Originally posted by lazs2
It made no sense to me. I musta missed the thread or program that it is about and the explanation for same.
It's has nothing to do with a specific thread or program (if Colbert touched on this issue, I missed it as I don't have cable).
I take issue with the arguement that killing civilians as collateral damage is morally superior to targeting civilians and killing them. In effect it makes no damn difference to the victims, their family and friends. The victims are still just as dead.
Country A targets and kills 10 civilians.
Country B goes to war and "accidentally" kills 10 million civilians.
Is country B really morally superior to country A?
The moral responsibily is equal, because "collateral damage" is totally predictable. Some people have said, "Civilians die in war." and imply therefore the moral responsibility is some how negated as if the war just kind of happened. War just doesn't happen, somewhere along the line a decision is made to go to war. When that decision is made (unless that person/s is a total retard) they realise that it's inevitable that they will kill some civilians. They may not target them, but their decision are going to directly lead to civilians dying.
War becomes much more palatable to a populous when you tell them, "Well, we are using some precision guided weapons and gosh darn it we sure are trying not to kill civilians.". But that's horse crap, they are still going to die. And this why war is a
bad thing.
Tarmac, a guy wants to kill his teacher. He blows up a bomb in the teacher's classroom. Kills the teacher and about 20 kids along the teacher. How many counts of murder is facing? One, because he only targeted the teacher and the rest are collateral damage?
