NationStates Jolt Archive

Something I've noticed in this forum is the absolute incapability many have to distinguish terrorism, collateral damage, guerrilla tactics, criminal acts, etc.

Well - they are all a bit too much to put into one thread - but collateral damage is probably the most interesting of the bunch.

Lets start with WWII - the allied and axis forced bombed each other with little regard for civilian casualties.

Today - the rules seem to have changed. There is less tolerance for civilian casualties - but it seems to be contingent on whom it is who is doing the shooting. It also seems to be tempered by the target.

So let's discuss collateral damage - specific to the standard definition; the unintentional damage and death of people and property surrounding or in the execution of attacks on legitimate targets.

What is considered excessive? Is it contingent on the target? The force executing the attack? What about the characteristics of the civilians? Unintentional presence vs. supportive bystanders.

Share with all of us your thoughts on collateral damage. It is never desired or positive - but at what point does it exceed your tolerance and is it a flexible standard - and if so - why?

I consider levels of collateral damage roughly equal to the firebombing of Tokyo and the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki acceptable. If you're going to fight a war, fight. Don't screw around and leave your enemy more or less intact so you'll have to fight that same damn war over and over again. The body count will be high the first time around, but may turn out to be lower over the long term because you won't have to do it again and again and again. That's why I'm in favor of letting Israel finish this thing. Get it over with once and for all so the region can have peace.

Something I've noticed in this forum is the absolute incapability many have to distinguish terrorism, collateral damage, guerrilla tactics, criminal acts, etc.

Well - they are all a bit too much to put into one thread - but collateral damage is probably the most interesting of the bunch.

Lets start with WWII - the allied and axis forced bombed each other with little regard for civilian casualties.

Today - the rules seem to have changed. There is less tolerance for civilian casualties - but it seems to be contingent on whom it is who is doing the shooting. It also seems to be tempered by the target.

So let's discuss collateral damage - specific to the standard definition; the unintentional damage and death of people and property surrounding or in the execution of attacks on legitimate targets.

What is considered excessive? Is it contingent on the target? The force executing the attack? What about the characteristics of the civilians? Unintentional presence vs. supportive bystanders.

Share with all of us your thoughts on collateral damage. It is never desired or positive - but at what point does it exceed your tolerance and is it a flexible standard - and if so - why?

One casualty is already too much.

I consider levels of collateral damage roughly equal to the firebombing of Tokyo and the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki acceptable. If you're going to fight a war, fight. Don't screw around and leave your enemy more or less intact so you'll have to fight that same damn war over and over again. The body count will be high the first time around, but may turn out to be lower over the long term because you won't have to do it again and again and again. That's why I'm in favor of letting Israel finish this thing. Get it over with once and for all so the region can have peace.
I think I can trust you to be reasonably consistent on this, but an attitude like that surely requires some reason other than its methodology to bear an inequity towards Hizbollah. If you're going to stick with "collateral damage is acceptable" then you can have no qualm towards terrorist tactics, right?

Planing an attack where you know you will kill more civilian then enemi force sound bad to me, destroying an entire neighborhood to get one leader...

On the other hand, the gravity of the conflict will always weigth in the balance.

The annoying thing is having some autority/country preaching moral about it.

One casualty is already too much.

Excellent then you obviously wouldn't side with a terrorist organization like hesbollah, right?

I think I can trust you to be reasonably consistent on this, but an attitude like that surely requires some reason other than its methodology to bear an inequity towards Hizbollah. If you're going to stick with "collateral damage is acceptable" then you can have no qualm towards terrorist tactics, right?
The definition of collateral damage is inadvertant casualties that come as a result of military action. If the terrorist flies a plane with passengers into a factory that produces weapons for the military, the civilians who die are collateral damage. Destroying facilities that produce weapons is a legitimate military action. If he flies a plane load of people into an office building, it's just terrorism. The civilian casualties were the whole point of the latter exercise.

The definition of collateral damage is inadvertant casualties that come as a result of military action. If the terrorist flies a plane with passengers into a factory that produces weapons for the military, the civilians who die are collateral damage. Destroying facilities that produce weapons is a legitimate military action. If he flies a plane load of people into an office building, it's just terrorism. The civilian casualties were the whole point of the latter exercise.
So... what if the aim of military action happens to be territorial? If your goal is to take over a city, does that render it a target?

So, DCD, to ask a question that really isn't trying to goad you into saying something that fits my agenda(Couldn't think of a better way to put it... when people try to twist your beliefs to get you to say something you don't really believe)...

Do you consider the attacks on the WTC terrorism, but the attacks against the pentagon just guerilla?

One casualty is already too much.
Ok, but you often cannot reach your end without having at least one casualty. Unless you would argue that all virtuous groups just bend over and get raped by those without the same moral compunctions.

I would say that the number of casualties permissable has more to do with the goal in question and the ability to achieve that goal effectively with minimal casualties. Less casualties are better than more, however, one must consider the necessity of minimizing long-term loss of allied resources. In other words, the overall, big-picture goal is what matters.

Excellent then you obviously wouldn't side with a terrorist organization like hesbollah, right?

I don't side with the IDF, nor do I side with the Hezbollah. I just think Israel should stop and find a way to get to them without killing innocent people.

I consider levels of collateral damage roughly equal to the firebombing of Tokyo and the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki acceptable. If you're going to fight a war, fight. Don't screw around and leave your enemy more or less intact so you'll have to fight that same damn war over and over again. The body count will be high the first time around, but may turn out to be lower over the long term because you won't have to do it again and again and again. That's why I'm in favor of letting Israel finish this thing. Get it over with once and for all so the region can have peace.

