Collateral Damage

On March 16, 1968, over 300 unarmed civilians were killed in South Vietnam during an indiscriminate, mass murder event known as the My Lai Massacre. Conducted by a unit of the United States Army, the My Lai Massacre ranked one of most appalling atrocities carried out by US forces in an already savage and violent war. All victims involved were unarmed civilians, many of which were women, children, and the elderly. Victims were raped, tortured and beaten, even mutilated before being killed. The massacre was forever seared into the hearts and minds of the American people as the day “the American spirit died.”

In some countries people, do not have the freedom to choose their own path. Many people live in places with so much conflict and destruction that they are force to follow the orders of a political lieder and force to make decision that are not in accordance to what they believe, but they do it because they are loyalty to their country, family and friends Pauline M. Kaurin provide a scenario of a soldiers killing civilian people that they confused with a suicide bomber, then she asked, “When is killing murder and when is it a legitimate act of war? Whom can one legitimately kill in war?” (Kaurin in page 41). She argues that during combat distinction from the enemy and civilian should be relevant to preserve the essence of true morality. In the contrast to Achilles the essence of true morality is irrelevant when he claims that no Trojan should keep their life, he swore death to all Trojan. (book XXI). During a time, war, is important to accept the fact of the situation in the eyes a devastation believing that one fate must be accepted in other to continue living or accepting the consequence and the faith of their own

On September 11th 2001, the United States was hit with a devastating blow when four commercial airplanes were hijacked by Al-Qaeda terrorist who deliberately crashed two of the planes into the World Trade Center complex, and a third plane into the Pentagon. The fourth plane, headed for Washington D.C., instead crashed in Pennsylvania. Nearly 3,000 lives were lost on this egregious day. In response, President George W. Bush waged the controversial “Global War on Terrorism” which turned out to be a self-inflicted wound for America, bleeding still today. Bush’s highly-criticized decision was inconsistent with the strategic principles of war.

In the 12 years since the terrorist attacks on the world trade towers in New York city, thousands of hours of research and interviews has been conducted, scores of books have been written, and countless documentaries and films have been produced in an effort to help us understand how and why terrorists were able to carry out the massacre of nearly 3500 people. Despite the plethora of religious and nonreligious beliefs represented by the friends and family of those who died, one universal belief binds them all: the belief that an unspeakable act of cruelty has changed our nation and our people for all time. The name ascribed to this act of terrorism is debated widely. Some call it evil. Others call it nothing more than supreme cruelty.

As seen from the eyes of an American soldier, Chris Kyle, a sniper in the Iraq War, “The streets were covered with splinters and various debris… Metal shields blocked most of the storefronts…” (Source A). Just like in most wars, many towns and cities targeted in the Iraq war were destroyed as an effort to break the will of the people or the economy in that area, in hopes of a US led , coalition victory. These destructive raids on cities not only crumple infrastructure, they kill innocent civilians who had nothing to do with the war. The innocent killing of civilians has increased since WWI, the first of the modern wars where civilians were majorly targeted. Since WWI, the ratio of civilian to soldier deaths has risen dramatically. The ratio during WWI was 1 civilian per 9 soldiers, since then, the ratio has flipped to an alarming 9 civilians

As paradoxical as it may seem (to most), it proves difficult to condemn terrorism and have a consistent, non-hypocritical way to judge it. Most definitions of terrorism lack the applicability of all instances of terrorism, there seems to be borderline exceptions which fall within the gray area of such definitions. Stephen Nathanson, in an effort to establish what makes terrorism wrong, bases one of his main arguments on that terrorists are thought to be dreadful because they intentionally seek innocent deaths, while others who kill innocents do so unintentionally (15). In this essay, I shall argue that Nathanson’s definition of innocence, which is mostly used as the core gauge of why terrorism is morally unjustifiable, is badly restricting in that it excludes the cases of political assassinations. Consequently, this insinuates that when using his definition of innocence, attacks on political figureheads may be morally justifiable if it is done for a just cause. To support this thesis I will argue that, although, political assassinations do not involve the killing of innocents they are, in most cases, morally unjustifiable contrary to what Nathanson’s argument insinuates. Moreover, I will consider how Nathanson may reply to my contention by objecting that political figureheads cannot be innocent given their political position and will address his rebuttal by demonstrating that within the context of society most of us are not innocent.

