A Story, A Hypothetical, And A Question:

[TomVeil]

The Story

When I was in school, I was classmates with a kid named Bobby. He was Iraqi. We were friends, lived next door to each other, played football together, etc. Once a week, Bobby's family would only speak in their native language as a way to remember the family that was still there. Bobby's a pretty typical american kid. Smart, plays sports, likable guy. At my 10 year reunion, I hear he's changed his name back to "Babak", which it was at birth.

The Hypothetical

So let's say that tommorrow Bobby gets his hands on a couple machine guns and fires into a crowded mall crowd. 100 people killed, including him. The media dives into his life and finds nothing. No terrorist ties. No problems with his friends, no warning signs. Later, we find that his family was killed in Iraq because of a bombing.

The Question

What do you think about this? If we ARE in the middle of a war, casualties happen, right? Or do the rules only apply when it's somebody else's civilians dying?

How would the rest of the world react? How would the rest of the country react? Would we even have an election in '08? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
What do you think about this?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a sad cause and effect. He was (likely) lashing out for his loss. His parents were (again, likely) innocent and were mearly collateral damage. In war there are innocent deaths, it's an awful part of war.
He choose to kill innocents instead of those that droped the bombs, but in a way, a large way, we're all guilty, so he wasn't so far from targeting the right killers.

Note: I don't endorse the war, but that doesn't change the fact that we're in it, assuming one even believes it to be a "war" in the normal sense.

[ QUOTE ]
If we ARE in the middle of a war, casualties happen, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep

[ QUOTE ]
Or do the rules only apply when it's somebody else's civilians dying?

[/ QUOTE ]

No one should ever "root" for civilian deaths, war itself is regrettable, to say nothing of civilian deaths.

[ QUOTE ]
How would the rest of the world react?

[/ QUOTE ]

Major news story for that day, and maybe the next. After that we'll have a few extra weeks coverage in the States but likely very little around the world.

[ QUOTE ]
How would the rest of the country react?

[/ QUOTE ]

Major news for a week or so, depending on what city it was in and how many died. Also depending on how soon after they found out about his parents we might get a little more TV time. The country will be largely apathetic.

[ QUOTE ]
Would we even have an election in '08?

[/ QUOTE ]

I certainly hope so, but sadly, I'm not sure enough to say 100%.

Cody

[Archon_Wing]

[ QUOTE ]

What do you think about this? If we ARE in the middle of a war, casualties happen, right? Or do the rules only apply when it's somebody else's civilians dying?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well it definitely would suck. I would certainly hate his actions for taking his rage on innocent people, but yea he would also be a victim in a sense that losing your family would probaly drive you nuts. Death on both sides sucks, but that's what happens in war which is why it should never been taken lightly.

Understandable doesn't mean justified of course. If the person's family had, say, died in a car accident, would he have done the same thing?



[/ QUOTE ] How would the rest of the world react?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that's a lot of people to generalize, but probaly with disgust as many do not approve of a lot of the foreign policy of the US. That's probaly an understatement.

[ QUOTE ]
How would the rest of the country react?

[/ QUOTE ]
Some may view it as an other tragedy like many others that have happened. Although one reaction I'd fear the most would be even more suspicion of people from the Middle East and that one might last a long time. Some people might be led to believe that those people are really all violent and such. That might not happen, but the media will probaly emphasize that he is of Iraqi descent.

[ QUOTE ]
Would we even have an election in '08?

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, if you mean the election's going to be one sided then I don't think so.

[Albert Moulton]

What do you think about this?
Bobby was a mass murderer.

If we ARE in the middle of a war, casualties happen, right?
Yes. Casualties happen in war. Murders also happen in war as well as peace. Unless a US soldier walked into Bobby's family's house to shoot each of them in the head, then Bobby's action is legally different than the soldiers' action. As with most civilian casulaties of this sort, the soldiers were probably following their rules of engagement and killed Bobby's family by accident. That kind of thing happens in every war. It happened a lot in Europe, for example, during WWII as soldiers cleared houses and cellars with hand grenades. Occasionally, they would kill a family hiding in the cellar. It was horrible. War, by definition, is horrible. Bobby's action, however, was an act of premeditated mass murder. It was fundamentally different than the most likely scenario in which his family would have died. And even if his family had died in an unusual war crime, then the criminals should have been prosecuted rather than Bobby taking his own life and the lives of 100 others in an act of personal vengence.

