Do you think innocent human beings are acceptable collateral damage?

Question

Would you say that if it was your loved one...who was the collateral damage??? Pure hedonistic rubbish!

I don't think trying not to hit innocents is good enough. Would it be good enough if it was your relative?

Answer 1

There are no acceptable losses. That is military/political language oops!! and i don't care as long as my goal is accomplished. Be the change. Peace.

Answer 2

In some circumstances, I think innocent human beings are acceptable COLLATERAL damage. I stress collateral because this means UNINTENTIONAL damage. Intentional attacks on innocent people are never justified.

In some situations, the importance of a military objective to a cause is so high that accidental loss of innocent life is not enough to stop military action. For example, if capturing a certain city is vital to winning a war against a genocidal enemy, it is acceptable to fire at bunkers in the city, even if some of the shells might hit innocents trapped inside.

Of course, this does not mean attacks can be indiscriminate as long as civilians aren't intentionally attacked. It is not permissible to just randomly rain shells on a neighborhood, and justify it by saying "I thought there was an enemy soldier in there, and I wasn't TRYING to hurt civilians." Every effort must be made to find an alternative without the risk of collateral damage, or to minimize that risk as much as possible.

But sometimes, there is no other way.

Answer 3

I guess it depends on your side of the equation. From where I sit today I would say no. However, if I had the same education and personality and were a female in pre-Saddam Iraq I think I'd accept some collateral damage to allow me the freedoms that I currently enjoy.

If I were black in S. Africa during Apartheid and decided I wanted my freedom and talking, praying and hoping wasn't getting me anywhere. I might accept some collateral damage.

If gangs were terrorizing my neighbourhood and the police intervened and some "innocent" gang members were collateral damaged and my neighbourhood became safer. I think I might accept it.

In a time of peace, in the comfort of my living room it is unacceptable for me and mine to be "collateral damage". However, until we stop trying to impose our beliefs on others and until we can all agree on much each of us wants, needs and deserves of Earth and it's resources - collateral damage appears inevitable.

Answer 4

Ask the 9/11 hijackers this question, or the Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah, or the Iraq insurgents. In their cases, it's not even collateral damage - they TARGET innocent human beings. At least we TRY not to kill innocents, but accidents do happen, especially when terrorists hide behind civilians.

Answer 5

Apparently. Hey 50-60 years ago, one of the major goals in war was to TARGET civilians. Remember all the city bombings in WWII?

At least now the good guys try to reduce as many civilian deaths as possible, and even drop letter bombs warning them to leave an area before the attack happens.

Answer 6

All the people here who say "hey, accidents happen" disgust me and displays your indifference to HUMAN life. If that was your sister or mom, would you just say "hey accidents happen." These people are losing family and no one seems to give a damn just because it's not theirs. Try growing a heart people, you can't live with a black hole in your chest forever. Try consoling a widowed wife by saying hey, we're targeting our targets as best as we can

Answer 7

No and we had over 3,000 of them on 9/11. Lets tell the families of those people that we are should just appease the people who funded the animals who did this.

Answer 8

is any collateral damage acceptable?but remember,excusing our governments intentions,American military technology is the most efficient and accountable military on the earth

Answer 9

you utilize a good sort of loaded words, "perfect", "bloodbath", "harmless", and "collateral injury". Do you recognize their meaning or are you in simple terms being disagreement and obtuse? it particularly is the coverage of the U. S. protection stress that civilian casaulties are on no account "perfect" yet now and lower back unavoidable. have been they killed as a results of fact of strikes of our enemies like hiding among them or utilising them as shields? bloodbath is probable not the notice you go with to apply. I recommend you look it up in a good dictionary. harmless? are you able to tutor that or is that the notice of the terrorists asserting it? Collateral injury... I defer to the 1st notice, it particularly is on no account perfect in spite of the incontrovertible fact that it fairly is now and lower back unavoidable. a protection stress commanders first duty is to the protection of his or her troops. you recognize, American men and females with families lower back in the states. The way forward for the enemy is presented in a miles off 2nd. The civilians are someplace in between and the U. S. commonly danger US lives to guard civilians. you will possibly desire to be praising the professionalism and choose of our protection stress somewhat than attempting to tar their photograph. i'm going to ask you this, what proportion Frenchman died via our palms jointly as attempting to liberal their united states of america from the Germans? Do you think of all of our bombs, bullets, and shells in elementary terms stumbled on Germans?

Answer 10

If you are refering to the wars in the mid east, it is apparent that the Islamo-facists Arabs think it is OK to KILL innocent human beings.... even their own brethern.