So then you support terrorist tactics?

One casualty is already too much.


ROFLMAO!

Yes, we should have left Hitler alone. It wasn't worth the sacrafice to defeat him.

Oh, wait - is my sarcasm showing?

The definition of collateral damage is inadvertant casualties that come as a result of military action. If the terrorist flies a plane with passengers into a factory that produces weapons for the military, the civilians who die are collateral damage. Destroying facilities that produce weapons is a legitimate military action. If he flies a plane load of people into an office building, it's just terrorism. The civilian casualties were the whole point of the latter exercise.

One of the plane was aimed a pentagone (targeting inteligence) and an other one at the white house (targeting leader), where these two legitimate military action?

The definition of collateral damage is inadvertant casualties that come as a result of military action. If the terrorist flies a plane with passengers into a factory that produces weapons for the military, the civilians who die are collateral damage. Destroying facilities that produce weapons is a legitimate military action. If he flies a plane load of people into an office building, it's just terrorism. The civilian casualties were the whole point of the latter exercise.


I must have misunderstood your prior post. It seems to me you are endorsing no only the destruction of a military capability but also a decimation of social structures and the people within. Where is your limit?

I don't side with the IDF, nor do I side with the Hezbollah. I just think Israel should stop and find a way to get to them without killing innocent people.


Why is this about them? What about the allies bombing in WW2? OR the axis?

So... what if the aim of military action happens to be territorial? If your goal is to take over a city, does that render it a target?


great question!

ROFLMAO!

Yes, we should have left Hitler alone. It wasn't worth the sacrafice to defeat him.

Oh, wait - is my sarcasm showing?

The French, the British, and the Russians were already fighting them. And they were fighting the MILITARY, genius, not civillians. Oh, and the US was never planning on entering the war until after Pearl Harbor was attacked. Before then, we were going to stay out. And FYI, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are nowhere NEAR Germany.

Why is this about them? What about the allies bombing in WW2? OR the axis?

Did you even read what I quoted?

To ask if there is a limit on collateral damage or how much is "acceptable" is ridiculous. Most armies try to limit collateral damage to the absolute minimum, but that minimum varies depending on a number of factors the people firing the missile or dropping the bomb have no control over.

great question!
Hey, I'm not shooting for points here. It's a genuine question.

The French, the British, and the Russians were already fighting them. And they were fighting the MILITARY, genius, not civillians. Oh, and the US was never planning on entering the war until after Pearl Harbor was attacked. Before then, we were going to stay out. And FYI, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are nowhere NEAR Germany.



You're stating that you believe there was no collateral damage during WW2? I'm certain you're not THAT stupid. What is it then that you are trying to say?

ROFLMAO!

Yes, we should have left Hitler alone. It wasn't worth the sacrafice to defeat him.

Oh, wait - is my sarcasm showing?
Bombing the cities sped up the German defeat. It wasent nessesary, Germany would've been defeated anyways, but there would've been more military deaths on every side.

You're stating that you believe there was no collateral damage during WW2? I'm certain you're not THAT stupid. What is it then that you are trying to say?

I never said that. I just said is wasn't necissary to go after Hitler since three other countries already were.

I never said that. I just said is wasn't necissary to go after Hitler since three other countries already were.
Quite, the Soviets could beat Hitler alone, with the British distracting in the Medditerrean.

However, this would've led to all of Europe being Soviet, and some people did not want that.

Bombing the cities sped up the German defeat. It wasent nessesary, Germany would've been defeated anyways, but there would've been more military deaths on every side.

It was necessary to bomb the German cities. The cities contained the factories that produced the goods the military needed to conduct the war. :rolleyes:

I never said that. I just said is wasn't necissary to go after Hitler since three other countries already were.
Are you going to claim that all wars are avoidable? Or are you trying to just hide away from the inevitable conclusion that there are moral dilemmas in this world?

Quite, the Soviets could beat Hitler alone, with the British distracting in the Medditerrean.

However, this would've led to all of Europe being Soviet, and some people did not want that.

To say nothing of the fact that neither the Soviets nor the British could have produced the war materials needed to defeat Germany.

So... what if the aim of military action happens to be territorial? If your goal is to take over a city, does that render it a target?

What would be the purpose of taking over only one city?

I don't side with the IDF, nor do I side with the Hezbollah. I just think Israel should stop and find a way to get to them without killing innocent people.

So, how do you propose the IDF do that? What options are open to them if Hezbollah has embeded themselves in civilian areas? I heard on the news the IDF even called people in Lebanon and told them to get the hell out of town because they were comming. Seriously, what do you propose they do? What do you think any army should do to get non-combatants out of the combat area?

ROFLMAO!

Yes, we should have left Hitler alone. It wasn't worth the sacrafice to defeat him.

Oh, wait - is my sarcasm showing?

Sieg heil. Sprecken ze Deuch? :p

What would be the purpose of taking over only one city?
I don't wage wars, so I couldn't really say. Maybe it might be near a border and would act as an outpost.

It's a hypothetical question! Consider it as one instance in a grand military operation if you must! =S

One of the plane was aimed a pentagone (targeting inteligence) and an other one at the white house (targeting leader), where these two legitimate military action?

Yes, IF the attackers had been the legimate military of a legitmate country that wanted war with the US.

I don't wage wars, so I couldn't really say. Maybe it might be near a border and would act as an outpost.

