NationStates Jolt Archive

This is something that a great many people fail to get in discussions regarding Iraq and the Arab Isralie conflict. There is a world of difference between blowing yourself up in a crowded shopping centre and shelling a terrorist base located in a villiage. In both cases civillians will/may die. But there is a significent difference. The first instance involves intentional mass civilian casulaties (which is the staple tatic of terrorism). The intenton being to make people afraid (hence the TERRORist) and thus to encourage them to cave into supporting the political demands of said group. Here the civilian casulties are viewed as victories towards furthering a cause. Then there is the other tatic, which causes collataral civilian casulaties (the unfortunete outcome of some conventional armed forces response to terrorist activities). These casulties occur because by their nature, terrorists are not part of a registered millitary force. Hence they do not wear uniform and they do not have any recognisable markings. They blur the line between civilian and soldier and as a result, through the use of convetional armed forces anti-terrorist tatics, civilians die. However if you cannot see the massive moral diffence between these two, you are severly blind. Armed forces do not intend to kill civilians. They intend to kill only those involved in the conflict. Where as the terrorists will kill anyone if it gets them more power and encourages more capitulation to their will. Civilians or otherwise. It is this sort of behaviour that is unaceeptable. Yes collataral damage is a terrible thing, but to mistake it for the same thing as terrorism is a grave blindness. This is why people who continaully criticise Isralie and American armed forces in the occupied territories and Iraq respectively, and calling them moral equivelent to terrorists are severely flawed.

Are people still talking about terrorists?
God damn, the media needs a new scoop.

Are people still talking about terrorists?
God damn, the media needs a new scoop.

People are still talking about Iraq and Arab/Isralie issues, and have been for some considerable time now.

I think you're fighting a strawman here.

Only very few of those critical of Israel or the US actually call them terrorists, or even moral equivalents of terrorists. Those that do call them that can be ignored, no problem.

The issue is really:
a) How much of a moral high ground can you claim when you bring such suffering, regardless of what purpose you're doing it for?
b) There is a fine line at times between accidental collateral damage, and calculated collateral damage. People in the military are people too, and as such can be hateful or aggressive (Haditha?). And then there is the even more cynical view that perhaps there is an intention there of causing fear or punishing civilians which supposedly belong to the same sort of faction as the real enemy.

Just before I go on to answer A, the reason I'm not answering B right now is it requires much more indepth analysis and discussion which I dont really have time for now.


The issue is really:
a) How much of a moral high ground can you claim when you bring such suffering, regardless of what purpose you're doing it for?

I think that its a question of balancing suffering with freedom and potential suffering, which is a matter of judgement. You see if the Americans left Iraq and ultimately let the terrorists have there way, Iraq would be either a shira state or one torn apart by far more terrorist attacks than we are witnessing now. With the Americans there, they can at least restrain the viloence to some extent, and one might say, redirect it onto themselves as opposed to the Iraqie civilian population (although I'm sure they dont stay there with this consiously in mind. I cannot think of an armed force that has ever been alturistic enough to think and enact such a policy). Its a question of judging whether it would be worse without them, and I think it would be. Far worse. But like I say, it is an issue of judgement

What's the real difference. Anything that involves a loss of life is just plain fucked up. Collateral damage is just trying to make a lame justification at that fact that innocents died. Shelling a terrorist village as you said is just as pathetic as a terrorist blowing up a car in a market. Both are disgusting.

Its a question of judging whether it would be worse without them, and I think it would be. Far worse. But like I say, it is an issue of judgement
But then you're also sort of assuming that for some reason it wasn't the US invasion which made all this so bad. Saddam may have been an arsehole, but most Iraqis never had to do with him. He wasn't really more violent and brutal than any other run-of-the-mill dictator.

At least under him (and this is a sentiment I've heard from most Iraqis I have spoken to or heard of) there was a certain level of stability. People could plan for their future and live their lifes, provided they didn't go too political. Now in some areas they can't even leave their house without fearing for their lives AND their country is under occupation, which is a problem for a proud people like the Iraqis, just like it would be in the US or the UK.

