Bush stacked news media with military anlysists

[Hurkyl]

Honestly? You do physics and you can't figure something as simple as that out?

I'll help you out: Claiming that they aren't intended targets doesn't make the act of killing civilians any less deplorable.

Does too. (I agree the situation is lamentable, but I'm assuming you're using the word 'deplorable' in its other sense)

More precisely, it invalidates the primary justification for condemning the act of killing an innocent.

 

[Mokae]

That's so moving. Killing the innocent, I mean.

 

[Poop-Loops]

Does too. (I agree the situation is lamentable, but I'm assuming you're using the word 'deplorable' in its other sense)

Look, I don't need to know what a word means before I use it, okay? I just treat it like a Lagrange Multiplier. It gets me the right answer, but it doesn't matter what it is.

 

[Hurkyl]

Look, I don't need to know what a word means before I use it, okay? I just treat it like a Lagrange Multiplier. It gets me the right answer, but it doesn't matter what it is.

But if I am to understand what you say, I need to know what you mean by that word. I made an assumption, and I stated my assumption so that you could correct me if I was wrong.

Ideally, I'd like a confirmation if my assumption was correct, to remove all possibility of doubt, but I don't expect one. The worst response you can make is one like this, which doesn't actually deny my statement, but is enough like an objection that I cannot tell if I was right or wrong.


(For the record, in my opinion, neither meaning makes sense the way you used it -- one meaning makes your statement completely irrelevant, and the other makes it obviously wrong)

 

[Poop-Loops]

Okay, I checked dictionary.com and it meant exactly what I wanted it to mean, "causing or being a subject for disapproval". So I don't get what you are saying.

Secondly, the post about Lagrange Multipliers? A joke.

 

[drankin]

Of course. The difference is we claim they are batsh** insane and evil. We are supposed to have the moral high-ground here. I think that requires us to take more care in carrying out our [strike]murders[/strike] assassinations.

Kind of like this?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24441862/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,354079,00.html

 

[Hurkyl]

Okay, I checked dictionary.com and it meant exactly what I wanted it to mean, "causing or being a subject for disapproval". So I don't get what you are saying.

As you saw on dictionary.com, the word has multiple meanings. I had originally thought you meant "causing or being a subject for grief", i.e. "lamentable", which is the meaning which I usually ascribe to the word. In fact, I had even written a reply under that presumption. (I deleted it after checking www.m-w.com and saw the other meaning)

 

[Poop-Loops]

Kind of like this?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24441862/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,354079,00.html

What?

 

[drankin]

What?

More care?

 

[Art]

Does too. (I agree the situation is lamentable, but I'm assuming you're using the word 'deplorable' in its other sense)

More precisely, it invalidates the primary justification for condemning the act of killing an innocent.

Just to try and understand your poorly stated pov in your opinion how many innocent victims of an attack does it take before the attack becomes morally and ethically wrong? 1? 10? 100? 1,000? 10,000? or do you believe even if millions are killed so long as they were not the primary target then it's okay?

 

[Hurkyl]

how many innocent victims of an attack does it take before the attack becomes morally and ethically wrong?

That judgement cannot be made based solely on that statistic, of course.

 

[Poop-Loops]

No, but as that number gets larger, it becomes the dominating factor in the judgment.

 

[Art]

That judgement cannot be made based solely on that statistic, of course.

Great to see how able you are to be so blase with other people's lives. I wonder if you would be quite so understanding if you or your friends and family were amongst the innocent victims of such an attack.

Still as you are saying there are other variables then there can be no absolutes and so this 'absolute' statement by you is therefore incorrect

More precisely, it invalidates the primary justification for condemning the act of killing an innocent.

Although you now seem to have shifted from your original stance that so long as civilians were not the primary target it automatically exonerates the attackers I'm still interested to know how many innocent victims you see as 'justifiably' expendable for the operation I quoted above based on the information we have available. Personally I think if it was that valuable a target then it was worth putting US lives on the line rather than sacrificing innocents.

It never ceases to surprise me no matter how vile an act you will always find some apologist willing to try to obfuscate and/or justify it.

 

[drankin]

Great to see how able you are to be so blase with other people's lives. I wonder if you would be quite so understanding if you or your friends and family were amongst the innocent victims of such an attack.

Still as you are saying there are other variables then there can be no absolutes and so this 'absolute' statement by you is therefore incorrect

I'm still interested to know how many innocent victims you see as 'justifiably' expendable for the operation I quoted above based on the information we have available.