It's a hypothetical question! Consider it as one instance in a grand military operation if you must! =S

You have not provided enough information. The reason for taking one city and only one city in a war is not logical. If you want to take just one city for territorial reasons, you are the agressor and must decide if you want to blast that city back to the stone age or if you want to take in tact. If you are defending yourself from another country or terrorist group it is unlikely you would be interested in taking only one city. So, what is your point?

You have not provided enough information. The reason for taking one city and only one city in a war is not logical. If you want to take just one city for territorial reasons, you are the agressor and must decide if you want to blast that city back to the stone age or if you want to take in tact. If you are defending yourself from another country or terrorist group it is unlikely you would be interested in taking only one city. So, what is your point?
I really don't see why that's an issue, but it may be my fault for not elaborating on what I meant by a territory gain. If you're trying to push the limit of your national borders by force, or maybe taking a ground route towards a more distant target, you may encounter a town or small city. You might not know when you are advancing whether you intend to occupy the city or destroy and replace it when you make the battle plans. Taking the city isn't your ultimate aim; it's holding the ground, whether to prevent it being a hiding place or supply centre for enemy fighters or simply to formalise your borders.

The question is whether attacking the city itself (and therefore its inhabitants) in a territory grab attempt is a legitimate military operation. It is certainly easier, in either the territorial or the security operation, to flatten the town and any enemy soldiers within than to go in and eliminate the entrenched fighters while maintaining the infrastructure, and it may be the case that the material gain provided by the town might be less than that used to invade. Does that make demolition an accepted strategy?

The French, the British, and the Russians were already fighting them. And they were fighting the MILITARY, genius, not civillians. Oh, and the US was never planning on entering the war until after Pearl Harbor was attacked. Before then, we were going to stay out. And FYI, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are nowhere NEAR Germany.

Ever heard of Dresden? The Battle of Britain?

Wikipedia has a lovely picture of Frampol, before and after the German Air Force visited it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Frampol_bombing.jpg

Yeah, considering that Frampol had no factories, military personell or strategic value...the Germans decided it was a good place to test their bombers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II

There ya go. I know, its Wikipedia, but in this instance pin-point accuracy isnt required. Its fairly obvious that the US wasnt the only nation to use strategic bombing.

That's why I'm in favor of letting Israel finish this thing. Get it over with once and for all so the region can have peace.
How idealistic of you.

I believe that the longer that this goes on, the more co-lateral (God I don't like that term) casualties there will be. The more casualties there are, plants the seeds of a whole new crop of people filled with hatred and seeking revenge. The ONLY logical resolution to this ongoing problem is a deep and lasting peace.

I heard on the news the IDF even called people in Lebanon and told them to get the hell out of town because they were comming.

I also heard that the IDF bombed people leaving in vehicles after they told them to evacuate the area.

And there was that article where the IDF bombed a red cross ambulance.

Somehow, I don't think the IDF really cares about collateral damage.

I also heard that the IDF bombed people leaving in vehicles after they told them to evacuate the area.

And there was that article where the IDF bombed a red cross ambulance.

Somehow, I don't think the IDF really cares about collateral damage.
I think you are right:

http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/TopStories/ContentPosting.aspx?newsitemid=CTVNews%2f20060728%2fIsrael_fighting_lebanon_060729&feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V2&showbyline=True

Meanwhile, Israel is rejecting a request by the United Nations for a three-day ceasefire in Lebanon to deliver humanitarian supplies and to allow civilians to leave the war zone.

It all depends on who's doing the damage. So called "Free Nations" such as the U.S., Israel, and Britian, can do plenty of collateral damage by simply saying they are accident, and that they won't happen again. Even if they do happen again, which they will, they will say "This is the last time!" and people will believe them each and every time. Why? Because they're the "good guys". Now then, if someone such as Hezbollah causes collateral damage, people will act like they are the ultimate evil, considering the fact that they are the "bad guys".

When you're killing more civillians than soldiers, you've definitely crossed the line.
It means that you're basically targetting innocents over legitimate targets.

I think you are right:

http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/TopStories/ContentPosting.aspx?newsitemid=CTVNews%2f20060728%2fIsrael_fighting_lebanon_060729&feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V2&showbyline=True
There was also a story in the paper the other day about a family in a van trying to escape the bombardment who was fired upon and two killed.
After being told by the IDF that they had to evacuate, they were fired upon.
Reason being?
According to the IDF, any vehicle entering or leaving a combat zone is assumed to be full of Hizbollah terrorists and thus a legitimate target.
Also, anyone staying in a combat zone is assumed to be Hizbollah and, again, a legit target.
Even Catch-22 doesn't come close to explaining this insanity/callousness.

BBC the other day carried a report about a rescue convoy that went down into the combat zone to get as many civillans as possible. Even though they had minutely arranged it with the IDF in face-to-face discussions over several days, detailing exactly where they'd be, how many vehicles etc and displayed large flags nad paintwork on the vehicles showing that they were a resuce mission, and were in constant contact with the IDF throughout, they were still fired upon and hit by mortar rounds.
Yep, by the IDF.

To say they're trigger-happy would be an understatement.

Whatever is necessary to win.

There was also a story in the paper the other day about a family in a van trying to escape the bombardment who was fired upon and two killed.
After being told by the IDF that they had to evacuate, they were fired upon.
Reason being?
According to the IDF, any vehicle entering or leaving a combat zone is assumed to be full of Hizbollah terrorists and thus a legitimate target.
Also, anyone staying in a combat zone is assumed to be Hizbollah and, again, a legit target.
Even Catch-22 doesn't come close to explaining this insanity/callousness.