What's the real difference. Anything that involves a loss of life is just plain fucked up. Collateral damage is just trying to make a lame justification at that fact that innocents died. Shelling a terrorist village as you said is just as pathetic as a terrorist blowing up a car in a market. Both are disgusting.

Both are indeed terrible, but one is very diffrent from the other. One is trying to destroy maximum life. Any life. The other is trying to route out specifc targets. Those who would destroy life in the fashion stated above. It is very diffrent. I agree with you though that the shelling example was poor.

It does equal terrorism because there is still the inflicting of fear/terror and pain/death. Its terrorism whether it comes from tanks and fighter jets or a man using a small explosive on himself and others. Although in the former its using "force" in the latter its "terrorism" when in reality the only difference is the word. Intention of an attack has nothing to do with it, the result of such an attack does.

Collateral damage inflicted with the notion that it "mainly harms the people who were hiding the enemies" is, by your standard, morally equivalent to terrorism.

This is because it is done as a deterrant, just like a suicide bombing at a shopping mall.

If the idea is that being collateral damage will "teach them not to shelter enemies" then it is explicit that "The intenton [is] to make people afraid (hence the TERRORist) and thus to encourage them to cave into supporting the political demands of said group."

This is something that a great many people fail to get in discussions regarding Iraq and the Arab Isralie conflict. There is a world of difference between blowing yourself up in a crowded shopping centre and shelling a terrorist base located in a villiage. In both cases civillians will/may die. But there is a significent difference. The first instance involves intentional mass civilian casulaties (which is the staple tatic of terrorism). The intenton being to make people afraid (hence the TERRORist) and thus to encourage them to cave into supporting the political demands of said group. Here the civilian casulties are viewed as victories towards furthering a cause. Then there is the other tatic, which causes collataral civilian casulaties (the unfortunete outcome of some conventional armed forces response to terrorist activities). These casulties occur because by their nature, terrorists are not part of a registered millitary force. Hence they do not wear uniform and they do not have any recognisable markings. They blur the line between civilian and soldier and as a result, through the use of convetional armed forces anti-terrorist tatics, civilians die. However if you cannot see the massive moral diffence between these two, you are severly blind. Armed forces do not intend to kill civilians. They intend to kill only those involved in the conflict. Where as the terrorists will kill anyone if it gets them more power and encourages more capitulation to their will. Civilians or otherwise. It is this sort of behaviour that is unaceeptable. Yes collataral damage is a terrible thing, but to mistake it for the same thing as terrorism is a grave blindness. This is why people who continaully criticise Isralie and American armed forces in the occupied territories and Iraq respectively, and calling them moral equivelent to terrorists are severely flawed.

True, true.

True, true.
See what you did Adriatica? You got this guy to agree with you. You should be ashamed.
:p

The willingness to kill innocent people, "deliberately" or not, in order to pursue aims that are reprehensible is indeed morally equivalent to terrorism.

See what you did Adriatica? You got this guy to agree with you. You should be ashamed.
:p

There's a difference between blowing yourself up in a crowded marketplace and bombing a terrorist group in a village....

Yep. It's not as if I advocate widespread carpet bombing to kill a few hundred civilians in order to get 12 terrorists....But the fact some people want to red tape everything so much it would be like Vietnam again.

Wassup NL!

:D

Arf arf

But then you're also sort of assuming that for some reason it wasn't the US invasion which made all this so bad. Saddam may have been an arsehole, but most Iraqis never had to do with him. He wasn't really more violent and brutal than any other run-of-the-mill dictator.

At least under him (and this is a sentiment I've heard from most Iraqis I have spoken to or heard of) there was a certain level of stability. People could plan for their future and live their lifes, provided they didn't go too political. Now in some areas they can't even leave their house without fearing for their lives AND their country is under occupation, which is a problem for a proud people like the Iraqis, just like it would be in the US or the UK.


You neglected to say ..." As long as you were a Sunni and a member of the Bath party and you didnt have something he or his sons wanted ...like a nice looking daughter or wife" .

Are you frickin mad ?

The KURDS and THE SHIITES ????????????????? They are the MAJORITY of the country and filled the MASS GRAVES......

A certain level of stability ?????????

FOR WHO ...the people he let live ?

Under Hitler Germany was a model of stability dont you agree ......

