Collateral damage..?

Question

What do you think of our government and military personnel calling people who are hurt or killed in a bombing "collateral damage?" When did the lives of human beings become "collateral?"

To those who misunderstood my question: I feel that use of a euphemism like "collateral damage" dehumanizes people. We should, as the saying goes, "tell it like it is."

To Jake: No, but you could have said something like, "two civilians died in the crossfire."

Answer 1

The military has always used euphemisms like that. In my opinion they are used because it makes it easier for the government to wage war (death) by making it more "acceptable" to the masses. Here's a few:

Friendly fire - Killing people on your own side
Department of Defense - Department of War
Permanent pre-hostility - Peace
Non-operative personnel - Dead soldiers
Body count - The number of people killed
Deprivation of life - Killing
Soft targets - Bombing of civilian targets
Surgical strikes - Bombing and shelling
Neutralize - Kill
KIA - Killed in action

Answer 2

I am not immune to human death and suffering, but all wars and conflicts have unexpected or uncontrollable casualties.
Take a look at the bank robbery in LA some years back where the gunmen were in body armor terrorizing the entire city. Do you honestly think that everyone that was injured other than the gunmen, had the gunmen's bullets in them? Absolutely not!!! There were many civilians who were shot by the police in an attempt to kill the gunmen. The police didn't mean to do it, but when things get that ugly, you can't always err on the side of no innocents getting hurt. The problem has to be dealt with swiftly and with decisive action.
Has anyone crucified the LA law enforcement community because civilians got shot by them? Absolutely not!!! They have been plauded as heroes who stopped some atrocious criminals from taking more lives than they did.

The problem with questioning the parts of war and conflict that we don't like, is that you undermine the whole process. If the police were told in training: If you shoot and/or kill an innocent civilian while executing your duty of protecting and serving the public, you will be crucified and prosecuted. How safe do you think society would really be? I don't think for a minute that anyone would want to be a police officer anymore and those who already were, would probably never stop a heinous crime in progress again, because they may never draw their weapon again out of fear that someone may become collateral damage. The same goes for soldiers in the military. If they can't do their job without fear of backlash, then I'm sorry, they can't do their job with any effectiveness at all!

I personally don't agree with the extent that the Iraqi war has gone to, it should have been done and over with long ago.
BUT, I'll be dam*ed if I'm going to sit back in the comfort of my home and all the safety it provides, and criticize the actions of someone who is surrounded by violence 24/7 and didn't even wait for my permission (or approval) to go over and try to do what was necessary at the time for the Iraqi people and the rest of the world.

One last tidbit to consider: Think about the following scenario and then tell me who should be crucified or even punished.
"Heavily armed criminals have taken shelter in a high-rise apartment building which just happens to be occupied also by the people who normally live there. Unbeknownst to the people living there, the police have surrounded the building and are about to make an all-out assault in an attempt to apprehend the criminals. Before they can evacuate all of the occupants of the building, the criminals decide to make a desparate suicidal run to escape. Hearing all the gunfire right outside her door, a single mother grabs a baseball bat (the only weapon she has) and gathers her kids together. In a state of hysterical irrationality, she bursts through her door and attempts to get her trailing kids outside to safety. She holds the bat in such a way that she can use it immediately if it's necessary. The police officers in the adjoining corridor have just encountered several of the criminals. In a hail of gunfire, several officers are wounded and killed, as well as the criminals they encountered. They know for a fact that there are more of them, but they don't know where they are yet. As the woman frantically leads her kids down the stairs and around the corner, they come upon the freshly assaulted officers and surprise them. One fires a single shot at the "assailant" he sees with a weapon poised over her head ready to inflict more damage. The woman is killed instantly. And a sudden but irreversible remorse falls over all of them as they realize an innocent has been killed."
What now?

Answer 3

A government's proclivity to use euphemisms such as "collateral damage" should not be cast in a light of dehumanization or moral indifference. I believe it is an honest attempt by a government to differentiate those inadvertently killed by military action and those struck down for legimate participation in the conflict. Ever since the Vietnam War, America has been terrified of being even remotely associated with acts of indiscriminate killing. In fact, as Michael Scheuer wrote in his book "Imperial Hubris", our detestation of military and civilian deaths has caused us, since 1990, to declare a premature end to conflicts in the hope of assuaging a possible public outcry. What this has done, however, has prolonged conflicts and emboldened our enemies (a la Osama bin Laden) who perceive us as weak.

The claim that human beings have become potential collateral damage is a rather damning generalization. Humanity, en masse, do not have targets painted on them by foreign militaries or us. When a populace knowingly remains in a imminent or current war zone and as a result are killed, they than become collateral damage.

Answer 4

The military-industrial complex is in the business of death. Death = dollars. You and me and Joe Schmow from Idaho are all just expendable units in their thinking. When a baby is born, the parents sign up for a Social Security number, which effectively creates a strawman which carries the individual's name and other vital stats on paper. The actual baby is seen as a potential infantry soldier eighteen years down the road. The regimented institutional "education" (read: programming) you receive from the public school system is designed to make you a consumer-unit, basically a unit of livestock with the potential to be used as cannon fodder in future war, or as a revenue generating unit to keep the economy in a constant state of flux. (a tax-slave/debt-slave) They see you as a form of an investment, they invest care and feeding and training, and they intend to cash-in on their investment eventually. You are not a human being in the eyes of Uncle Sam, you are a consumer. In the event of a false-flag operation, such as 9/11, if you are KIA, then you are collateral damage. Any civilian killed or wounded in war is considered as such. It's an ugly business. Is it any wonder they aren't honest about it? Society would fall apart, the economy would collapse, the wheels of the big machine would grind to a halt, and the rats on top of the pyramid would suddenly be nothing but rats, just like all the other rats - food for serpents. Think about it.

Answer 5

I agree. However, collateral damage is a generic term to indicate the loss of additional property or life when trying to determine if a bombing would be effective. They lump it into one category called collateral damage. Sadly, there are names associated with collateral damage that aren't taken into account. There are lives that aren't considered when planning.
This is why war sucks. Unfortunately, wars are sometimes necessary. Not Iraq, but others have been just and needed.
Killing Americans to keep the price of oil stable is not a just war.

Answer 6

We used it in Vietnam. It was part of the military language. My commanders used it and what I going to say. I killed 2 human beings today, no we had some collateral damage

Answer 7

It is a politically easier way of saying they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. And emotionally easier to those that make those decisions. If you look at hte history of war. People have always been collateral damage....

Answer 8

When your in a war. What do you call the lives of the 3,000 innocent people killed on 9/11?

Answer 9

i like spontaneity, ma'am, and the the flow right here is as spontaneous because it ought to get. This what I call " without delay from the midsection," and that's the type poetry i like. The final 5 lines are so mystical, so religious, and so genuine that are actually not understandable via ever physique, fairly those trolls of existence. This piece is dazzling, IMHO a minimum of! My enhances, ma'am!

Answer 10

It's a term, it merely means people died who weren't the real target. They just got in the way.

And I think it's sad.