BBC the other day carried a report about a rescue convoy that went down into the combat zone to get as many civillans as possible. Even though they had minutely arranged it with the IDF in face-to-face discussions over several days, detailing exactly where they'd be, how many vehicles etc and displayed large flags nad paintwork on the vehicles showing that they were a resuce mission, and were in constant contact with the IDF throughout, they were still fired upon and hit by mortar rounds.
Yep, by the IDF.

To say they're trigger-happy would be an understatement.
This insanity needs to stop yesterday. The US should not have vetoed that UN Resolution. This can and will and in one isolated incident reverberate through the world. This situation helps neither faction.

http://putfile.com/pic.php?pic=main/7/20923155467.jpg&s=f10

One side protects their future, the other encourages it to die whenever possible

This insanity needs to stop yesterday. The US should not have vetoed that UN Resolution. This can and will and in one isolated incident reverberate through the world. This situation helps neither faction.

Whatever Bush doesn't Veto here in the States he makes up for via use of the Boltinator in the UN :D

We need a Jew Crew here on NS.

http://putfile.com/pic.php?pic=main/7/20923155467.jpg&s=f10

One side protects their future, the other encourages it to die whenever possible
Hmm, they should have included an 'after' shot where the Israelis has called in fire support and blown up the hezbolllah militant and the pram, and the whole city, and the people in it, and the UN aid forces, and the ambulances, and the...

Hmm, they should have included an 'after' shot where the Israelis has called in fire support and blown up the hezbolllah militant and the pram, and the whole city, and the people in it, and the UN aid forces, and the ambulances, and the...

Israel NUKED SOMEONE?

:eek:

The US made Hellfire missiles they use for knocking off Hadj militant leaders don't wipe out entire cities, or blocks for that matter. You don't give the IAF and Izzy Helo pilots enough credit.

And to boot you should see where the Hezz set up base-in the UN case it was RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEM. Hezz likes to put his pukes up wherever it's close to civilian places, because he seems to think Israel won't hit them there...WRONG!

They will. Even if it's in front of a UN building.

Whatever Bush doesn't Veto here in the States he makes up for via use of the Boltinator in the UN :D

We need a Jew Crew here on NS.
US inaction allows the terrorist actions of BOTH parties to continue.

This does not bode well for the US, nor does it bode well for Jews worldwide.

So then you support terrorist tactics?
I understand that this was not directed at me, but allow me to take the oppurtunity to continue the point. I do support terrorism tactics, in so much as I condone them no less than other tactics used. I am a pacifist, and as such, find all military 'tactics' distasteful. That being said, I see terrorism as just as legitimate as conventional warfare. All one has to do is look to history.

300-500 years ago you met your enemy on an open battle field in clearly marked uniforms, generals would meet before the war in the middle of the field to discuss terms, then they would stand on the hill and observe as their men shot at each other in formation. Whoever had no men left standing was the loser. The officers would then be captured and sold back to their respective powers. At the time, modern 'conventional' military tactics like camoflage, targeting officers, hiding, traps, complex battle strategies and ambushes were all not condoned. Then those people who used these tactics, logically, won. They went on to become the USA.

Next up, 100-50 years ago, Battles were much more versatile and unpredictable. However, Enemies still wore uniforms, met in the field, quite often engaged in attrition tactics, and tried to win by excessive force (bombs, tanks, aircraft, grenades, howitzers...). However nations used to have people infiltrate the enemies countr and/or power structure posing as a friend. The would then relay information back to their home nation secretly to gain an advantage. They were called spies. At first this kind of action was heavily looked down upon, now there isn't a power in the world who doesn't do it.

Finally, 50-20 years ago, Warfare was waged using spies, technology, complex military tactics, and still excessive force. When one of these poweful countires came up against a weak one, they usually crushed it mercilessly and easily. However, some small local resistances discovered a method of successfully defending against an occupying. It was dubbed guerilla warfare and involved surpise attacks, sabotage, traps, theft, and a lot of running and hiding. Initially, guerilla warfare was shunned, but now even the most equipped military has a handfull of 'elite' units trained in what is more or less guerilla warfare.

Finally we come to today, where underfunded and under manned militants have found one way they can truly compete with powers 10000 times their size and power is through using scare tactics on those who command them. This is especially, but not exclusively, effective against democracies. It is where the army attempts to scare the enemy into doing as it pleases. Although this tactic had been used contravertially in the past on isolated incidents (Hiroshima, Nagasaki), nobody had ever used it much, admitted to it, or relied on it totally. Dubbed 'terrorism' the tactic focuses mainly on civilian targets (though not exclusively) and usually implements dramatic means to achieve their ends (like flying a jumbo jet into a building, strapping explosives to oneself and detonating in public, or releasing poison gas in a subway. As opposed to simply shooting a building/public place/subway full of people). At first the tactic was shunned. It has already begun to be slowly adopted by 'conventional' powers. Israel flies supersonic jets over palestinian populaces in the early hours of the morning to create a sonic boom. This is both a form of psychological warfare, and terrorism. Some also argue that the september 11 attacks on the world trade center were staged by the government to terrorise their citizens into giving them more power. Inevitably, we will see the developed world using terrorism too.