It never ceases to surprise me how no matter how vile an act you will always find some apologist willing to try to obfuscate and/or justify it.

Art, I'm interested on how you would go about killing these targets whether in Somalia or Baghdad. They hide out in civilian populations. Would you just say they are now in a safe zone and cannot be taken out? Meanwhile they are making plans on how to kill civilians and US soldiers, INTENTIONALLY. Those who pull the trigger have to make difficult decisions and have a small window of time to make them. We are applying military force (I won't call it "warfare" for your sake) against known terrorists.

You don't give solutions to these difficult problems, Art. You just complain about how the solution used is the wrong one. You might wonder why you aren't taken seriously. Anyone can complain.

 

[quadraphonics]

I'll help you out: Claiming that they aren't intended targets doesn't make the act of killing civilians any less deplorable.

No, but the fact that the primary target would, if left alive, have himself killed far more civilians does. It's called proportionality, and is a basic concept of just war theory and international law. It's not simply a matter grounding all moral judgements in terms of "killing civilians is bad," as that doesn't lead us anywhere other than "all war is bad."

Of course, the problem with all of this is that you, me and pretty much everyone else lacks sufficient information to estimate how many people this guy would have ended up killing, or how many people the US war planners that launched the strike could reasonably have expected to kill, so the various arguments all end up being pure speculation based on preexisting political bias. Although, as far as that goes, I do personally find it disturbing that so many people will give the government the benefit of the doubt on this. Last week, nobody had ever heard of this guy, and we have yet to even hear of any acts of terrorism attributed to him, but as long as he's with Al Qaeda, nobody cares.

 

[Hurkyl]

No, but as that number gets larger, it becomes the dominating factor in the judgment.

But without knowing the other factors, we cannot know at what point this is the one that dominates.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The Battle of Mogadishu was a fiasco. Doesn't seem like the mission was planned or executed very well. Perhaps it should not have been implimented and other approaches should have been investigated.

Art, I'm interested on how you would go about killing these targets whether in Somalia or Baghdad. They hide out in civilian populations. Would you just say they are now in a safe zone and cannot be taken out? Meanwhile they are making plans on how to kill civilians and US soldiers, INTENTIONALLY. Those who pull the trigger have to make difficult decisions and have a small window of time to make them. We are applying military force (I won't call it "warfare" for your sake) against known terrorists.

You don't give solutions to these difficult problems, Art. You just complain about how the solution used is the wrong one. You might wonder why you aren't taken seriously. Anyone can complain.

Pushing the button to launch a missle into someones neighborhood knowing full well that there will be "collateral damage" seems fairly intentional to me. Just because one might feel bad about it or need to justify it to themselves doesn't remove intentionality.

And just how small a time frame do you think we are looking at if all we are doing is dropping a missle on the guys head whether he is in the presence of innocent civilians or not?

 

[Art]

Art, I'm interested on how you would go about killing these targets whether in Somalia or Baghdad. They hide out in civilian populations. Would you just say they are now in a safe zone and cannot be taken out? Meanwhile they are making plans on how to kill civilians and US soldiers, INTENTIONALLY. Those who pull the trigger have to make difficult decisions and have a small window of time to make them. We are applying military force (I won't call it "warfare" for your sake) against known terrorists.

You don't give solutions to these difficult problems, Art. You just complain about how the solution used is the wrong one. You might wonder why you aren't taken seriously. Anyone can complain.

They don't 'hide out' in civilian populations. They are insurrectionists, they don't have military bases to work from although I can see why such emotive terms with all of it's negative connotations appeals to you as a propaganda tool.

In the specific example the target was involved in a civil war in Somalia. This hardly presents a threat of clear and present danger to US lives and so your scenario of an imminent attack on US troops and/or civilians is nonsense.

I have already told you my solution. If the target is considered valuable enough to risk loss of life then those lives risked should be the attackers not innocent bystanders. Who has the right to decide that the lives of US personnel are more valuable than the lives of innocent civilians especially when the attack is being made on the innocent civilians' soil?

