Why have so many here resorted to explaining/accepting "collateral damage"

[jsamuel]

I am saddened by the lack of empathy some are showing tonight.

So collateral damage in Iraq is unacceptable, but in Lebanon it is ok? Because killing civilians is a natural consequence if they are located near someone who is part of Hizbollah?

:cry:
I am also disappointed.

[MadMaddie]

1. I was just told I support terrorist.....

I agree with you innocent civilians are dying all over the middle East and the US has it's hands in all of it...

I hope that this cabal ends up in front of the Hague for crimes against humanity....

[BillZBubb]

2. Israeli apologists will excuse anything.

They constantly use the same arguments the Freepers use with regards to Iraq. It is an amazing thing to behold.

[ruggerson]

16. Yeah, that damn Russ Feingold and Barbara Boxer

boy, are they the Satan's spawn or what?

[blonndee]

20. Yeah, that's EXACTLY what he said.

:eyes:

[ruggerson]

21. Well they are Israeli apologists, no?

I mean, let's call a spade a spade.

I realize the fact that Feingold and Boxer both give unstinting support to Israel creates major cognitive dissonance in the frazzled brains of those here who wish to blame Israel for this conflict, so I empathize.

[blonndee]

24. Please, cut the hyperbole. He didn't call them spawn of Satan

and your insults add nothing to the discussion. Nobody's talking about YOUR "frazzled brain." If you have a good argument, no need to resort to insults and hyperbole.

If you want to talk about cognitive dissonance, well, look at the difference in the way DUers who continue to defend Israel no matter what reacted to the Iraq war. Those of us who oppose it are rather consistent in our beliefs, seems to me.

[ruggerson]

27. Read this OP

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1732615

your attempt to conflate the two conflicts is dead wrong.

[blonndee]

30. I'm not conflating the conflicts. I'm comparing the level

of warmongering and (lack of) compassion among DUers.

[ruggerson]

32. But "warmongering" is this one size fits all phrase

that gets tossed around with impunity. If someone breaks into your house and tries to kill your husband and you kill them before they can accomplish it, are you a "warmongerer?"

[blonndee]

34. Not if you don't take out the whole city block while doing it. nt

[ruggerson]

35. That's what happens when countries retaliate for years of violence

it's regrettable and terrible, but this is nothing new, the history of mankind is replete with such instances. The root problem is not Israel, but those who hate her and who will do anything to destroy her. If they accepted Israel's existence, and stopped killing and terrorizing her citizens, most of this violence would cease over the long haul. But, you see, they want Israel destroyed, hence the terrorism and hence the retaliation for the terrorism.

[blonndee]

36. I've heard this so many times, I know it well. I know all the

supposed justifications.

Israel had a right to act, but not in this fashion. That's my stance and the stance of most of whom who probably call "anti-Israel" people.

My issue was with the insults and hyperbole. I don't see why it has to get ramped up to such an ugly degree all the time. Heated debate and argument are one thing, but personal attacks are another. I'm not trying to call you out or anything, and maybe I shouldn't have said anything. But when all this is over, and hopefully it will be very soon, we need to work together, and treating each other like shit is going to make it difficult to mend those burned bridges. Do you see where I'm coming from? I hate the way I sound in this post. I don't mean to come off preachy. I just want us to get along as well as we can. That's all.

[ruggerson]

38. Well I'm all for that

I get a bit teed off when I see the "Israel is the monster" type of black and white thinking, which unfortunately seems to be too prevalent here as of late. I agree with you that there is a gray area as to how one conducts oneself in war, but I think the underlying action was justified and understandable, considering the provocation. I also agree with you wholeheartedly that we should not let this issue irreparably divide us.

[atreides1]

3. Maybe the Freepers

Are right and there are those here at DU that really do hate the American military and would like to see them fail, but with Israel it's acceptable.

[blonndee]

4. I don't know why.

I can't imagine the mind and heart of any person who would even think of attempting such a thing.

[PSPS]

5. DU isn't immune from interlocutors

While I can't address anything specific, as I'm not sure to whom you are referring, I'm thinking you're talking about some responses to posts you've made on DU.

