Collateral Damage & War

[calpha]

My grandfather is a Devoted Catholic, father of 8 kids and 14 grandkids.

He is a Retired Colonel, USAF, and a POW in Germany for 13 months.

I asked him two questions that have really bothered me about this whole thing.

1. (Q) If they wanted to attack America, then why not do it at night, or early in the morning before the office buildings were full. YOu can still bring down teh Trade Centers and make your point, but you spare the completely innocent civilians.
(A). Because the wanted to KILL Civilians. Plain and Simple.

2. (Q). IF we attack these terrorist countries, and start taking out terrorist camps, what if we find a terrorist camp where there's MEN as well as boys (ages 13 and older). Do we kill the men, and spare the boys, or do we kill them all.
(A). <much thinking, and sadness eventually> Teh only thing to do is kill them all. The leaders of the camp have already chosen the fate for the kids. If we don't kill them all, they will become terrorists one day. Their age alone isn't enough.

The answer to the second question echoed my thoughts, but coming from my grandfather it blew me away. He's the kindest man i've ever known, willing to give anybody a second, third and fourth chance. When he was a Prisoner of War Germany, and saw the lines and lines of Jews. Used the same showers that the JEWS were gassed in. He saw the mass graves. He is completely against any act of violence in his own life, and even in revenge to someone that wronged him, trusting more in the God to right the wrongs that people have doone to him. He lives by Christian IDIOMS.

But, I use this story as a point for illustration. WAR is not MORAL by it's very nature, and morals aren't what comes first. MORAL Decisions are still made, but in all cases COUNTRY comes first. It is HUMAN to worry about the plight of the innocents in AFGHAN, and I'm sure if we bomb the crap out of them, the MEDIA will bring that to our attention as will others. But, I have already told myself, and I hope others do too, that this is WAR. Since it is WAR, my duty is to my country, not to questoin the validity of what our leaders do, but support them every way I can.

People will die for their nationality. For being innocents in a country where TERRORISTS live. It's called Collateral Damage.
But, it's not Revenge. It's restitution.

 

[FrysInsider]

However, this WAR is like no other. The US is going after Bin Laden and his "The Base" right?

Bin Laden's Criminal Organization resides around the world...not only in one country.

So targeting Afghanistan alone is foolish at best. The innocents there outnumber the "guilty" (Taliban) by a wide margin.
For example, during WW2, when we wanted to anhilate the Nazi's, would it make sense to also kill the Jews?

Yes I understand your point about "collateral damage." However, like I said before, there is no one country responsible, only Bin Laden
and his terror group. Target that, not innocent people

 

[b0mbrman]

Well said. Peace in the US at any price

A question for ya Fry's Insider (and anyone else who feels like answering):

You're a Congressman voting on whether a group of 30 US Army guys should:

(a) Call an airstrike on a village that has 60 terrorists and 60 innocents

-or-

(b) Attack using M16's making sure to only get the bad guys.

Keep in mind you're thousands of miles away in Congress. Which would you vote for?

 

[FrysInsider]

<< People will die for their nationality. For being innocents in a country where TERRORISTS live. It's called Collateral Damage >>



By the way, I am sure you are aware that terrorist live right here in the UNITED STATES.

Terrorists like Timothy McVeigh, and the Atlanta Olympic Bomber live in this country. Thay are "Americans" just like me.

So now I ask you, is it ok to kill innocent Americans ("collateral damage") simply in order to catch thes American terrorists?

 

[calpha]

The US is going after Bin Laden, AND the countries that support Terrorism.

It's belonging to the countries that support Terrorism that makes the Innocent People not innocent anymore. If we were just going after Bin Laden, that would be differnt and I would agree with you.

However, it's been said on the news, that we would still be going forward with our Missions abroad if Bin Laden was handed over to us tomorrow. That being said, I don't think the goal is to kill everyone in a country where Terrorism is supported.

I also don't think the first goal of the mission is to save as many lives of the citizens of said country as we can. My point was to only say that WAR is Ugly and it's not MORAL. Restitution will come at a price for our soldiers and for those that live in the country(s) we target.

As an American, I'm completely behind whatever my government does. I hope peace comes again soon and fast, with as few lost american lives as possible.

 

[calpha]

Of course it's not OK to kill American Citizens for getting an American TErrorist.

You can't apply the birthright of US Citizenship, and covenant that our government has to protect its CITIZENS towards Afghan innocents, or innocents in other countries.

But, I will say this.

I firmly believe that if an American "terrorist" were to try and pilot a plan with passengers to Washington DC for the purpose of using the plane as a missle, that the same Call by President bush would have been made. Attempt to Intercept and Divert. At last resort, Terminate.

 

[Damaged]

FrysInsider: it's even more vague that what you're saying. We're going after terrorism.

Now, we believe bin Laden to be our Prime Suspect, but that's a far cry from knowing he's the one. Meaning we don't have actual evidence [yet] that he's actually responsible for the events of last Tuesday. Granted, he's a dangerous and blatantly anti-American individual, but he's still just a suspect. Trust me, I wish we had a well defined enemy here.

calpha:

In answer to Q1 I say: because they wanted to make a statement. That it involved killing innocent civilians was only part of it. They did it in broad daylight because they wanted it to be seen by all. I also think that the second plane was deliberately planned to be some amount of minutes later because they knew that we would have cameras fixed upon that scene at that point.

In response to Q2: Hard to say. I say no. They're still young and impressionable. People can and do change.

b0mbrman: "Peace at ANY price?" I don't think so. I don't think you'd say that if you realize what "any" really means (i.e. any price means nukes and I'm certainly not going to advocate that).

 

[b0mbrman]

Fair enough. So if you're against war, then what is the alternative?

No, not any price. I was talking within the context of what this guy's grandfather said