I do have a small hope that the west will be forced in to diplomacy, as it is the only way to beat terrorism. That is to say, placating terrorism won't fix anything, but strategically eliminating the roots of chronic reoccuring terrorism by preventing people from sympathising with the terrorists. There are 2 ways of doing this. The first way is to make them like your country, if you can make the choice between hating your country and loving it an easy one, you win. The second way (the Israel way) is to terrorise the people from which the terrorists spring. If you can strike more fear into their hearts than the terrorists can inspire them, you win. Hopefully, the former shall be the case.

Whatever is necessary to win.
Exactly what Hizbollah and Al Qaeda are thinking right now.
Bet you're really happy to be included in their company, right?

We need a Jew Crew here on NS.

Not really, we already have uneducated simpletons like you who believe Afghanistan to be wide open territory playing the role of raving gun toter.

As to whatever it takes to win, come back when you've razed the city that Timothy McVeigh came from.

I consider levels of collateral damage roughly equal to the firebombing of Tokyo and the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki acceptable. If you're going to fight a war, fight. Don't screw around and leave your enemy more or less intact so you'll have to fight that same damn war over and over again. The body count will be high the first time around, but may turn out to be lower over the long term because you won't have to do it again and again and again. That's why I'm in favor of letting Israel finish this thing. Get it over with once and for all so the region can have peace.

Agreed 100%. Just think if the allieds were as PC then as they are now, where would the world be?? Oh my god, you can't fire bomb Drezden (sp) or anyother place because there will be civilan deaths, forget that they are making fighters and tanks and other war materials there.....It ios dumb to have such a view, and that is why the terrorists are hidding with-in civilan population centers not because they can find no other place but because of the out cry if a civilian is hit....

War is hell and people die in war, and not all are combatents, in war civilians suffer the most.

http://putfile.com/pic.php?pic=main/7/20923155467.jpg&s=f10

One side protects their future, the other encourages it to die whenever possible

One side have compulsory military service the other only recruit the weakest mind.

Hezbollah hides its' rockets and equipment in civilian houses, therefore in order to fight them, you must hit the houses with the equipment in them...Since the houses obviously belong to someone, you can bet that they support the terrorists, and are therefore a legitemate target...It is a tragedy that Hezbollah Nazis decide to stuff the houses with civilians in order to get propaganda victories, but the collateral damage is their fault, not Israel.

Hezbollah and the other terrorist orgs are the aggressors here, not Israel...Israel is just making sure the terrorists stay weak.

Hezbollah sees it as its' duty to kill every Jew in existence...Israel seeks nothing but defense against them...Sorry, liberals, but there's no "shade of gray" in this scenario...

Something I've noticed in this forum is the absolute incapability many have to distinguish terrorism, collateral damage, guerrilla tactics, criminal acts, etc.
Collateral damage is a euphemism for civilian casualties. The other three are by definition committed by non-government groups, although the results may be the same as actions committed by government.

Well - they are all a bit too much to put into one thread - but collateral damage is probably the most interesting of the bunch.

Lets start with WWII - the allied and axis forced bombed each other with little regard for civilian casualties.
Show me a war going on today that's as desperate as WWII.

Today - the rules seem to have changed.
Yeah, it's called civilisation and progress.

There is less tolerance for civilian casualties - but it seems to be contingent on whom it is who is doing the shooting.

Are you trying to say that whoever doesn't support the methods of the US military supports terrorists?

So, how do you propose the IDF do that? What options are open to them if Hezbollah has embeded themselves in civilian areas? I heard on the news the IDF even called people in Lebanon and told them to get the hell out of town because they were comming. Seriously, what do you propose they do? What do you think any army should do to get non-combatants out of the combat area?
Put their soldiers on the ground rather than bomb them from the air.

Somehow, I don't think the IDF really cares about collateral damage.
I think some generals do, some don't. There are plenty of examples of them not giving a shit, but then there are missions that they called off for humanitarian reasons.

Whatever is necessary to win.
Where's yer moral values?

Yeah, I know... I mean, war is so bad, peace man... F^&*ing Hippy!

Let's face facts, extremism is everywhere. It is not your place to say what Isreal can, and cannot do. Isreal fights for her survival, and to exist outside the shaddow of fear these groups -like Hezbollah- cast. If day in, and day out, no matter what steps you took to secure peace where rejected, what is your next option? I'll tell you what it is, to fight. You useless pinko-commies fail to realise that the only way to ensure peace, is to be prepared to fight for it. You can only define a man by what he is prepared to kill and die for, and you pacifists stand for nothing, to you no cause is worth more than you are. Hezbollah does not use conventional tactics, so these tactics will be of no use against them. Plus, airstrikes reduce casualties on your side, in war you want to maximise your own's survival rate, and take down key installations with precision.

Ground warfare, of the open field nature, Ha! You think you can arrange to meet them honourably on the field? You're more niave and clueless than I thought anyone could be! Troops are expensive to train, and human life is generally cheap, and abundant. With such a populous world, who's going to miss a few anyway? It has to be done, there is no other way for our ally to defend herself. I congratulate Isreal for having the balls to go through with this. We must purge our enemies once and for all to enjoy lasting peace, these people don't want peace, they want total victory, you liberals stand for nothing, you can never understand their mind-set in being unwilling to compromise their beliefs. As such this ideological clash can only result in peace when one side has fully purged of the other, I pray God, that Isreal expunge the extremist Islamic threat from the Middle East. Islam is not our enemy, but it's extremist variants -designed to be used as the power-base of the few- is. I hope you see sense, and see this peace is worth fighting for, and can only come through the sacrifice of those willing, and unwilling to achieve it.