Or do the rules only apply when it's somebody else's civilians dying?
The rules are the same. But Bobby broke the rules when he intentionally targeted civilians for the sole purpose of murderous revenge. Our soldiers, with a few criminal exceptions, are trying to kill enemy combatants. Civilian deaths are an unfortunate consequence of trying to kill enemy combatants. Killing civilians by accident while following reasonable rules of engagement for killing enemy combatants in a war zone is unfortunate, but not criminal. Killing 100 civilians in a premeditated act of terrorism is criminal.

How would the rest of the world react?
There would be few headlines. There would not be much of a reaction. There is nothing that they or anyone else can do about this kind of individual act of mass murder.

How would the rest of the country react?
It would be similar to the VA Tech murders in the coverage and response.
It might make everybody even more willing to racial stereotype against arabs and persians. There would be more scrutiny in public places of people like Bobby with backpacks or who might be acting or dressed strangely.

Would we even have an election in '08?
Yes. Even if the US were attacked, if it were possible to have an election, then we would have an election. I don't think it would even have a major impact on the election. Bobby would be marginalized as a disturbed individual who took violent action in revenge for the tragic loss of his family in Iraq.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
He choose to kill innocents instead of those that droped the bombs, but in a way, a large way, we're all guilty, so he wasn't so far from targeting the right killers.

[/ QUOTE ]

How are we 'all' guilty? Nobody I know personally has killed any Iraquis, nobody I know (or, almost nobody) supports the war in Iraq, supports Bush, voted for Bush, etc etc etc. How could people who are ooposed to war and who didn't participate in the actual killings (or in the ordering of said killings) of innocent people be 'guilty'?

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He choose to kill innocents instead of those that droped the bombs, but in a way, a large way, we're all guilty, so he wasn't so far from targeting the right killers.

[/ QUOTE ]

How are we 'all' guilty? Nobody I know personally has killed any Iraquis, nobody I know (or, almost nobody) supports the war in Iraq, supports Bush, voted for Bush, etc etc etc. How could people who are ooposed to war and who didn't participate in the actual killings (or in the ordering of said killings) of innocent people be 'guilty'?

[/ QUOTE ]

By the same logic used to say the people in Hiroshima were guilty of Japan's deeds and the people of Dresden were guilty of Hitler's deeds and the people of Tripoli were guilty of Qaddafi's deeds. I'm not saying we're guilty. But those who justify the deaths of foreign civilians must use the same logic when applied to Americans.

Edit: You brought up anti-war folks. Lets put them aside. Does the pro-war side have some guilt when it comes to supporting the war? Without the support of millions of flag-waving Americans, we wouldn't still be there. So is an attack on these people any more or less justified than an attack on an Iraqi neighborhood which doesn't oppose the local militia? Food for thought.

[W brad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


How are we 'all' guilty? Nobody I know personally has killed any Iraquis, nobody I know (or, almost nobody) supports the war in Iraq, supports Bush, voted for Bush, etc etc etc. How could people who are ooposed to war and who didn't participate in the actual killings (or in the ordering of said killings) of innocent people be 'guilty'?

[/ QUOTE ]

By the same logic used to say the people in Hiroshima were guilty of Japan's deeds and the people of Dresden were guilty of Hitler's deeds and the people of Tripoli were guilty of Qaddafi's deeds.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think anyone is saying the normal citizens of Hiroshima et al are guilty of anything, but rather that some civilian casualties are unavoidable and justified when waging a war. Sometimes its a trade off of one group of citizens for another. The death of Hiroshima citizens likely helped save other Japanese civilians as well as soldiers on both sides.

No war can be waged perfectly to avoid all civilian casualties, and avioding them can actually lead to more deaths due to forcing you to choose a less good option of conducting the war.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


How are we 'all' guilty? Nobody I know personally has killed any Iraquis, nobody I know (or, almost nobody) supports the war in Iraq, supports Bush, voted for Bush, etc etc etc. How could people who are ooposed to war and who didn't participate in the actual killings (or in the ordering of said killings) of innocent people be 'guilty'?