I've been a member here for over five years, since DU's inception. (Don't let the low post number fool you.) I've seen waves of passion come and go here on a regular basis.

As the mid-terms get closer, expect to see a lot of rather bizarre postings from high-posting members. All the message boards, including DU, are being "worked" just like the liberal talk-show circuit.

Long-time members are familiar with this phenomenon where a group of people (or a single individual with multiple ID's) will get "cred" on here with a lot of innocuous postings to bump the post number, and then, "before your eyes," either turn into something you wouldn't want to bring home to mother, or otherwise try to game a thread with RW talking points.

I've seen it in spades here lately, and not just on the Lebanon debacle. There are certain subjects that always bring them out. It's usually easy to spot.

I'm not saying this applies to your specific situation, but then again, it might.

[Codeine]

15. Or it could be

that some people just have opinions different from your own, and express them without being Soopa-Seekrit Freepers or "PAID SHILLS!!!" or anything like that.

[AliceWonderland]

6. I think some of it is soulless freeper trolling scum

And some of it is just soulless hate. That is, some humans are more human than others.

Take your pick.

Me, I just hate war.

[The Magistrate]

7. It Is Acceptable In Both Instances, Sir

Within certain degrees, which were not, in my view, exceeded in the bombing campaigns either in Afghanistan or Iraq, and have not yet been exceeded by the Israelis in Lebanon.

My opposition to the invasion and occupation of Iraq is based on the belief it is an extraordinarily poor course of action for the United States, and one that was wholly voluntary to boot.

The actions of Hezbollah over the past years, capped by the recent attack on a border patrol, have placed the Israeli government in a situation where it has, really, no good options. It has chosen the more strenuous of the poor options available to it. It would not today be engaged in any action in Lebanoin but for the provocations of Hezbollah.

[chimpymustgo]

8. Slaughter of innocents...a poor option indeed. Inexcusable.

Israel is behaving unforgivably. It's shameful. Soulless.

[leesa]

9. That is beyond disgusting. So what is your limit? 1 million? 2 million?

Or is it only Muslims that are allowed to go that high while ANY Israeli life or American life is precious. I am just appalled by your comments.

[The Magistrate]

11. Who Is Killed, Ma'am, Is a Matter Of Indifference To Me

However, the government of a state will always take the steps it feels necessary to its own political fortunes to retaliate against and prevent attacks that kill its own soldiers and citizens. Complaining of this is like complaining water runs downhill: it is going to happen.

[blonndee]

12. Still, God help us when we STOP complaining about it. nt

[The Magistrate]

17. My Energies Being Limited, Ma'am

My practice is to direct them towards objects that might actually be achieved.

[Truthiness Inspector]

19. Good point

Every nation on the planet seeks to serve its own interests - it is the very essence of survival. That issue becomes sketchier, of course, when it is armed militias within a nation seeking to destroy that very nation and others.

[blonndee]

22. That doesn't mean it's MORAL. Don't mistake

"self-interest" which can be motivated by any number of things with the right thing to do.

I personally believe nations could better serve their own interests by working with other nations toward theirs as well, within reason. But what do I know. I don't think like one who wages war, I guess.

[Truthiness Inspector]

23. It's life

All nations serve their own interests. This isn't a question of morality, rather reality. If nations can in fact work together for mutal benefit, they do, always have it seems.

[blonndee]

25. I agree with you there. It's reality. Doesn't make it right. nt

[Pavulon]

13. 30 Million in ww2, easy

10 million germans(white christian people)..(Just war makes it ok right?)

War can not be conducted without killing those who do not "deserve" to die.

As such it should be avoided.

However hamasbulla has no problem firing into israeli cities with unguided weapons...

The fact that the total dead is less than a weeks worth of traffic deaths here puts it into perspective.

Still no loss of life would be a better solution.

[blonndee]

10. If Israel has the intelligence and special forces

that I've always heard it does, would it not be the more right thing to do, more effective, and better for Israel in the long run to pursue a much different course of action? Something more tactical and covert, maybe?