Count me in the Jew Crew, Isreal has won me over, unlike the gutless European Union's approach to lasting peace.

Show me a war going on today that's as desperate as WWII.

Put their soldiers on the ground rather than bomb them from the air.


Well, the goal of Hezbollah is the total destruction of Israel and vice versa. In terms of the locality it doesn't get much more desperate than that.

Um, if Israel does that Lebanon will go to war with them and every single other Arab nation will join in the fun. Not to mention the fact that Hezz will have a field day with their human shields, since it's harder to excuse civilian deaths as collateral when they get shot.

useless pinko-commies

you liberals stand for nothing

Oh dear. I was agreeing with you until I noticed these.

Well, the goal of Hezbollah is the total destruction of Israel and vice versa. In terms of the locality it doesn't get much more desperate than that.

Um, if Israel does that Lebanon will go to war with them and every single other Arab nation will join in the fun. Not to mention the fact that Hezz will have a field day with their human shields, since it's harder to excuse civilian deaths as collateral when they get shot.





Oh dear. I was agreeing with you until I noticed these.


Yeah, I know... I mean, war is so bad, peace man...

Let's face facts, extremism is everywhere. It is not your place to say what Isreal can, and cannot do. Isreal fights for her survival, and to exist outside the shadow of fear these groups -like Hezbollah- cast. If day in, and day out, no matter what steps you took to secure peace where rejected, what is your next option? I'll tell you what it is, to fight. You war virgins fail to realise that the only way to ensure peace, is to be prepared to fight for it. You can only define a man by what he is prepared to kill and die for. By this definition a pacificist stands for nothing. Hezbollah does not use conventional tactics, so these tactics will be of no use against them. Plus, airstrikes reduce casualties on your side, in war you want to maximise your own's survival rate, and take down key installations with precision.

Ground warfare, of the open field nature, Ha! You think you can arrange to meet them honourably on the field? You're more naive and clueless than I thought anyone could be! Troops are expensive to train, and human life is generally cheap, and abundant. With such a populous world, who's going to miss a few anyway? It has to be done, there is no other way for our ally to defend herself. I congratulate Isreal for having the balls to go through with this. We must purge our enemies once and for all to enjoy lasting peace, these people don't want peace, they want total victory.

Those whose nature it is to avoid all fight can never understand nor relate to those whose mindset it is to seek death.
As such this clash can only result in peace when one side has fully purged of the other, I pray God, that Isreal expunge the extremist Islamic threat from the Middle East.

Islam is not our enemy, but it's extremist variants -designed to be used as the power-base of the few- is. I hope you see sense, and see this peace is worth fighting for, and can only come through the sacrifice of those willing, and unwilling to achieve it.

Count me in the Jew Crew, Isreal has won me over, unlike the "OMG, we can't fight!" approach to lasting peace.


OK - I edited his words. Happier now?

Well, the goal of Hezbollah is the total destruction of Israel and vice versa. In terms of the locality it doesn't get much more desperate than that.
Except that in WWII the enemy actually had a chance at destroying the Allies. Hezbollah have no chance of destroying Israel.

Um, if Israel does that Lebanon will go to war with them and every single other Arab nation will join in the fun. Not to mention the fact that Hezz will have a field day with their human shields, since it's harder to excuse civilian deaths as collateral when they get shot.
The idea is that the IDF soldiers will be able to pick out Hezbollah fighters and shoot them, rather than just bombing general areas.

More IDF ppl would die, but fewer civilians would die.


Ground warfare, of the open field nature, Ha! You think you can arrange to meet them honourably on the field? You're more naive and clueless than I thought anyone could be! Troops are expensive to train, and human life is generally cheap, and abundant. With such a populous world, who's going to miss a few anyway? It has to be done, there is no other way for our ally to defend herself. I congratulate Isreal for having the balls to go through with this. We must purge our enemies once and for all to enjoy lasting peace, these people don't want peace, they want total victory.
It's naive to think that Israel has a chance of purging Hezbollah from Lebanon in the current fashion, let alone eliminating Islamism from the ME.

Human life is not cheap. You'd think that someone who references God in his post would have read the Bible.

Count me in the Jew Crew, Isreal has won me over, unlike the "OMG, we can't fight!" approach to lasting peace.
OK, so the only two choices are to be a doctrinaire pacifist and submit to threats, or "turn Lebanon into glass" *cue approporiate mouth-frothing*.

Except that in WWII the enemy actually had a chance at destroying the Allies. Hezbollah have no chance of destroying Israel.


Oh but it's all about intent! For example, if it was known that somewhere in the UK there was someone who wanted to destroy the USA, the USA would be perfectly justified in shelling London until we felt better.

;)

Heh.

OK, so the only two choices are to be a doctrinaire pacifist and submit to threats, or "turn Lebanon into glass" *cue approporiate mouth-frothing*.

Of course! You're either with us or against us. It's Terrorists vs Good Guys. Liberals vs Humans. Didn't you know? You either support Israel's right to casually bomb and kill civilians, or you're a communist pinko scum who hates America!

Something I've noticed in this forum is the absolute incapability many have to distinguish terrorism, collateral damage, guerrilla tactics, criminal acts, etc.

Well - they are all a bit too much to put into one thread - but collateral damage is probably the most interesting of the bunch.

Lets start with WWII - the allied and axis forced bombed each other with little regard for civilian casualties.

Today - the rules seem to have changed. There is less tolerance for civilian casualties - but it seems to be contingent on whom it is who is doing the shooting. It also seems to be tempered by the target.

