> In a time of war, the first victim is the truth.
A slight, but important perversion of the case. Truth is destroyed
first in order that war may be conducted. An observation that is
amply demonstrated in the present situation in Iraq. One should
really stay away from such bromides for their presence is usually
indicative of a shallow intellectual approach to the topic.
The entire nature of truth is, in most, ultimately determined by
ones emotional attachment to the object under scrutiny. This
attachment is often so great that believers will frequently kill
dissenters and sometimes even die themselves before they will yield
to evidence. However, intensity of belief is no substitute for
evidence, no matter how passionately the believer's case is made.
-----------------------
Such a wordy approach to discussion reminds me of the phrase "Can't
see the forest for the trees." There are several interpretations of
this convoluted response.
1) Just because the suicide bombers are willing to die to destroy their
enemy does not make them right.
2) Saddam Hussien used propaganda to justify starting this war by
invading Kuwait.
3) Emotional attachments determien truth. (Which is not so).
4) Only evidence, no matter how long it takes to accumulate, can be
used to justify killing an enemy during wartime.
-----------------------
> So, when the US military bombs a house in which terrorists where
> seen entering,
This assertion is the revealing about the intellectual rigour of
the argument that follows upon its utterance, for the case was
never established as to whether the persons under observation: a.)
were in fact terrorists; and b.) actually entered the house. The
assumptions that directly led to the deaths of the inhabitants of
that structure, none of whom were identified as adult males, is the
heart of the problem and represents a difficulty that "true
believers" wish to wave away as inconsequential.
But, it is this mindless use of lethal force which is the question.
No matter how "smart" one makes a bomb, it matters little if it is
directed by intellects blind to the self-injury that indiscriminate
killing does to their cause. Wrapping oneself up in a flag in
order to justify killing people in far-off lands just because they
happen to be in the way of or near something that you suspect,
might, possibly, under certain circumstances, at some future time,
threaten to cause some injury or other to your interests, is hardly
a convincing justification of murdering women and children in their
beds.
On the one hand we have as justification a suspicion that people
labelled, but not identified, as terrorists entered a home. On the
other we have ten or so dead women and children. Are we to believe
that suspicion is reasonable cause for their murder? Or is the
standard of behaviour for representatives the "advanced"
"civilized" states less rigorous than that set for the rest of the
world? Is it really ethically permissible to kill red people,
brown people, black people, yellow people, any people; using means
and under circumstances that would not be approved with respect to
ones own people?
----------------------
The above three paragraphs are contingent upon the validity of item 4).
----------------------
I realize that the Geneva Conventions are not held in high esteem
by those who evidence their firm belief in their own capability to
establish universal rights and wrongs, to accurately identify at
night the exact nature of people about their households, and their
remarkable formidability in resisting forced entry. But for the
rest of humanity the law seems to serve better. And the law says
that military force may only be directed against armed individuals
who are actively resisting or against infrastructure whose primary
purpose is to prolong an enemy's capacity to resist. A civilian
residence, unless KNOWN to be occupied by enemy forces, is NEVER a
legitimate target. An unarmed person, no matter how suspicious
their circumstance, is not a legitimate military target. If a
military force attacks a home, mosque, a church or a monastery then
the onus is on the attacker to prove that there was clear and
unmistakable cause.
----------------------
The Geneva Conventions are only useful against an opponent who observes
them. In other words, Geneva is a useful device by terrorists to constrain
the enemies of terrorism.
The history of the legitimacy of Geneva is uncertian, as is the history
of the UN.
----------------------
However, United States forces in Iraq frequently seem unwilling or
unable to establish the actual presence of those that they seek
when they use their "smart" weapons to kill. It is this evasion of
responsibility that renders the act criminal. If the U.S. army had
ground troops in contact with these suspects and there was armed
resistance, then one has a case that any consequential civilian
deaths were regrettable, but were only the unintended side effect
of a hostile encounter.
---------------------
Translation: We have to risk getting our guys shot to peices before
we can respond. Then we can hear about 'sending other peoples children
to die'
---------------------
But, that is not what happened in this case at all. What happened
is that a RPV operator, working from grainy images provided from a
low-light camera, operated from a moving aircraft that never
descended below 200m, observed shadowy figures that appeared to be
engaged in some form of "suspicious" activity and who then "seemed"
to enter a house and decided upon that basis that everyone therein
should die.
---------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fog_of_war
---------------------
War can be distilled into two words, deceit and surprise. Usually
the deceit begins sometime before overt hostilities, and frequently
hostilities contain many surprises for aggressors. I believe
Croesus encountered such a surprise. No doubt he too believed what
he was told and was certain in that belief, he just did not
understand what it meant.
---------------------
Deciet and Surprise are the primary tools of the terrorist.
---------------------
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
|