[The Magistrate]

14. That Might Well Have Been A Better Course, Ma'am

To hold the view that something is not a great crime to be rank with the grossest horrors of history does not require the view that is the best course available, and not at bottom an exercise in frustrated rage.

[blonndee]

18. I'm trying to figure out where the comparison

"with the grossest horrors of history" occured, but I guess I'm missing something here. Must have been a post I havne't read. But I still don't understand why you think it's "acceptable" in both Iraq AND Lebanon. If there's a course of action that avoids as much death as possible, isn't that the only acceptable course? And if Iraq is a war of choice and not necessity--which it clearly is--how can you say the "collateral damage" is acceptable?

[The Magistrate]

26. To Me, Ma'am

The question is confined purely to the issue of whether the military action itself is within bounds, and independent of whether or not it is an element of a wise or even a legal policy.

The Israeli government today is within the bounds of proper action for a state if it takes for its objective the destruction, or the substantial neutralization of Hezbollah. It is not required to limit its actions to simply recovering it captive soldiers. What might have achieved the latter would certainly be insufficient to achieve the former. Even if there is reason to believe the attempt to destroy or substantially neutralize Hezbollah is not likely to succeed, it is still within bounds to try: like people, states have every right to make misjudgements and mistakes, and very often avail themselves of it.

[blonndee]

29. I hope that I'm not becoming tiresome with my questions

and dullness. Sometimes I have a hard time following you, and perhaps I got off track a little, as often occurs. I wasn't really so much concerned with whether or not states have a right to pursue military action with a certain objective (although that's an interesting question in itself) but rather with your position about acceptable "collateral damage," because there are certain actions even within a "legal" war that are illegal but which are DESCRIBED as "collateral damage" by the offending party.

Your original post said that "collateral damage" is acceptable to certain degrees which you said you do not feel were "exceeded in the bombing campaigns either in Afghanistan or Iraq, and have not yet been exceeded by the Israelis in Lebanon."

That's where I keep getting stuck. But now that I'm writing this all out, it seems like maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "collateral damage." Do you consider what happened in Fallujah to be "collateral damage," for example? What about Haditha? Or the rape and murder of the 15-year old girl and her family that's come out recently? What about the actions in Lebanon that have been described by the UN as violations of international law?

Or do you define "collateral damage" more along the lines of legitimately unintentional casualties that could not reasonably be prevented?

[The Magistrate]

40. Not At All, Ma'am

The question of what is legal in a war is very difficult to answer. It is not as clear-cut as many seem to believe. The powers of the world did not send their representatives to Geneva half a century ago and inadvertantly outlaw the normal practices of warfare; all they thought to do was codify some mitigation of them, and to clearly criminalize the grotesque excesses against populations and prisoners that had marked the conduct of the Axis powers in the then recent World War. Most of the harm to non-combatants that comes to be called "collateral damage" occurs when combatants are engaged while arrayed among or near non-combatants, or when some facility that has both military and civil utility is attacked in the course of attempting harm to the former putpose. In such instances, there is no absolute ban on doing harm to non-combatants, even when it is certain to occur. The regulations include phrases that require efforts to minimize the harm to non-combatants, and that the military gain be balanced against the harm done to non-combatants. It is not clear what these phrases mean, because tribunals have not actually ruled on cases brought on charges based onthese provisions. In civil law, there is a tremendous body of past rulings that pretty clearly establishes what meant by phrases like "due diligence" or "reasonable precaution", but there is no such body of rulings on the question of what these phrases in the laws of war mean applied to actual instances of blowing up a bulding or demolishing a bridge. The tribunals that have sat have generally considered charges involving much clearer matters, such as the killing of persons in custody and the gross maltreatment short of death of prisoners. There are certainly respecable authoprities, includijng some persons involved with previous tribunals, who do view, for example, some elements of the current Israeli actions in Lebanon as violations, and there are some who disagree. People expressing either opinion are doing so without benefit of the sort of evidence that would be presented at a trial of the legal question, by both prosecution and defense, for that is not available at this time to anyone except the participants.

