Skip to main content

View Diary: Eric Holder says... (416 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Ah yes, the "collateral damage" argument. (18+ / 0-)

    "We didn't plan on killing this innocent person, but it just couldn't be helped."  Great.  This is what we've come to now.

    "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

    by FogCityJohn on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 10:13:34 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  All war (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pozzo, jdsnebraska

      has collateral damage. This is why we should try to avoid it where possible.

      It's not like we're firebombing Dresden anymore, though.

      What's the alternative?

      We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

      by raptavio on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 10:24:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And, of course, the war is permanent and global (14+ / 0-)

        Enemies and theaters of operations to be determined at the whim of whomever occupies the Presidential Palace.

        Orwell would demand royalties.

        If only donkeys could have elephant balls... Occupy!

        by chuckvw on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 10:55:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Enough with the "collateral damage" dodge. (10+ / 0-)

        At least have the courage to own up to what you're talking about.  You're talking about killing innocent people just because they happen to have the misfortune of being in physical proximity to someone we have concluded is a terrorist or a terrorist sympathizer.

        I wonder how willing you'd be to sacrifice your spouse, children, or other loved ones in such a situation.  I suspect your willingness would be close to zero.  But that's because you view your own family as human beings, an status you appear unwilling to bestow on the people you euphemistically refer to as "collateral damage."

        "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

        by FogCityJohn on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 01:17:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Question repeated: (0+ / 0-)

          In war, what is the alternative? How do you eliminate "collateral damage"? If you cannot answer that question, it is not a dodge.

          We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

          by raptavio on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 01:37:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  How about not go to war? (5+ / 0-)

            "I'm not scared of anyone or anything, Angie. Isn't that the way life should be?" Jack Hawksmoor

            by skyounkin on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 03:47:57 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Sure, (0+ / 0-)

              and in most cases (like Iraq, certainly) that's a dandy idea.
              But sometimes war is necessary, so your answer isn't useful.

              We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

              by raptavio on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 05:44:59 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  I guess you get to ask all the questions . . . (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            wonmug, The Walrus, splintersawry

            but don't feel the need to respond to any.  Of course, that suggests that you have very little of substance to say.  

            But since you seem to think I'm dodging your very Bush-like justification for murdering innocent people, I'll just note that I don't accept your premise that this is "war."  If I did, then there would be no boundaries whatsoever to the executive's discretion to kill anyone it chooses.  That's because the so-called "war on terror" is uniformly described as "global," and thus it has no geographical boundaries at all.  By your definition, there would be no problem with killing, say, a group of American schoolchildren in Nebraska, if they happened to be too close to some suspected terrorist.  

            Again, I think you simply don't accord brown people who profess a strange religion the same dignity as human beings that you would accord to your own family.  You treat the former as disposable so long as there's a claim that someone in their proximity is a "terrorist."

            "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

            by FogCityJohn on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 03:48:38 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Okay. (0+ / 0-)

              You lost me because your position is so utterly bereft of merit you've now reduced to accusing me, quite unsubtly, of racism.

              Pity this is so right margin or you could get a few HRs for your trouble.

              As a note -- I tend not to answer questions WHEN NONE ARE ASKED.

              End of line.

              We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

              by raptavio on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 05:47:03 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I note you haven't said I'm wrong. (0+ / 0-)

                And yeah, telling brown people in the Middle East that their children's deaths are just "collateral damage" (when you certainly wouldn't be willing to see your own children treated the same way) is pretty much racist.  

                "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                by FogCityJohn on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 09:35:12 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  when Drones target funerals, weddings and first (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dallasdoc, happymisanthropy

        responders I don't see any concerns for who is or isn't a combatant.(emphasis mine)
        http://www.democracynow.org/...

        The CIA’s drone campaign targeting suspected militants in Pakistan has killed dozens of civilians who had gone to rescue victims or were attending funerals. So concludes a new report by the London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism. It found that since President Obama took office three years ago, as many as 535 civilians have been killed, including more than 60 children. The investigation also revealed that at least 50 civilians were killed in follow-up strikes when they had gone to help victims. More than 20 civilians have also been attacked in deliberate strikes on funerals and mourners. We speak to Chris Woods, award-winning reporter with the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. "We noted that there were repeated reports at the time, contemporaneous reports in publications like New York Times, news agencies like Reuters, by CNN, that there were these strikes on rescuers, that there were reports that there had been an initial strike and then, some minutes later, as people had come forward to help and pull out the dead and injured, that drones had returned to the scene and had attacked rescuers," Woods says. "We’ve been able to name just over 50 civilians that we understand have been killed in those attacks. In total, we think that more than 75 civilians have been killed, specifically in these attacks on rescuers and on mourners, on funeral-goers." [includes rush transcript]

        without the ants the rainforest dies

        by aliasalias on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 02:47:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Tell that to the 16 Afgan civilians who were (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dallasdoc

        murdered.

        "I'm not scared of anyone or anything, Angie. Isn't that the way life should be?" Jack Hawksmoor

        by skyounkin on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 03:47:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Oy gevalt. (0+ / 0-)

          That asshole will be tried and in all probability executed for his crimes.

          How about trying to argue the issue at hand instead of throwing shit and seeing what sticks?

          We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

          by raptavio on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 05:52:04 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  asdf: (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      poligirl, happymisanthropy

      Here I go again.  I HATE that term:  "collateral damage".  How is a DEAD person damaged?  They are DEAD for God's sake, that in my opinion is way beyond damaged!!  Not yelling at you FogCityJohn, just been hearing that term to much lately on the radio.  I think it's just a way to "tidy" up things and it really really makes me sick.

      •  That's precisely why the term is in quotes. (6+ / 0-)

        I agree that dead people are just that -- dead.  We should at least have the decency to call them "fatalities."  That would recognize that they are no longer among the living.  

        The fact of the matter is that both our government and far too many "progressives" don't view these victims as human.  Their lives are of no value, and we can simply sacrifice them when we kill, or attempt to kill, someone we believe to be a terrorist.  In a similar fashion, we never bothered to keep tabs on how many Iraqis died as a result of our invasion of that country, although we keep meticulous records of how many of our servicemembers have died in that conflict.  Lost Iraqi lives, it seems, just aren't important enough to count.  

        "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

        by FogCityJohn on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 01:12:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thanks.... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FogCityJohn

          I did get that was why it was in quotes.  It's just a phrase that has been tossed about on the radio lately and it's always bugged me so I just had to let off some steam.  I do agree that "fatalities" is a much more decent term to use.  I also agree with the rest of your comment.  Again thanks.

      •  collateral damage=negligent homicide (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ladyjames

        You may think that. I couldn't possibly comment.-- Francis Urqhart

        by Johnny Q on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 02:29:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site