Definition of Innocence

I am just curious of what people think defines innocence. . . please no smart a** comments straight from the dictionary. What I am getting at are questions like, "Are US civilians, in a way, not purely innocent because we did not seek more peaceful resolution of Middle Easten concerns before?"

For example a Taliban sympathizer may not be completely innocent because he is aiding Taliban soldiers (would he deserve to be killed is another thread). Are we as supporters of the US government completely innocent (again punishment for this "crime" can be another thread)?

[Guerilla poster]

We are responsible as a people for our policy with the Middle East.

September 11 was an act of war against this country. As Americans we support certain gov't ideals through voting and paying taxes, if we disagree with the gov't then we can oust them at the next election. That is how the system should work not how it necessarily does work due to the gov't hiding information about their activities - especial foreign activities and also due to ability of corporations to control elections through the campaign contribution system.

As this was an act of war of the people of Afghanistan (a gov't supported or forced on the people, I am not making that differential) we should do what every is any our power to make Afghanistan succumb to our will. Civilian casualties should be minimized but not at the expense of our military goals. Once they succumb,we should then use a Marshall plan type approach to rebuild the country. in 20 years I would love to hear that one of our competitors in the economic arena is Afghanistan.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: guerilla poster on 2001-10-31 12:37 ]</font>

[Double High C]

On 2001-10-31 12:04, Hopefully A Thought wrote:
I am just curious of what people think defines innocence. . . please no smart a** comments straight from the dictionary. What I am getting at are questions like, "Are US civilians, in a way, not purely innocent because we did not seek more peaceful resolution of Middle Easten concerns before?"

For example a Taliban sympathizer may not be completely innocent because he is aiding Taliban soldiers (would he deserve to be killed is another thread). Are we as supporters of the US government completely innocent (again punishment for this "crime" can be another thread)?

Completely innocent? No, that's impossible. While I do not find major fault with MidEast policy, there is no doubt that the US gov't has had to make moral compromises; to avoid such compromises for the sake of innocence would itself be immoral, and hence, not innocent.

(I guess what I am saying is that innocence does not exist; the fundamentalist of innocence certainly will not achieve his goal.)

However, IMNSHO, there is a high degree of moral clarity in our policies (post 9/11, and much of pre 9/11), and to overanalyze this tends to confound the relevant issues.

As a self-proclaimed Moderate LibDem, I generally do seek to understand root causes and try to have a degree of perpetrators by chalking up certain malevolance to those mitigating circumstances (sometimes too much so).

However, in this case, I think Rudey Giuliani's statement that the crimes of 9/11, etc. are evil, period, end of discussion, is right on the mark. (I often am critical of him for his stubbornness, hence my spelling of his name, but again, it is called for here.)

[Aaron Brachowitz]

The definition of "innocent" is irrelevant. No matter how objectionable you find a foreign government's policy, you do not target (keyword target target target target say it with me target) civilians. The US has obviously and unfortunately killed some innocent civilians, but we have not (unlike our enemies) targeted them.

[Guerilla poster]

We did target civilians in Japan. I still believe we did the right thing but let's get the historical facts right first.

Taget. . .I agree with almost all the points, now let's take it to the next question. . .

Assuming that complete innocence (BPC's post) is impossible, (AB used the term again "innocent civilian") so what is an innocent enough (to not be a TARGET) civilian? Where in that abyss of gray is the line drawn?

Janitor at the WTC- Mostly innocent
Soldier- Not even close
Engineer at Lockheed?
Accountant at Lockheed?
(from GP's post on corporations) CEO of a big corporation which has a large influence on governmental policy?
Average actuary- Mostly Innocent

Why the mostly on the janitor and the actuary? (From GP's post) We are the creator's of our government. We are its creators, both by voting and through our support (buying of products) of corporations that control government. We do have a choice to stop buying those products if the corporation supports something we find immoral. We do have a choice to vote for others or to try to impeach a representative. In a sense, the goverment is a child borne of us, and it is our duty to direct it. Now a parent, whose child commits a crime, is financially responsible (and in some cases can also face incarceration) for losses stemming from the child's crimes, it seems to me that we can draw a parallel line in that we as the parents of the government are responsible to a degree for its actions.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Hopefully A Thought on 2001-10-31 14:34 ]</font>

[Aaron Brachowitz]

On 2001-10-31 13:41, Guerilla Poster wrote:
We did target civilians in Japan. I still believe we did the right thing but let's get the historical facts right first.

So because we targeted civilians in a long-past war we forfeit the moral high ground in this conflict? I was speaking in present tense. Obviously we did target civilians in WW2 and it was wrong to do so (period, no moral relatavist arguments from me like you hear from today's apologists for the terrorists). None of us can change what happened before we were born. But to adopt a policy that we will only defend ourselves if we can do it with zero civilian casualties on the other side is to say that we will never defend ourselves. Our national conscience is clear -- all casualties in this war are due to the actions of terrorists and the governments who shelter them.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Aaron Brachowitz on 2001-11-01 09:44 ]</font>

[Guerilla poster]

We are responsible for our actions as a government - point agreed.

The terrorist attack was an attack against our government and our ideals. it is now time to put down those who attacked us. If that involves civilian casualties that is unfortunate. IMO, we are spending too much time trying to do the right thing and not enough time killing the taliban and the terrorists who iniated this war.

[Hierophant]

We are GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY!

We drive cars and use Middle East oil - GUILTY!
We vote for politicians who support Israel - GUILTY!
We pay taxes to support our military - GUILTY!
We participate in our economy - GUILTY!
DEATH to all of us!

[Jala]

On 2001-10-31 14:32, Hopefully A Thought wrote:
Janitor at the WTC- Mostly innocent
Soldier- Not even close
Engineer at Lockheed?
Accountant at Lockheed?
(from GP's post on corporations) CEO of a big corporation which has a large influence on governmental policy?
Average actuary- Mostly Innocent

You haven't seen Clerks, have you? The destruction of the second Death Star was no less a good thing just because many contractors died, whereas almost all who died on the first Death Star were soldiers. You know the risks when you take on a job.