Collateral damage
-
stuartcr
- Valued Member
- Posts: 259
- Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 11:33 am
- Christian: No
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Undecided
Collateral damage
Why is collateral damage acceptable?
-
RickD
- Make me a Sammich Member
- Posts: 22063
- Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Day-Age
- Location: Kitchen
Re: Collateral damage
Regarding what?stuartcr wrote:Why is collateral damage acceptable?
John 5:24
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
-
RickD
- Make me a Sammich Member
- Posts: 22063
- Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Day-Age
- Location: Kitchen
Re: Collateral damage
Maybe for those it's acceptable to, the end justifies the means.
John 5:24
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
-
PaulSacramento
- Board Moderator
- Posts: 9224
- Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
- Location: Ontario, Canada
Re: Collateral damage
It isn't acceptable.
It is a fact of war nevertheless.
It is a fact of war nevertheless.
-
stuartcr
- Valued Member
- Posts: 259
- Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 11:33 am
- Christian: No
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Undecided
Re: Collateral damage
A fact, like a natural disaster?
-
PaulSacramento
- Board Moderator
- Posts: 9224
- Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
- Location: Ontario, Canada
Re: Collateral damage
No, a fact of war, of battle.stuartcr wrote:A fact, like a natural disaster?
There is no way around collateral damage in open warfare, humans make mistakes, machines make mistakes.
An enemy plane is shot down and lands on houses, a bobby trap is set off by a kid, a missile's GPS calibration is off and strikes a hospital.
-
stuartcr
- Valued Member
- Posts: 259
- Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 11:33 am
- Christian: No
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Undecided
Re: Collateral damage
What about bombing from 20Kft? Many strikes are planned with an acceptable percentage of known collateral damage.
Are deaths by natural disasters considered acceptable?
Are deaths by natural disasters considered acceptable?
-
SeekingSanctuary
- Established Member
- Posts: 123
- Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 4:29 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Undecided
Re: Collateral damage
We are not in control of natural disasters. Acceptable does not matter.stuartcr wrote:What about bombing from 20Kft? Many strikes are planned with an acceptable percentage of known collateral damage.
Are deaths by natural disasters considered acceptable?
A bombing, when it avoids a land invasion, is preferable. The other option tends to lead to far more deaths. Sometimes they may do a small scale operation with a few soldiers, but this is usually top secret like the raid on Bin Laden's compound. Typically the bombing is done in part because it minimizes collateral damage.
-
Furstentum Liechtenstein
- Ultimate Member
- Posts: 3295
- Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 6:55 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: It's Complicated
- Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
- Location: Lower Canuckistan
Re: Collateral damage
The term ''collateral damage'' is fairly recent, perhaps 10 or 20 years old at the most. Before that, people were smart enough to understand that war is awful for all involved.
FL
FL
Hold everything lightly. If you don't, it will hurt when God pries your fingers loose as He takes it from you. -Corrie Ten Boom
+ + +
If they had a social gospel in the days of the prodigal son, somebody would have given him a bed and a sandwich and he never would have gone home.
+ + +
+ + +
If they had a social gospel in the days of the prodigal son, somebody would have given him a bed and a sandwich and he never would have gone home.
+ + +
-
PaulSacramento
- Board Moderator
- Posts: 9224
- Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
- Location: Ontario, Canada
Re: Collateral damage
Death's via natural events are a part of life for people the live in areas prone to dangerous natural events.stuartcr wrote:What about bombing from 20Kft? Many strikes are planned with an acceptable percentage of known collateral damage.
Are deaths by natural disasters considered acceptable?
Are they preventable? Perhaps, at least to some degree.
Are they acceptable?
To the people that live in Tornado alley for example, it seems so.
-
stuartcr
- Valued Member
- Posts: 259
- Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 11:33 am
- Christian: No
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Undecided
Re: Collateral damage
In wars, who figures out which side is the good side and that any deaths are preferable?SeekingSanctuary wrote:We are not in control of natural disasters. Acceptable does not matter.stuartcr wrote:What about bombing from 20Kft? Many strikes are planned with an acceptable percentage of known collateral damage.
Are deaths by natural disasters considered acceptable?
A bombing, when it avoids a land invasion, is preferable. The other option tends to lead to far more deaths. Sometimes they may do a small scale operation with a few soldiers, but this is usually top secret like the raid on Bin Laden's compound. Typically the bombing is done in part because it minimizes collateral damage.
-
PaulSacramento
- Board Moderator
- Posts: 9224
- Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
- Location: Ontario, Canada
Re: Collateral damage
Everyone always thinks their side is right.stuartcr wrote:In wars, who figures out which side is the good side and that any deaths are preferable?SeekingSanctuary wrote:We are not in control of natural disasters. Acceptable does not matter.stuartcr wrote:What about bombing from 20Kft? Many strikes are planned with an acceptable percentage of known collateral damage.
Are deaths by natural disasters considered acceptable?
A bombing, when it avoids a land invasion, is preferable. The other option tends to lead to far more deaths. Sometimes they may do a small scale operation with a few soldiers, but this is usually top secret like the raid on Bin Laden's compound. Typically the bombing is done in part because it minimizes collateral damage.
-
stuartcr
- Valued Member
- Posts: 259
- Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 11:33 am
- Christian: No
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Undecided
Re: Collateral damage
So how does God decide which side is guilty of killing innocents and which side is killing innocents just because it's a fact of war? Or does God even care when it comes to wars?
-
PaulSacramento
- Board Moderator
- Posts: 9224
- Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
- Location: Ontario, Canada
Re: Collateral damage
stuartcr wrote:So how does God decide which side is guilty of killing innocents and which side is killing innocents just because it's a fact of war? Or does God even care when it comes to wars?
God KNOWS WHY we do what we do, there is no hiding or misleading God. He KNOWS.