<alcockell@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:HpKdnR-JPtOru4_VnZ2dnUVZ8ternZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ...
>> People go to war where they killed. Are they "suicide killers"?
<snip> ...
> No. If someone has signed up into the armed forces, they are there at
> their government's bidding - and have a responsibility to protect
> noncombatants and civilians. Not to commit mass-murder, ...
<snip> ...
>> Are the American and British troops that are sent to Iraq and
>> Afghanistan to kill people any different from those who do the same
>> in retaliation?
<snip> ...
> Yes. The UN Security Council approved the military action - and from
> what I understand, the rules of the Just War apply.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
How do you incor****ate "the rules of the Just War" with the inoffensive
idea
of "collateral damage" (i.e "a military euphemism for murder")? All of
this
verbal jousting or philosophical 'verbal disputes' just highlights the
dilemma that effectively clouds proper debate about Islam and Muslim
beliefs. See analysis below:-
http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=25910&sid=2
<Quote>
But language has always had a power that tilts toward those who define the
terms. Journalists interested in maintaining their independence -- real
and
perceived -- have to pay attention to the difference, say, between a war
and
a "campaign;" between "collateral damage" and the killing of innocent
people.
The military isn't making it easy, layering atop its lingo a hefty supply
of
patriotism, nobility and machismo. The bombing and invasion of Iraq is
called "Operation Iraqi Freedom." The concurrent assault on Afghanistan is
called "Operation Valiant Strike." U.S. soldiers in Kuwait fire "Patriot"
missiles to bring down incoming Iraqi missiles.
When war****ps and bombers fired the first shots of this war, trying to
kill
Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and other leaders, military analysts dubbed
the
goal a "decapitation," a gruesome euphemism that sidesteps another loaded
term for killing a national leader: assassination. ..
<Unquote> ...
AND:-
http://www.nowpublic.com/collateral_damage_language_embedded_journalists_0
<Quote> ...
When historians review this century for relevant incidents, the wars in
Iraq
and Afghanistan will figure prominently. First-hand explanations from
embedded journalists bring us day-to-day re****ts of situations that are
proving to affect global political and economic conditions with increasing
certainty. With a multiplicity of cir***spect terms being used by the
military to describe hostile confrontations, journalists need to be
prepared
to remain disinterested during combat re****ting in order to communicate an
objective perspective. The term "collateral damage" is now
commonly used to describe innocent civilians killed during a morally
righteous military attack. This definition was derived from notions
contained within the Doctrine of Double Effect (Bica): a do***ent created
by
Catholic Casuists during the middle ages that explained when murder can be
justified in situations of self defence. The doctrine argues that
unintentional harm to innocent persons under these conditions is
forgivable.
When western military spokespersons describe civilian deaths during
attacks
as being "collateral damage," they justify these casualties as morally
righteous and above reprieve. By assimilating this style of language in
news
stories from these regions, journalists validate the righteousness of the
interpretation. ....
<Unquote> ...
AND:-
Here's an illuminating synopsis "Just War -- or a Just War?" that appeared
in the NYT by President Jimmy Carter. Full story at this freely available
link:-
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D00EFDE113FF93AA35750C0A9659C8B63
<Quote> ...
As a Christian and as a president who was severely provoked by
international
crises, I became thoroughly familiar with the principles of a just war,
and
it is clear that a substantially unilateral attack on Iraq does not meet
these standards. This is an almost universal conviction of religious
leaders, with the most notable exception of a few spokesmen of the
Southern
Baptist Convention who are greatly influenced by their commitment to
Israel
based on eschatological, or final days, theology.
For a war to be just, it must meet several clearly defined criteria.