Stalin kept things really stable in Russia for years ......


What is wrong with you ?

You neglected to say ..." As long as you were a Sunni and a member of the Bath party and you didnt have something he or his sons wanted ...like a nice looking daughter or wife" .

Are you frickin mad ?

The KURDS and THE SHIITES ????????????????? They are the MAJORITY of the country and filled the MASS GRAVES......

A certain level of stability ?????????

FOR WHO ...the people he let live ?

Under Hitler Germany was a model of stability dont you agree ......

Stalin kept things really stable in Russia for years ......


What is wrong with you ?


I wonder how long it will be before the victims of the american invasion and botched occupation outnumber the victims of saddam hussein.

I wonder how long it will be before the victims of the american invasion and botched occupation outnumber the victims of saddam hussein.


I WONDER HOW LONG IT WILL TAKE TO AKNOWLAGE THE FREE GOVERNMENT OF IRAQ AND THE 12 MILLION WHO VOTED ?

The constitution they formed ... You know the New Democracy being built ?

When do the 12 million get a little help from the rest of the world to be sure they succeed ?

When do the liberals and the leftwingers and the peace lovers stop bitching and moaning and get behind the people of Iraq and support what they are doing ?

When do you think they can get around to it ?

Or would you rathe rjust give them Saddam back...he's not doing anything but hanging out in his cage .

You neglected to say ..." As long as you were a Sunni and a member of the Bath party and you didnt have something he or his sons wanted ...like a nice looking daughter or wife" .
It's true that most Iraqis I talked to were Sunni. The Kurds however weren't under Saddam's jurisdiction anyways, they had their own leaders and it's been like that eversince the Gulf War.

A certain level of stability ?????????
FOR WHO ...the people he let live ?
For most people. Come on, as bad as Saddam was, the current trouble in Iraq touches more people than his crimes did, surely you can recognise that without being an apologist for him.

You'll also note that most Iraqis do not want Saddam back either, that they'd rather have a third way, without Saddam and without the Americans. But thanks to the Pentagon, that ain't gonna happen any time soon.

What this has to do with the topic and hand though, I don't know. My point was merely that you can't look at "Americans fighting insurgents in Iraq vs no Americans in Iraq" without looking at the cause of Iraq being in chaos as well.

I recommend this blog by an Iraqi Sunni woman who lives in Baghdad.
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/
She also talks about her life before and after the invasion, and it seems that she had a pretty normal sort of life under Saddam as a well-paid computer programmer, while now she can't leave the house without full Hijab and male companion.

It's true that most Iraqis I talked to were Sunni. The Kurds however weren't under Saddam's jurisdiction anyways, they had their own leaders and it's been like that eversince the Gulf War.


For most people. Come on, as bad as Saddam was, the current trouble in Iraq touches more people than his crimes did, surely you can recognise that without being an apologist for him.

You'll also note that most Iraqis do not want Saddam back either, that they'd rather have a third way, without Saddam and without the Americans. But thanks to the Pentagon, that ain't gonna happen any time soon.

What this has to do with the topic and hand though, I don't know. My point was merely that you can't look at "Americans fighting insurgents in Iraq vs no Americans in Iraq" without looking at the cause of Iraq being in chaos as well.

I recommend this blog by an Iraqi Sunni woman who lives in Baghdad.
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/
She also talks about her life before and after the invasion, and it seems that she had a pretty normal sort of life under Saddam as a well-paid computer programmer, while now she can't leave the house without full Hijab and male companion.


Your wrong ..NOT for " most " people...the Shiites and the Kurds are the MOST people who had saddam to deal with .

Iraqi SUNNI's were the favored and the ruling class..they are also NOW the bulk of the insurgency ...

Your wrong ..NOT for " most " people...the Shiites and the Kurds are the MOST people who had saddam to deal with .
And most Kurds had nothing to do with Saddam since '92. And the Shi'ites seemed to have arranged themselves with him after the brutal uprising.
I'm sure one could find a relevant list, but I haven't heard of any more recent crimes against the Shi'ites after that.

Now however you have people from all three groups who are in constant danger.