The test is would US forces behave this way if the collateral damage was American civilians. I suspect rather strongly they would not and if they did there would be uproar which brings us back to my starting point. It is time the media began to shine a light on some of these ops if for no other reason that Americans understand that the victims of their oppression do not hate them for anything as mundane as their freedoms as Bush likes to say but rather for much more concrete reasons.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

No, but the fact that the primary target would, if left alive, have himself killed far more civilians does. It's called proportionality, and is a basic concept of just war theory and international law. It's not simply a matter grounding all moral judgements in terms of "killing civilians is bad," as that doesn't lead us anywhere other than "all war is bad."

Of course, the problem with all of this is that you, me and pretty much everyone else lacks sufficient information to estimate how many people this guy would have ended up killing, or how many people the US war planners that launched the strike could reasonably have expected to kill, so the various arguments all end up being pure speculation based on preexisting political bias. Although, as far as that goes, I do personally find it disturbing that so many people will give the government the benefit of the doubt on this. Last week, nobody had ever heard of this guy, and we have yet to even hear of any acts of terrorism attributed to him, but as long as he's with Al Qaeda, nobody cares.

And we probably haven't any statistics about the number of people from that community in which he lived may now join a terrorist group in order to get revenge on the americans who dropped a missile in their neighborhood or killed one of their relatives. So how many terrorists do you think may have been created by the sloppy job of getting rid of one?

 

[drankin]

No, but the fact that the primary target would, if left alive, have himself killed far more civilians does. It's called proportionality, and is a basic concept of just war theory and international law. It's not simply a matter grounding all moral judgements in terms of "killing civilians is bad," as that doesn't lead us anywhere other than "all war is bad."

Of course, the problem with all of this is that you, me and pretty much everyone else lacks sufficient information to estimate how many people this guy would have ended up killing, or how many people the US war planners that launched the strike could reasonably have expected to kill, so the various arguments all end up being pure speculation based on preexisting political bias. Although, as far as that goes, I do personally find it disturbing that so many people will give the government the benefit of the doubt on this. Last week, nobody had ever heard of this guy, and we have yet to even hear of any acts of terrorism attributed to him, but as long as he's with Al Qaeda, nobody cares.

This guy was responsible for a number of specific killings a few years ago. And he was an Al Qaeda leader as well. He wasn't killed just because he was Al Qaeda.

 

[Art]

This guy was responsible for a number of specific killings a few years ago. And he was an Al Qaeda leader as well. He wasn't killed just because he was Al Qaeda.

Oh so it was a punishment assassination and not a clear and present danger? And that justifies the killing of innocent civilians to you?

btw did you actually even read the BBC article?

The US has said al-Shabab is part of the al-Qaeda network, although analysts say it is impossible to accurately establish those links. Al-Shabab's leaders insist it is a purely Somali movement.

So he might have had tenuous links to the al-Qaeda network and that's assuming the US gov't didn't simply invent the association as they have done in the past.

 

[drankin]

They don't 'hide out' in civilian populations. They are insurrectionists, they don't have military bases to work from although I can see why such emotive terms with all of it's negative connotations appeals to you as a propaganda tool.

True, they don't have a military base. Is this a requirement in order to kill them? They hide out in their own house. That, in essence, is their military base.

In the specific example the target was involved in a civil war in Somalia. This hardly presents a threat of clear and present danger to US lives and so your scenario of an imminent attack on US troops and/or civilians is nonsense.

There you go again, Art. Where did I make a scenerio of imminent attack? Why don't you pay attention to what I say and quit making up arguments against statements that I didn't make? We are officially taking proactive action against the enemy all over the world.

I have already told you my solution. If the target is considered valuable enough to risk loss of life then those lives risked should be the attackers not innocent bystanders.

So, we shouldn't have gone after Hitler? He wasn't killing Americans. This is complete pacifist bologne that solves nothing.

The test is would US forces behave this way if the collateral damage was American civilians. I suspect rather strongly they would not and if they did there would be uproar which brings us back to my starting point. It is time the media began to shine a light on some of these ops if for no other reason that Americans understand that the victims of their oppression do not hate them for anything as mundane as their freedoms as Bush likes to say but rather for much more concrete reasons.

If we were in the middle of a civil war/revolution/war in our own borders, you can expect to have numorous friendly casualties. Your "test" is not applicable to this situation.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

There you go again, Art. Where did I make a scenerio of imminent attack? Why don't you pay attention to what I say and quit making up arguments against statements that I didn't make? We are officially taking proactive action against the enemy all over the world.
...
So, we shouldn't have gone after Hitler? He wasn't killing Americans. This is complete pacifist bologne that solves nothing.

