"collateral damage estimates [were] well within our rules of engagement."

[acmavm]

From this article:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0621/p06s01-woiq.html

The only reason that I bring this up is because I'm sitting here wondering what the magic number is that justifies the murder of innocent civilians? Ten? Twenty? Thirty Five? And who set the standard, what butcher came up with this number?

Do these people sleep at night? Do they see the dead and dismembered in their dreams? Or are they truly as amoral and dispicable as it sounds?

[THUNDER HANDS]

1. I don't know how the people in our military sleep at night

Not the soldiers, but the people who call the shots.

I bet hell is packed full of military planners and people who make estimates on the number of 'acceptable' civilian deaths.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

4. Just my opinion, but I know that most soldiers have difficulty...

...sleeping at night after they discover they've killed a civilian, particularly a child. It may not hit them right away, but it WILL hit them, and the dreams will be very bad.

[THUNDER HANDS]

5. yeah but

what about the war planners. The people who huddle over the maps of Iraq and say 'do this here' 'do that there' 'bomb this' 'bomb that'

Those people have no soul.

[DarkPhenyx]

2. Actually we do sleep at night.

and sleep quite well most of the time.

[mmonk]

3. Must be over

25 to 1 bad person. That's why it was ok that it was only civilians.

[Spazito]

6. Amazingly cold-blooded, imo

That means, given that this is a "war", the 3000 from the towers were over the number allowed as acceptable collateral damage? By how many, I wonder? 50? 100? 1000?

[markses]

7. Puts the lie to the "intention" argument

The consistent and incoherent argument by those who decry putting al-Qaeda and the US government on the same level is simple: al-Qaeda means (or intends) to kill civilians, while the US government does everything in its power to avoid doing so. This argument is bunk, as this article shows. If you contemplate an action, a necessary consequence of which is civilian death, and follow through on that action, then you can be said to INTEND the necessary consequences of the action, because they are NECESSARY.

[mmonk]

8. I guess the problem arises

in that people in Iraq didn't carry out the events of 9/11. They are in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Pakstan, etc. That being said, not everyone who is critical of the report is putting the US military in the same category of al queda.

[Spazito]

9. If al-Qaeda's intent is to cripple the US's economy, communications..

banking center by hitting the twin towers, would the 3000 civilians lost not equate as "collateral damage"? It seems to me that the term "collateral damage" and "definition" of collateral damage is okay only when it applies to the US killing civilians, interesting.

The use of "collateral damage" "friendly fire" and other euphemisms for killing are disgusting, imo, no matter who uses them.

Edited for better sentence structure.

[mmonk]

10. Very true.

Its like putting a veil on the truth that war kills civilians and to speak of it in such acceptable terms is a disgusting practice. That being said, these people didn't die for symbolism like those in the Twin Towers. They died on a mistake and bad overall policy, but the world won't be able to tell the difference.

[Spazito]

11. Symbolism only in the western world, the civilians dying in Iraq are

symbols of US policy to those in the middle east, they surely don't see them as "mistakes". The point I am trying to make is that the west's view of what is a "mistake" and what is a "symbol" is not the only view and that is why we now have a "war on terror", sadly.

[mmonk]

12. I thought hitting the twin towers was symbolistic

to al Queda. Most Americans think murder. But I get your drift.

[Spazito]

13. Thanks, it is a good discussion and has caused me to think about

the whole issue of civilian deaths wherever they occur during hostile actions. I just wish we would use the actual words instead of whitewashing the truth in order to safeguard the sensibilites of those on the "homefront". Maybe if we were, we would be less likely to support wars, occupations, etc. Probably wishful thinking on my part though.

[mmonk]

15. If the images

could be shown to an American audience by the press like is being done in other parts of the world, it might would affect people's thinking here.

[Spazito]

16. Yes, I very much agree, not unlike the photos of torture...

we react to visual images much more than the written or spoken description.

[ulysses]

14. a society that accepts

euphemisms like "collateral damage" in the first place is pretty well doomed to having to consider questions like yours.