If what it is alleged U.S. Marines did at Haditha is what in fact occured, then that would definitely be a crime of war, and a crime also under the military law of the United States: the question of "collateral "would not enter into it at all. The case would be similar with the incident of rape and mass murder charged recently.

[bigtree]

37. at what point does their 'defense' become an affront?

when do Lebanese get to assert their right to defense? It would seem that it is the overwhelming force of Israel's military that's dictating the impunity in which they prosecute this action.

I'll wager that any protest Lebanon might have against Israel's actions will be negated, not on the basis of the facts, but on the basis of Lebanon's inability to rally any significant force to oppose Israel. Israel's impunity regularly includes ignoring sanctions from the UN which would be the only significant body to render any significant judgement. If this heavy-handed prosecution of Hizbollah continues to impact average Lebanese, without defense, there should be no surprise when it becomes apparent that Hizbollah is more popular than ever as they will be seen (I think tragically) as the only force willing to oppose Israel and others who so wantonly destroy their lives and livelihoods..

[The Magistrate]

41. As A Political Matter, Sir

It is already reaching that point. It is already questionable whether what military gains the Israeli government's actions might bring it are not outweighed by the hatred and anger they have engendered in Lebanon and around the world, and it is a certainty that if they are not already so outweighed, they very soon will be if the matter is pressed in the present style for very much longer. Military persons like to pretend they operate independent of political concerns, and complain bitterly when forced to accommodate them in considering their actions, claiming that they should be able to make military decisions on purely military terms, but that is nonesense. The political effects of a military action are one of the major factors by which its success or failure must be judged, and intelligent anticipation of them, and designs to successfully shape them to the benefit of the government a military serves, must form a major part of competent military planning in the present day.

[bigtree]

42. Sir,

you do understand.

Thank you for your insight.

[Truthiness Inspector]

28. I don't understand your post

It seems you are advocating that Israeli troops should invade Lebanon (just covertly) to target Hezbollah. Israel pulled out of Lebanon, but if they went back in covertly to "eliminate" Hezbollah targets, I can't imagine that would receive high praise either. I know you and I disagree, but Israel is really and truly stuck in a damned if you do it this way, that way, the other way situation, from my point of view. I enjoy your input, though. None of us know the solution, and if we ever did come up with it, that would truly be a thing of beauty. Hopefully someone will solve this puzzle, the world needs it.

[blonndee]

33. I'm getting tired and going to bed soon (I hope)

but I'm envisioning more of a SWAT-type thing, but of course on a larger scale, with highly trained forces, like Special Ops. Obviously I have no military experience and maybe I'm just pie-in-the-skying it here, but SOMEthing like that, or even more precise targeting seems possible. I just think that the course that avoids the most death is the best one, if it will work. I agree that Israel needed to do something, but I don't think the threat was nearly as severe as some would like to believe, just based on what I've read. I don't think such a large-scale operation was warranted, and I'm afraid that this will prove to be a bad decision for Israel. But nobody asked me, unfortunately. If they had, I would have suggested everyone join hands and take turns telling the next person one good quality about them. :)

[Lindacooks]

44. self delete

[Clarkie1]

31. No lack of empathy here.

I am sickened and heartbroken when I see innocent people suffering anywhere, for any reason.

I think sometimes that empathy might not come across one one is arguing a point of policy. I think that's a flaw of the internet...sometimes typed responses to show entirely how a person feels. I think I read somewhere that 90% of communication is non-verbal.

Is not that collateral damage is acceptable in Iraq...Iraq was an unnecessary war to begin with. And collateral damage is never "o.k.", but unfortunately it's often an unavoidable consequence of war.

The most important point is just because someone is not railing against all things Israeli does not mean they do not have empathy for the Lebanese people. Some people don't get that here.

[blonndee]

39. That is a much more empathetic post from you, Clarkie.

I hope to see more of that side of you! :)

[CuteNFuzzy]

43. I second that

Clarkie's obviously a good guy