The war can be waged only as a last resort, with all nonviolent options
exhausted. In the case of Iraq, it is obvious that clear alternatives to
war
exist. These options -- previously proposed by our own leaders and
approved
by the United Nations -- were outlined again by the Security Council on
Friday. But now, with our own national security not directly threatened
and
despite the overwhelming opposition of most people and governments in the
world, the United States seems determined to carry out military and
diplomatic action that is almost unprecedented in the history of civilized
nations. The first stage of our widely publicized war plan is to launch
3,000 bombs and missiles on a relatively defenseless Iraqi population
within
the first few hours of an invasion, with the purpose of so damaging and
demoralizing the people that they will change their obnoxious leader, who
will most likely be hidden and safe during the bombardment.
The war's weapons must discriminate between combatants and noncombatants.
Extensive aerial bombardment, even with precise accuracy, inevitably
results
in ''collateral damage.'' Gen. Tommy R. Franks, commander of American
forces
in the Persian Gulf, has expressed concern about many of the military
targets being near hospitals, schools, mosques and private homes.
Its violence must be pro****tional to the injury we have suffered. Despite
Saddam Hussein's other serious crimes, American efforts to tie Iraq to the
9/11 terrorist attacks have been unconvincing. ...
<Unquote> ...
Would you or other readers continue to conclude, after reading this
article
in full, that typically the armed forces "have a responsibility to protect
noncombatants and civilians. Not to commit mass-murder ...", in Iraq or
elsewhere? Does it matter if the human casualties are Muslims or
non-Muslims
according to this synecdoche?
Here's another 'doublethink' angle for reader's altruistic consciences
from
the insightful Professor Camillo "Mac" Bica, an ex-Marine (26th Marines
Vietnam 1969-70). Full story at this link:-
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=12592
<Quote> ...
War, even as a response to terrorism is rule governed. According to Just
War
Theory and a myriad of international agreements and treaties, war is
evaluated according to whether established criteria are satisfied. One of
the most im****tant rules of war is the legal and moral prohibition against
the targeting and killing of innocents, i.e., the criterion of
discriminating and affording of immunity to noncombatants - the Criterion
of Discrimination. Since noncombatants are neither directly nor indirectly
involved in the prosecution of a terrorist attack or of a war, they have
done nothing to warrant a forfeiture of their immunity. Consequently, to
kill noncombatants to further some goal or objective whether political,
religious, or social, even if for a just cause, is not an act of war but
of
murder and fundamental to our understanding of terrorism. That is, the
Criterion of Discrimination is integral in differentiating war from
terrorism and killing in war from murder. Acts of terrorism, unlike acts
of
war, knowingly harm and kill noncombatants.
Foundational to the concept of collateral damage is the Doctrine of Double
Effect (DDE). First developed by Catholic casuists during the Middle Ages,
the DDE morally differentiates the intended effects of an act from those
that are unintended, though foreseen. Further, by focusing upon the moral
significance of intention and its relevance to moral agency and
responsibility, the DDE morally distinguishes killing as an unintended,
secondary effect - - collateral damage - - from murder, claiming only the
latter as absolutely prohibited. Consequently, the Criterion of
Discrimination is preserved and, if intention is withheld, killing
noncombatants is morally permissible. Herein, then, lies the alleged
crucial
moral distinction between the acts of the terrorist and of those who
respond
to terrorism (responders) and between murder and collateral damage.
Terrorists are acting immorally and are morally culpable and liable for
their actions because they intend the noncombatant deaths in their
attacks.
They are committing murder. Those who respond to terrorism, however, claim
only to be targeting the terrorists, or the regimes that sup****t
terrorism,
and any noncombatant deaths that occur, though foreseen, are, it is
alleged,
the unfortunate, unintended, by-product of a "moral act" of combating
terrorism. Such killing is not murder but collateral damage. Consequently,
responders are acting morally and are non liable and non culpable for the
noncombatants they kill. ...
<Unquote> ...
Where do you get the false idea that the Iraq War was approved by the
United
Nations?
--
Peace
--
For a large class of cases - though not for all - in which we employ the
word meaning it can be defined thus: the meaning of a word is its use in
the
language. [Ludwig Wittgenstein]
Zuiko Azumazi.
zuiko.azumazi@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
