http://www.populistamerica.com/collateral_damage_is_murder
Does it depend upon who induces the collateral damage?
2007-05-02 16:27:21 · 7 answers · asked by sarcasm_generator 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Yes, it depends upon who induces the collateral damage. It must, otherwise we wouldn't be able to live with ourselves.
If an armed criminal comes into my home and "accidently" kills me, he's still prosecuted for murder.
2007-05-02 16:35:32 · answer #1 · answered by Kinetic Nebula 6 · 2⤊ 4⤋
Collateral damage is NOT the same as murder. You CAN'T have a war without collateral damage of some kind.
But your ARE right about it depending upon who induces the collateral damage. If American service men do it, then it is murder. If the terrorists do it, then they did not mean it, but it is OUR fault anyway.
2007-05-03 02:42:34 · answer #2 · answered by Wilfordv 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Wow - that author is a moron. To him, collateral damage is nothing more than "state-sponsored mass murder" That contradiction was enough for me.
"when war is taken to a civilian population, isn't it nothing more than terrorism and murder, even if you later call the victims collateral damage?"
Sorry a$$hole (author - just in case you're wondering to who I'm referring to) - unlike the terrorists, civilians are not the intentional target.
If we dropped a MOAB on an area that we knew there was civilians, that's a different story.
2007-05-03 01:55:25 · answer #3 · answered by dude 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Since collateral Damage is Not intentional, it would be considered involuntary Manslaughter, not murder
2007-05-03 00:55:03 · answer #4 · answered by enj 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Murder, by definition, is intentional. Collateral damage, by definition, is accidental. They are not the same - by definition!
2007-05-02 23:35:33 · answer #5 · answered by Doctor J 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
No
2007-05-02 23:35:38 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
No & no.
2007-05-02 23:43:58 · answer #7 · answered by Wolfpacker 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