One of the most bloody and divided times in America was the Civil War. It pitted home against home and brother against brother. Various times, the soldiers have to carry many things into battle, while most of their baggage was physical, some of it was both emotional and psychological. In countless ways the impact of war doesn’t always kill someone, it destroys them emotionally. When it isn’t emotionally draining, it is sometimes psychologically challenging. Many soldiers are destroyed by war itself, however, what made this war somewhat different than others was the idea that a soldier could be fighting their own relatives makes the war even more intense than it already was. Civilians suffered the same responsibility as soldiers in the same

The ulnar or medial collateral ligament is one of two ligaments that is a part of the elbow joint, running along the medial side of the arm and acts as the connection between the distal portion of the humerus to the proximal portion of the ulna. The ulnar collateral ligament is largely responsible for the stability and use of the elbow as well as assisting in the flexing and extending of the arm. The ulnar collateral ligament can become overly damaged in a few different ways, such as a broken arm where the broken fragment of bone severs the ligament, or a severe impact or collision that causes the ligament to stretch beyond its elastic capabilities, leading to a sprain or even a tear. While this type of traumatic injury is highly possible, the most common

“When the United States attacked Libya on April 14, 1986, bombs were dropped on the city of Tripoli, killing civilians, including several children. Such deaths were referred to by White House press secretary Larry Speakes as collateral damage” (Carroll). Larry Speakes used the words “collateral damage” to place the blame on Libya, in order to hide the fact that the U.S had murdered thousands of innocent people. They knew that if the citizens found out that they purposely murdered innocent people, then they may not be willing to support the government. Likewise, when a plane is lost, the Navy uses the term “temporarily geographically misplaced.”

Targeted killing (TK) is the premeditated killing of an individual by a state organization or institution outside a battlefield. It is with this method that the United States use to capture terrorist around the world. The only problem is that this particular act is not morally right due to the innocent lives this method takes. Though it can get the job done of capturing terrorist that wishes to attack the United States, it’s still morally wrong for us to use this. And I will propose that the Unite States use another method to capture terrorist that doesn't involve the lives of those that in the surrounding areas. It’s the only way that American will be able to kill who’s needed without starting another war.

As a citizen of the United States, I am part of an institution that has been, and is currently, killing people. Whether or not all or some of these killings are ethically defensible is a difficult question to answer and most people simply never confront the issue. I will evaluate literature on the topic, identify the different justifications for killing in time of war and decide if they legitimize our actions. After describing some compelling arguments, I will defend my own position that pacifism is the only ideal which mankind should embrace.

Before I was not afraid to die in countries that we were warring with, I was naive enough to believe that the fear was only present in the minds of soldiers. Unfortunately a soldier's thoughts are constantly clouded by the thought of death on the battlefield, however, they persevere though these thoughts and fight for me and my country. These same thoughts will now run through my own mind should the country ever go to war. I too will face the reality of living with the knowledge that I can die at any given moment while at war. It may be true that most wars result in some civilian casualties. However, the shocking thing about World War II was that civilian lives were intentionally targeted. It was not accidental. Both sides attacked the other countries hoping to yield the highest number of casualties as if it were a game. They truly believed that this was an effective strategy of combat during the war. However, they didn’t realize how much this affected normal people’s lives. People like me now live with the knowledge that at any time if a country turns on the U.S., it could be us who lose our lives as a result not just the

War is many things. It may be many different things depending on each individual. Many soldiers get trained so their mentality is to characterize their opponents as less than human, so their lives lose all worth. Some soldiers however, are not prepared for this, even though they have been trained. One thing is training for it, another thing is actually killing a human being. As they kill more people, it becomes normalized for them. All they have seen changes their mind, while all of their dreams get swept aside by bloody hands of the hypnotized while they carry the cross of homicide. But why kill other strangers? What’s in it for the soldiers? War feeds the rich while it buries the poor. Rich people are power hungry, selling soldiers in human grocery store, using them as their little puppets who obey their master, making them go around killing each other in order to determine who is right, but in the end, war determines who is left. “The Man I Killed” by Tim O’Brien shows how soldiers who commit violence become traumatized and how that changes over time.

In this essay I will be answering the question 'do the ends justify the means in the case of terrorism?' In other words, does the final outcome justify the way the final outcome was reached? For example, if a man stole bread from a shop in order to feed his family did he do the right thing?However, today we are going to talk about a very important topic that has been debated for decades: Terrorism. Also because the benefit come at the cost of a great amount of death and destruction of the infrastructure. Terrorism is when a person or a certain group of people attack non-combat targets for religious, political and ideological reasons. I will be arguing in the case of terrorism, the end does not justify the means.

In past wars the majority of casualties were the combatants, but today’s wars have larger civilian casualty numbers. With aggressive pursuit of stories by the media and fast exchange of information in todays age, armed action against a states own citizens do not remain secret for long.