So let's discuss collateral damage - specific to the standard definition; the unintentional damage and death of people and property surrounding or in the execution of attacks on legitimate targets.

What is considered excessive? Is it contingent on the target? The force executing the attack? What about the characteristics of the civilians? Unintentional presence vs. supportive bystanders.

Share with all of us your thoughts on collateral damage. It is never desired or positive - but at what point does it exceed your tolerance and is it a flexible standard - and if so - why?

As long as civilians aren't deliberately targeted and the means used are not totally indiscriminate, the only consideration is achieving the military objective. If civilians are killed, the blame belongs solely on those who hide among them. The presence of civilians does not insulate military objectives from attack. Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol 1) (Adopted on 8 June 1977), Article 51.7.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/93.htm

Terrorists (such as the so-called "Party of Allah") will not be allowed to endanger civilians and then complain when those civilians are harmed. The same terrorists, BTW, who are themselves indiscriminately attacking civilians.

So, DCD, to ask a question that really isn't trying to goad you into saying something that fits my agenda(Couldn't think of a better way to put it... when people try to twist your beliefs to get you to say something you don't really believe)...

Do you consider the attacks on the WTC terrorism, but the attacks against the pentagon just guerilla?
Yes. I think government and defense people are legitimate targets.

I must have misunderstood your prior post. It seems to me you are endorsing no only the destruction of a military capability but also a decimation of social structures and the people within. Where is your limit?
It's a sliding scale depending on the value of the military or government target.

How idealistic of you.

I believe that the longer that this goes on, the more co-lateral (God I don't like that term) casualties there will be. The more casualties there are, plants the seeds of a whole new crop of people filled with hatred and seeking revenge. The ONLY logical resolution to this ongoing problem is a deep and lasting peace.
Deep and lasting peace with Germany and Japan only came when their people were so demoralized that accepting defeat seemed to be a better option than continuing to resist. Nobody likes to accept defeat. The object of war is to make things so hard on the enemy that accepting defeat becomes the least horrible option. Afterward the enemy will be (hopefully) in such a shocked and horrified mental state that they can be easily convinced to accept the values and culture of the victor. That's how you get a lasting peace.

The west has forgotten that war is supposed to be horrible. and that there are several reasons for it. First off, you want to make sure that people see the horrific consequences of war and don't start them lightly, as Hezbollah did when they attacked Israel. Second, you want to beat the enemy down so badly that you can, after conquering them, mold them into peacefull people who see things the same way you do. When you make war clean and relatively bloodless you only make wars more likely (because there isn't as much to loose), and more long-lasting. A people who isn't virtually destroyed in war and then rebuilt in a new model is likely to keep resisting for years, decades, even centuries.

is there somewhere ,a rule to kill collateral freedom,if it ever existed,?
We all rant over war,still it kills and that is why it is call war.
Why shall we believe war is fighting for peace?
While it can be interpreted as liberation under a dictatorship.
Climat terrorism is also collateral
does it mean this system does need victims?
It is like political corectness,it stinks,and is innapropriate in term of war,but is(largerly) accepted by the home front

The definition of collateral damage is...that is YOUR definition..

and remeber.. You also had your own definition of "Terror".. one that pretty much excluded US/Israel terrorism.

Something I've noticed in this forum is the absolute incapability many have to distinguish terrorism, collateral damage, guerrilla tactics, criminal acts, etc.



Terrorism is ever expanding, that is why it is so hard to define. What is considered terrorism today could be nothing like terrorism in 5 years. Guerrilla tacts, criminal acts are the same.

that is YOUR definition..

and remeber.. You also had your own definition of "Terror".. one that pretty much excluded US/Israel terrorism.

It's the standard definition of collateral damage. Here it is from an online dictionary.

Noun: collateral damage
(euphemism) inadvertent casualties and destruction inflicted on civilians in the course of military operations

http://www.wordwebonline.com/en/COLLATERALDAMAGE

Quit trying to alter the English language to justify your prejudices.

I never said that. I just said is wasn't necissary to go after Hitler since three other countries already were.


No, actually you said this;

The French, the British, and the Russians were already fighting them. And they were fighting the MILITARY, genius, not civillians. Oh, and the US was never planning on entering the war until after Pearl Harbor was attacked. Before then, we were going to stay out. And FYI, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are nowhere NEAR Germany.

Your point seemed to be that the bombing of German and Japanese cities was justified since the allies were fighting a military. You are either claiming that there was no collateral damage or that collateral damage of that magnitude as acceptable since there was a military involved. Which is is?

It was necessary to bomb the German cities. The cities contained the factories that produced the goods the military needed to conduct the war. :rolleyes:


So you feel substantial (city wide) collateral damage is acceptable if there is a weapons production facility in the vicinity of where the casualties happen?

I really don't see why that's an issue, but it may be my fault for not elaborating on what I meant by a territory gain. If you're trying to push the limit of your national borders by force, or maybe taking a ground route towards a more distant target, you may encounter a town or small city. You might not know when you are advancing whether you intend to occupy the city or destroy and replace it when you make the battle plans. Taking the city isn't your ultimate aim; it's holding the ground, whether to prevent it being a hiding place or supply centre for enemy fighters or simply to formalise your borders.

The question is whether attacking the city itself (and therefore its inhabitants) in a territory grab attempt is a legitimate military operation. It is certainly easier, in either the territorial or the security operation, to flatten the town and any enemy soldiers within than to go in and eliminate the entrenched fighters while maintaining the infrastructure, and it may be the case that the material gain provided by the town might be less than that used to invade. Does that make demolition an accepted strategy?