[/ QUOTE ]

By the same logic used to say the people in Hiroshima were guilty of Japan's deeds and the people of Dresden were guilty of Hitler's deeds and the people of Tripoli were guilty of Qaddafi's deeds.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think anyone is saying the normal citizens of Hiroshima et al are guilty of anything, but rather that some civilian casualties are unavoidable and justified when waging a war. Sometimes its a trade off of one group of citizens for another. The death of Hiroshima citizens likely helped save other Japanese civilians as well as soldiers on both sides.

No war can be waged perfectly to avoid all civilian casualties, and avioding them can actually lead to more deaths due to forcing you to choose a less good option of conducting the war.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well at least one prominent member of this forum said he'd rather kill every single Japanese man, woman, and child than accept a conditional surrender by the Japanese. These deaths are clearly avoidable. And I've posted in the past on the myth of Hiroshima. Please go Google what many senior leaders, including Eisenhower, were saying regarding use of the atomic bomb as a means to save lives.

And if its just a question of saving lives that makes attacks on civilians legitimate, consider this: If (hypothetically) terrorists killed 1000 prominent Republican Americans and stated that this is retribution for the war and no further attacks would come if we left Iraq, and we did leave Iraq after this (assume the people finally have had enough and many leading Repubs like the radio hosts and pundits are dead), would it be justified? It surely would save lives in the war. This is essentially what we did in Hiroshima and Nagasaki after all. Except we killed closer to 150,000 civilians and then said we wouldn't anymore if their government agreed to our terms.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
Unless a US soldier walked into Bobby's family's house to shoot each of them in the head, then Bobby's action is legally different than the soldiers' action. As with most civilian casulaties of this sort, the soldiers were probably following their rules of engagement and killed Bobby's family by accident. That kind of thing happens in every war. It happened a lot in Europe, for example, during WWII as soldiers cleared houses and cellars with hand grenades. Occasionally, they would kill a family hiding in the cellar. It was horrible. War, by definition, is horrible. Bobby's action, however, was an act of premeditated mass murder.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no denying that Bobby's actions would be horrible and ought to be considered murder. But I'm not sure why the US soldier gets a free pass. I don't doubt that the killing of innocent civilians is (mostly) unintentional, but when the circumstances by which they are killed arise by direct result of an unjust invasion of their country, shouldn't that matter? These people wouldn't be dying if soldiers weren't over there starting a war; so when innocent civilians die because of this, we can't just write off the deaths as a 'tragic' part of war when there was no cause for the war itself.

[ QUOTE ]
The rules are the same. But Bobby broke the rules when he intentionally targeted civilians for the sole purpose of murderous revenge. Our soldiers, with a few criminal exceptions, are trying to kill enemy combatants. Civilian deaths are an unfortunate consequence of trying to kill enemy combatants. Killing civilians by accident while following reasonable rules of engagement for killing enemy combatants in a war zone is unfortunate, but not criminal. Killing 100 civilians in a premeditated act of terrorism is criminal.

[/ QUOTE ]

So it is okay to kill someone if they are an enemy combatant? If someone attacked me, then I might be justified (circumstances depending) on killing them in self-defense. But is it okay for me to attack someone else, and then when they engage me in return, label them an 'enemeny combatant' and kill them?

Again, I'm not saying that there are no relevant differences between Bobby's hypothetical scenario and the deaths of innocent civilians (or enemy combatants) in Iraq. But I do think citing 'rules of engagement' and writing off civilian deaths as mere consequences is unacceptable, especially when the enemy combatatants are only such because we attacked them in the first place.

[W brad]

[ QUOTE ]

Well at least one prominent member of this forum said he'd rather kill every single Japanese man, woman, and child than accept a conditional surrender by the Japanese.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even that extreme statement does not imply that he thinks all Japanese people are "guilty", but rather that unconditional surrender is a very important goal.

[ QUOTE ]
These deaths are clearly avoidable. And I've posted in the past on the myth of Hiroshima. Please go Google what many senior leaders, including Eisenhower, were saying regarding use of the atomic bomb as a means to save lives.

[/ QUOTE ]

"avoidability" is not the holy grail when waging war. War is imperfect and messy. If you don't accept that, then don't join the military or run the government. Leave that to the people who can deal with messy situations and can deal with the sometimes necessary death of innocent people.