If you wish to draw parallels like this then you are inviting the question of whether or not we are at war with this person and whether or not he is an imminent threat.
Hitler: yes/yes
al-Shabab: maybe/not that we know of
So how do you make the justification for this "proactive" action?

If we were in the middle of a civil war/revolution/war in our own borders, you can expect to have numorous friendly casualties. Your "test" is not applicable to this situation.

Do you think there would not be several americans who would decry the killing of fellow americans, civilian or otherwise, even if we were in a civil war?

 

[drankin]

Oh so it was a punishment assassination and not a clear and present danger? And that justifies the killing of innocent civilians to you?

He was a jihadist, and a danger to peace efforts and stability in the area. If we had targeted civilians I would certainly agree with you.

btw did you actually even read the BBC article?

Yes.

 

[quadraphonics]

And we probably haven't any statistics about the number of people from that community in which he lived may now join a terrorist group in order to get revenge on the americans who dropped a missile in their neighborhood or killed one of their relatives.

Indeed, the list of factors relevant to the moral calculus that we do not have is very long. Which renders any opinion on it specious, a reiteration of preexisting political biases.

So how many terrorists do you think may have been created by the sloppy job of getting rid of one?

How in the heck would I (or anyone else) know? How many civilians was this guy responsible for killing? How many more would he have been responsible for killing if left alive? What would the effects on Somalia as a polity have been? Given that there are so many crucial factors that we don't (and, often, can't) know, what exactly are we trying to talk about here?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Indeed, the list of factors relevant to the moral calculus that we do not have is very long. Which renders any opinion on it specious, a reiteration of preexisting political biases.



How in the heck would I (or anyone else) know? How many civilians was this guy responsible for killing? How many more would he have been responsible for killing if left alive? What would the effects on Somalia as a polity have been? Given that there are so many crucial factors that we don't (and, often, can't) know, what exactly are we trying to talk about here?

Not the OP which means that this will likely be locked soon.
Ah to be able to have mentor powers and split threads.

That we don't know is the point. Launching a MISSILE into a civilian neighborhood to take out ONE guy who may or may not be a threat is sloppy and irresponsible. If you want to justify it based on POSSIBILITIES then there are all sorts of possibilities to discuss, the creation of terrorists and terrorist sympatizers by launching missiles into peoples naighborhoods being prime among them. Is this guy so important that the potential fuel given to the supposed enemy due to this action is inconsequencial? This is the sort of thing that we can't say just can't be known, that military analysts ought to be considering and speaking about in an unbiased fashion. (ha! brought it back to the OP even)

 

[quadraphonics]

That we don't know is the point. Launching a MISSILE into a civilian neighborhood to take out ONE guy who may or may not be a threat is sloppy and irresponsible.

And that would be a good point if we were the ones deciding to launch the missile. However, the guys tasked with that decision have access to considerably more knowledge on this stuff than we do. That's not to say that it was or was not justified, or to assume that their knowledge is complete, but that our lack of knowledge is not in and of itself grounds for passing legitimate judgements on this act.

If you want to justify it based on POSSIBILITIES then there are all sorts of possibilities to discuss, the creation of terrorists and terrorist sympatizers by launching missiles into peoples naighborhoods being prime among them.

I haven't tried to justify anything. I've simply pointed out that all of the justifications, and counter-justifications, presented here are specious.

Is this guy so important that the potential fuel given to the supposed enemy due to this action is inconsequencial? This is the sort of thing that we can't say just can't be known, that military analysts ought to be considering and speaking about in an unbiased fashion. (ha! brought it back to the OP even)

I'm all for more candor from the military/intel/policy community on this stuff, as the basic issue is one of trusting them to do this job without our receiving all of the pertinent information. But there is a very necessary, firm limit to the level of disclosure that can be achieved, which will still be far short of what's required to really pass definitive judgement on this stuff, at least, without requiring decades of delay. That more pertinent commentary does not seem to have been politically necessary is, I'd say, a sign that people by-and-large do have confidence in the judgements of the pertinent people in these matters. Perhaps that confidence is misplaced, but it is real. Which is to say that I don't expect to see demands for increased scrutiny and explanation any time soon.

But, more generally, there really are pertinent variables that really can't be known, at least at the time when decisions must be made. And yet, the reality of war dictates that decisions be taken regardless. While I'm not against a rational, just approach to war and security policy, we must keep in mind that it is very much an ideal, and a highly unattainable one at that.