I think the problem is that you have no idea what life is like in a place that is not democratic. I can't say that I do either, but I have spoken to dozens of people who lived both under the Nazis and under the Commies in East Germany. Believe it or not, but live is actually fairly normal, because people don't concern themselves with politics. Yes, sometimes people will disappear and horrible things happen, but that only concerns a minority. And even though Shi'ites and Kurds make up a majority, it would be a plain lie to say that every one of them was being persecuted.

Iraqi SUNNI's were the favored and the ruling class..they are also NOW the bulk of the insurgency ...
I think the time of the "insurgency" is over anyways. There are various insurgent groups still around, but the real problem has shifted towards Al-Qaeda on one hand, and Shia and Sunni death squads posing as police and hunting each other down on the other hand.

Francis Fukuyama: http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,407315,00.html
Madeline Albright: http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,419417,00.html

It does equal terrorism because there is still the inflicting of fear/terror and pain/death. Its terrorism whether it comes from tanks and fighter jets or a man using a small explosive on himself and others. Although in the former its using "force" in the latter its "terrorism" when in reality the only difference is the word. Intention of an attack has nothing to do with it, the result of such an attack does.

No, intention is a massive ammount. I wont support some of the tatics used against terrorists as many of them are too indiscriminate (shelling a villiage for instance) but the facts remain. If you cannot see that blowing up people in a shopping centre to kill maximum civilians who are not involved in the conflict as opposed to trying only to kill those who want to kill people not involved in the conflict then you are blind.

No, intention is a massive ammount. I wont support some of the tatics used against terrorists as many of them are too indiscriminate (shelling a villiage for instance) but the facts remain. If you cannot see that blowing up people in a shopping centre to kill maximum civilians who are not involved in the conflict as opposed to trying only to kill those who want to kill people not involved in the conflict then you are blind.

Usually when you hear about shelling a village, it is the shelling of huge empty tracts of land that is used as launch sites for qassams. The land tends to just go under the same name as neighboring villages, and certain newspapers (to spin the media hype) like to leave out that it was the empty land next to the village, rather than the village itself.

Thus, the shelling rarely kills people. This is in contrast to the air strikes on houses and such, which of course target terrorists, bomb factories, etc. but are inside towns and result in collateral damage.

No, intention is a massive ammount. I wont support some of the tatics used against terrorists as many of them are too indiscriminate (shelling a villiage for instance) but the facts remain. If you cannot see that blowing up people in a shopping centre to kill maximum civilians who are not involved in the conflict as opposed to trying only to kill those who want to kill people not involved in the conflict then you are blind.
Put it this way, killing innocents = killing innocents

Plus the old argument of how much collateral damage can be caused "acceptable" etc.

Put it this way, killing innocents = killing innocents

Plus the old argument of how much collateral damage can be caused "acceptable" etc.

According to most legal systems around the world, as well as most solid ethical systems, intention plays a big part. Thus, someone who accidently kills someone and someone who does it on purpose are worlds apart. In law, this is the difference between manslaughter (or no crime at all) and murder.

I WONDER HOW LONG IT WILL TAKE TO AKNOWLAGE THE FREE GOVERNMENT OF IRAQ AND THE 12 MILLION WHO VOTED ?

The constitution they formed ... You know the New Democracy being built ?

When do the 12 million get a little help from the rest of the world to be sure they succeed ?

When do the liberals and the leftwingers and the peace lovers stop bitching and moaning and get behind the people of Iraq and support what they are doing ?

When do you think they can get around to it ?

Or would you rathe rjust give them Saddam back...he's not doing anything but hanging out in his cage .


Calm down doofus,

The government seems have done a good job so far of nothing, well, nothing save letting the police and military send out death squads and provoking a civil war.

I was under the impression there was almost a trillion dollars sunk in iraq to "help them out," but that the money had been so dreadfully and incompetently wasted by the US government and military that its had no positive effect.

There is still not reliable electricity or running water.

The disasterous failure of our botched occupation and incompetent leadership is apparent even to a large number of bush-voters these days.

The opening post presumes that there isn't intentional effort to cause loss of civillian life on one side. Where in certain cases this may be true, in others it most certainly isn't. Thus its not a question of saying that accidental=intentional but a case of one being the same as the other.