In so very many familiar conversations here, we beat around the same old bush. You know- the burning issues that seem to always branch away from the frank examination of circumstances personally considered acceptable for the brutal killing, maiming, and uprooting of everyday people- Nearly everybody goes tacitly along with it, like happy leaves in the summer breeze, soaking up warm sun, and swapping fetid sap with the root of the problem- co-existing within the vast, organic societies now doing very violent and uncaring things to people. No? We didn't start the fire, as Billy Joel might say. But we (yes, we) really do keep our respective bushes burning, often fiercely. I want for John99, Buffalo Roam, Vincent, Madanthonywayne, Ceske Hranolky, Baron Max, Erik Prince, Sandy, Oliver North, Dick Cheney, Montgomery Burns, Lucifer- basically anyone present or lurking, who is so inclined to take up this tenuous thread, to justify (if s/he is wo/man enough) the bombing of people just like all of you and me in their own homes and gathering-places. But wait... That's not all: I want for anyone, it could be someone from Mumbai (for all I know) to do what her philosophical opposition so often attempt to obliquely corral her into: Or something similar (that being, clearly stating the equivalency ("they" insinuate justification) of "insurgents" or even "terrorists" targeting civilians in war). At the same time I am hoping only to witness any chainsaw and goalie-mask engagements being directed at the pithiable others- because I couldn't take it: I'd run across a continent to escape being so brutally dissected. Maybe as far as Seattle, where there lives an unlikely fellow who could calmly take this subject a little deeper, with an extensively thoughtful post. There's a Fraggle out there, that I really can't place in this thought journey. And there's others I'd like to hear from, and some I'd like to smack upside the head. If only... If only some of this came true, then I would totally dig this thread, dood because it's so overdue to be overdone. Threads that don't beat around this central bush have lately been in short supply around here IMNSHO. Beating around is beat; and it goes on... In summary for those in the harried minority who actually read this far, I would like for this thread to explore the often broached and then skirted/diverted-from subject in Whirled Events (please don't cesspool this when diverting and prevaricating non-answers appear): How do we each personally agree (as respectful and respected members of our respective societies) to not object forcefully (even to the extent of personal risk) to the profound proposition that It's Killing Time: Time to kill non-combattant everyday people?
Come out and fight, you beauties. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I'm almost out of beer. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No, it's not quite like that: Sometimes I post when I'm drunk (which I'm not, because I've run out of beer waiting for this exchange). Now you should paste something topical; cut to the chaser (if you please).
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! That's a totally valid reason for avoiding this topic
Sorry Sissel, I missed that, running from the thread pool in big soggy wellies shorts. Not one of those fuckers is taking me alive :bugeye:
That's right- We did start the fire, and ordinary people keep it burning when they refuse or demure from objecting to the killing of innocents. This thread is a challenge for those who often obliquely defend military attacks on civilians to differentiate (for instance) air strikes upon civilians from suicide bombings, and to unequivocally justify or reject the wholesale targeting of non-combattants, either as direct or as regular and systematic "collateral" victimization as we currently see at the hands of US expeditionary forces.
Who here do you think would be willing to take that position? Evidently nobody thus far. Although I'll admit that you are being fairly confusing, so maybe I misunderstand.
"Who here do you think would be willing to take that position?" Many here (including some for whom I have considerable respect) support that position tacitly. But it's a rare warhead who will confidently come right out with an attempt to rationally justify total war. That's a phenomenon I hope to get at in this thread- I'm calling for the participatory engagement of those who do not understand, or are resistant to confronting the amoral equivalency of terrorism as compared with military attacks upon civilian non-combatants. I'm interested in the examination of the difference (in terms of morality and local and international implications) when an innocent lies dead at the hands of a suicide bomber, as compared to the innocent victim of a US military attack. It's not an easy thing to do, because it's highly uncomfortable for those who seem to have gotten their deepest notions of soldiering ethics from Hollywood movies to get very deep on the subject. -And that's a shame, because it's a subject with many profound implications. I don't mean to lump you and our most vocal proponents of US belligerency (such as Buffalo Roam) together without some distinctions. Your own posts consistently reflect the clear awareness that putting on a uniform does not absolve us of personal responsibility and respect for humanity in others. Yet in certain contexts, you too lend support to the notion that the killing of non-combatants is necessary; that those non-combatants who get in the way of military lethality in the final course of their lives share some responsibility for their own deaths. It's one thing to generically say that "war is hell", and dispassionately observe that in war innocent people die- but it's a different position to say anything of the sort as a member of a society that has initiated and continues to prolong an unprovoked, elective foreign war. A brief reviewing of some posts and threads here may illustrate what I mean about beating around the bush. Looking back, I find E3R posts that demonstrate uncommon fair-mindedness. So any dredging here is no attempt to define you, but instead to point out that you too have passed close enough to the Killing Time rationalization to get muddy. But I have high expectations you'll come clean. Killing civilians is regularly justified