfair; I cannot prove that you were intentionally trying to be misleading, you could have simply been ignorant that their was more than one interpretation of your post. I also admit that I was becoming a little "hot under the collar" from your constant attacks on me and it seemed as though you were looking to pick a fight.

[damntexdem]

12. Collateral murder.

But is there such a thing as "friendly fire"? How often is that just another term for criminal negligence?

[malaise]

15. It is that simple. n/t

[genie_weenie]

25. If it really is that simple could you

answer these questions for me?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1730214&mesg_id=1730548

[genie_weenie]

16. so, is there a limit or threshold? who is guilty?

Are all killers equal? And who is ultimately responsible? The Trigger Puller? The Tank Designer? The Assemblyman who welds the rocket motor? The politician who votes his district the military contract? The Man who fools his nation into war?

Are they all equal? Is only the guy who actually kills the other person responsible?

Is each death equal? Is the man who kills a hundred with a GBU the same as the man who kills 12 with a grenade or the one who kills 2 with a 1000 yard sniper shot?

Is the Speaker who rouses his underlings into driving the car bomb guilty or not? What about the Man who uses (oh I don't know the floor of the Senate) to drive his nation into war guilty or not?

[DistressedAmerican]

18. If The Motives Are Immoral, They All Bear Some Guilt.

I'd put the most on the trigger puller who should have refused and the immoral order and the politician who gives such orders.

If the cause is just, no blame is had.

[genie_weenie]

21. Hmmm... Perhaps I misread your original post.

To me it also meant that all "accidental" deaths in war made the person responsible a murderer?

Did I misunderstand? Because then what happens when a people are duped into supporting a war? Or when propaganda is used to claim all the worst evils are being committed by Group X?

And as far as refusing the unlawful order, it is very hard (as is evidenced by the few who have been brave enough to resist Iraq) to have the Absolute Courage required to perhaps throw away your future...

[DistressedAmerican]

31. Could You Point Out Just Where I Implied This?

"To me it also meant that all "accidental" deaths in war made the person responsible a murderer?"

I do not see that in my post anywhere.

[genie_weenie]

38. Allright I've attempted to clarify my position.

This is your original post:

Title: There is NO such thing as "Collateral Damage"

Body: Just people that someone else decided to kill to further their own political, economic or religious goals.

That is all.

The problem is I have only 28 words for me to interpret. This is not a flame war. I asked several pointed questions in my original post about guilt and innocence. You replied:

If The Motives Are Immoral, They All Bear Some Guilt.
I'd put the most on the trigger puller who should have refused and the immoral order and the politician who gives such orders.

If the cause is just, no blame is had.

So, here is my problem. From my original post I asked who the ultimate guilt lies with. You seem to be stating both the architect of war and the user of a weapon which kills. But then you also throw in that “immoral motives” clause. Now that is a dangerous thing to throw into your idea that there is NO Collateral Damage because if I truly believe (even erroneously) that my cause is right, just and moral am I freed from guilt?

Look I’m not trying to one-up you or win some DU flame point contest. I am interested in your opinion.

For example, let’s say a DUer with whom you are having a friendly exchange of knowledge with was once in Iraq and Afghanistan and was responsible for making target packages and threat assessments for raids on suspected insurgents hideouts and weapons caches. Now, he is not an operator so he doesn’t go on all or many of the raids and on these raids people get killed. Does said individual bear guilt and is he a murderer?

Also, let’s say an individual (scarred, tired, angry) on his 3rd deployment is spooked and let’s loose with a string of 7.62mm fire. The rounds hit a house and kill an innocent person. Is that individual as guilty of murder as the Marines who went into the house in Hadithah?

So, who are the ”someone else” from your original post who are murderers trying to advance their ideological goals, that makes Collateral Damage an incorrect term? Is it everyone involved in the War? Is it everyone underneath the governmental control of the nation at war? Is every American responsible for every Iraqi death?

[DistressedAmerican]

40. I Have Not Used The Term Murderer At All.

Never even implied immorality in the action. I just said that someone made the conscious decision to kill the person that is "collateral damage", that it was acceptable to advance their political, economic or relogious goals. That is it.

I never meant to imply that you were flaming. Not how I took your questions at all. I thought they were totally appropriate requests for clarification of the further impications of my OP. Sorry if I implid otherwise.

I am interested in the phenomena at DU that happens when you write short posts. Some folks assert that they mean this or that way beyond what is actually stated. I understand the confusion and IMO, your approach is the best way to address it. That is why I asked where I implied what you said I did.

I do not think that I should have to write a post that goes like this to keep people from asserting a bunch of meanings that neither crossed my mind nor were my intention:

"There is NO Such thing as "Collateral Damage"

Just people that someone else decided to kill to further their own political, economic or religious goals. Each time a weapon is used, the decision is made to "accept" the death of whoever they kill.

Of course some political, economic and religious goals are completely justified and those people that die in the persuit of those goals are simply the tragic victims of the overall bad that is being fought. In other cases, however, the goals such. They are totally immoral. Death for money, Death for political domination, etc. in thost cases, the people involved in the use of the weapons are themselves immoral and gulity of what ever crime term you chose to ascrtibe to it "murder", "terrorism", etc.

I will now firther elaborate on my feelings about who bears just how much guilt each participant in the chain bears for deaths caused in the persuit of immoral goals........etc, etc.

That is all."


Especially when I was merely pointing out that the term was bullshit spin used to sanitize the deaths of poeple killed in the persuit of political, economic and religious goals. Nothing more.

I appreciate that you are interested in my opinion of the wider issues. Thanks for asking without assuming that you already knew the answers based on a short OP.

[genie_weenie]

42. Thanks for the congenial reply.

I understand the difficulties in posting ideas, theories and viewpoints on a semi-impersonal board. People often read into statments that which they want to read.

Collateral Damage is spin, but then all warfare is spin. Spin, deception, psyops, disinformation, whatever you wish to call it is what is needed in order to start wars, I think Dr. Zinn covers this very well in his speech on violence as inherent in Human Nature.

Anyway I was simply interested in your further thoughts regarding who bears guilt and blame in conjunction to your original post on no collateral damage.

[The Magistrate]

39. The Claim, Sir, That If The Cause Is Just There Is No Blame

Is one you might want to think through all possible implications of before deciding to maintain it. Just about everyone who goes to war thinks the cause of their own side is just, after all. It is very difficult to get people to agree on what is just, especially when they regard each other in a hostile light. Both the Israeli pilot and the Hezbollah rocketeer, after all, are each quite convinced their cause is just.

[DistressedAmerican]

41. There Is A Difference Between A Cause That IS Just And One

that the participant only thinks is just. Thinking it is just while it is actually unjust it not a mitigating factor to me.

[sweetheart]

19. They're helping with the overpopulation problem

They are pragmatists after all.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

37. Tell it to the judge.

If you go into a liquor store to rob it, shoot at the clerk but hit a bystander, guess what?

If you go to war and shoot at whoever the bosses designates "the enemy" and murder some nearby civilians, guess what?

[6000eliot]

44. I agree with you 100%

And I don't hate Jews, Muslims, or anyone else.