Not to intrude - but I think the question of this thread is not about the legitimacy of territorial gains in war (the taking of the city) vs the wonton bombing of said city into the stone age.

How idealistic of you.

I believe that the longer that this goes on, the more co-lateral (God I don't like that term) casualties there will be. The more casualties there are, plants the seeds of a whole new crop of people filled with hatred and seeking revenge. The ONLY logical resolution to this ongoing problem is a deep and lasting peace.


Right - which means the Arabs will have to stop launching rockets, suicide bombers and other attacks into Israel. They so far have proven completely incapable.

It all depends on who's doing the damage. So called "Free Nations" such as the U.S., Israel, and Britian, can do plenty of collateral damage by simply saying they are accident, and that they won't happen again. Even if they do happen again, which they will, they will say "This is the last time!" and people will believe them each and every time. Why? Because they're the "good guys". Now then, if someone such as Hezbollah causes collateral damage, people will act like they are the ultimate evil, considering the fact that they are the "bad guys".

You would have to re-define collateral damage for that to be true. In the case of Hez it would seem that in most of their missions 'collateral damage' is the straight forward intended outcome - ie-they seldom attack anything of signifigant military value.

(snip) .


You really have little understanding of the history of warfare. It's as if Sun Tzu's the Art of War had never been written.

I do have a small hope that the west will be forced in to diplomacy, as it is the only way to beat terrorism. That is to say, placating terrorism won't fix anything, but strategically eliminating the roots of chronic reoccuring terrorism by preventing people from sympathising with the terrorists. There are 2 ways of doing this. The first way is to make them like your country, if you can make the choice between hating your country and loving it an easy one, you win. The second way (the Israel way) is to terrorise the people from which the terrorists spring. If you can strike more fear into their hearts than the terrorists can inspire them, you win. Hopefully, the former shall be the case.

That suggestion is on the order of "Tk keep from being raped one should just make rapists like them."

the wonton bombing of said city into the stone age.

Is wonton bombing some ancient Chinese warfare technique advocated by Sun Tzu?

Is wonton bombing some ancient Chinese warfare technique advocated by Sun Tzu?


Wonton Bombing - hehe - I mady a pun and didn't notice.

That suggestion is on the order of "Tk keep from being raped one should just make rapists like them."
Moron.
I do have a small hope that the west will be forced in to diplomacy, as it is the only way to beat terrorism. That is to say, placating terrorism won't fix anything

Nice straw man there B0zzy. Now don't you have more genocide to advocate?

I think I can trust you to be reasonably consistent on this, but an attitude like that surely requires some reason other than its methodology to bear an inequity towards Hizbollah. If you're going to stick with "collateral damage is acceptable" then you can have no qualm towards terrorist tactics, right?
That's like asking the English if they didn't mind being bombed by the Germans, since they were doing it too.


Also, terrorist attacks are by nature criminal acts, so they cannot be covered by the term "collateral damage." They are simply equivalent to murder, in my mind.

To ask if there is a limit on collateral damage or how much is "acceptable" is ridiculous. Most armies try to limit collateral damage to the absolute minimum, but that minimum varies depending on a number of factors the people firing the missile or dropping the bomb have no control over.

I think in order to understand collateral damage, one has to understand military intelligence. The purpose of military intelligence during a war is to know as much about the enemy as possible. The more that is known about the enemy, the better. Civilians are not the enemy, therefore knowing anything about them is a waste of resources that could be better used in knowing more about the enemy. Combine that with the idea that the more precisely one targets the enemy, the less damage one does to civilians, therefore, a precision-guided 2,000 lb bomb that can be targeted to hit a dime is less damaging to civilians than a dumb 2,000 lb bomb that probably will hit within several hundred yards of a target. With these two ideas, an enemy sitting on a box of kittens is just as legitimate a target as an enemy sitting in the middle of the desert, precisely because the nature of military intelligence does not allow one to see the box of kittens.

If you know something is wrong and you do it, people will lock you away as a criminal, but if you don't know something is wrong and you do it, people will just yell at you and tell you not to do it, therefore, you can justify killing large quantities of civilians by being as ignorant of their existence as possible.

Personally, I hat collateral damage, it can be parraded by our enemies to help make us look bad (after all, it has worked against us in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, the Mog, Israel's defense against Hezzbollah)

But the more I read, the more I see WWI and WWII as one single war with a long cease-fire. The onl;y reason they didn't rise up again was because we totally and utterly defeated Germany.

also, I am currently reading the Southern Victory, or Timeline-191 series by Harry Turtledove. In it, The south wins the "War of Succession." After several years, the South purchases two states from Mexico. This spurs a second war, the "Second Mexican War," fought largely between the USA and CSA. then you have the "Great War" (WWI) and then the "War of 1941" (WWII). all of this has massive casualties between the two sides.

on the same side, I would like to point to Japan in WWII.
As we neared the Islands, Truman faced a daunting task. Invading Japan. In those days, the entire nation was fanatical. When we invaded Okinawa, the people threw themselves to their death because they had lost the battle. And don't deny it, the Marine Corps has footage of it. Footage from Japan shows that they where training kids younger than eight to fight. If we hadn't nuked Japan, we would have spent the next three years fighting, and it would have led to an almost genocidal war against the japanese.

Sadly, Collateral Damage has it's place, though it should be avoided if at all possible.