around here. It's customary for the proponents of these fleeting arguments to shrink from directly confronting the underlying premise- they seem loathe to compare it with any terrorist's attempted justifications for violence against the innocent. This moral cowardice is ironic, coming from those who also express high regard for bravery. I am offering a challenge here to that contradiction, appealing to a particular form of personal bravery that eagerly stands up to moral challenge without seeking the shelter of the herd. I don't mean for this to devolve into parsing and defense of posts, but instead to illustrate that it is common to read here the condoning of attacks upon civilians, in a rationalization that is not so different from the rationalizations employed by terrorists in the attempt to justify their attacks. Much of this discussion was in the thread Iraq Veterans: "Killing Civilians was encouraged" Here's another one that relates to attempts at justifying non-combattant casualties:India Mines Not Yet: From Millionaire Soldier signs on for 3rd tour in Iraq: Refusing to Kill- an update on 1st Lt. Watada, and other "Buddy Fuckers" (as E3R is wont to malign them in a veiled way). These posts (and of course many more) are illustrative of a recurring premise, that attacking civilians often becomes a military necessity, trumping moral considerations. This is where I see an equivalence between amoral soldiers and terrorists: The ends are purported to justify the means, while a pretense of difference between terrorist and indiscriminant soldier is propped up. Along with this momentous train of thought follow the many cars so heavily armored against reason: Soldiers are not responsible for the policies they carry out; it is noble to set and carry out attacks upon civilians in the "line of duty"; Just because our attacks are consistently killing more civilians than combatants does not mean that we are "targeting civilians"; in order to promote US interests, our troops must get in there and forcefully defend themselves from hostile elements within a local populace often indistinguishable from the enemy. Such a line of thinking is not just a parallel track to condoning attacks upon civilians- it can lead nowhere but to the rationalization of the deaths of innocents and innocence. I believe that participation in attacks that consistently bring overwhelming civilian casualties is tantamount to participation in terrorism, because the results are the same; such ends de-legitimize the means for the purposes of any society that sincerely respects basic human rights. Murderous means also delegitimize the mandate of forces such as the US has presently deployed in the Mideast. I know that there are many here who do not agree with me, and who insist that we must accept the killing of non-combatants as necessary to our duty or mission- That once we collectively decide that it's Killing Time, everyday people who live within our kill zones have less right to live than we; the deaths of everyday people caught up in our nation-building (or whatever the promoted Cause) are of less consequence than (for example) the victims of 9-11. I believe that this dismissal of the value of foreign civilian life comes at a very great cost to any modern society that takes up the attitude- Our callous taking and destruction of lives, and our disregard for the act in the USA is resulting in a profound change in the way we are perceived and dealt with by the rest of the world. Even the present downturn in the US economy, and the presently steep decline in US prestige and influence, have much to do with the numbers of unreasonable deaths of innocents at our hands over recent years. If we cannot confront our own callous indifference to the deaths we in the USA are causing, our decline in world stature will be steeper and more profound. I'm not the only one calling out those who have the courage to defend the indefensible. There is a historic global verdict being deliberated on the USAmerican empire, and the fathoming of our innermost regard for foreign lives is central to that debate. If supporters of our indiscriminate Killing Time contribute nothing here but absence and emptiness, it would still reinforce my point, that our society has lately been wordlessly but manifestly joining in and motivating terrorism, to a much greater extent than we have been suppressing or defeating it through force of arms or ideas. Until we in the USA can grapple with this issue directly as a nation, we will remain trapped in a destructive spiral of provocations and reprisals.
Total War is an extremely rare example of how nations reach the murderous conclusion that it's wholesale Killing Time for any targetable civilians. Although I alluded to that mentality, I'm more interested in the proponents of what is transpiring today's conflicts. In the present case of US expedition in Iraq, civilian casualties are one result. In addressing that outcome, there are those who obliquely assert that this is part of the process of what we have set out to do there. It's been a very different era over the past few years, in terms of how many Arab civilians US forces have been killing. I am challenging supporters of present, elective US expeditions to justify those killings. Roman: "Sometimes you have to win." Can you provide an example? Is the imperative to win valid for all killers?
As everyone knows, it's not US policy (or military policy) to deliberately kill civilians. Occasionally some are killed as a result of mistakes, or a soldier goes nuts and kills a civilian on his/her own. Also, as everyone knows, a vast majority of the civilian deaths in Iraq are a result of muslim terrorists that DELIBERATELY kill as many innocent civilians as possible with suicide bombers, especially in 2007. Since you're more concerned about the rare Iraqi civilian deaths because of the US military, rather than the much larger death toll of Iraqi civilians at the hands of terrorists and insurgents, perhaps your concern is based more on politics than morality.
Sure. If the survival of your identity is at risk from a foreign threat, most will be willing to do just about anything to preserve it. Or if you simply cannot afford a long, drawn out quagmire. It's the efficacy of total war. A Patton or a Sherman would have cleaned up Iraq virtually overnight.
