Defining Terms #3

Hey Folks,

With what’s been going on, we hear fairly regularly the term “innocent civilians.”

I heard that term when I was a kid. I wondered about it then.

Now, no one thinks dropping the A-Bombs on Japan was a bigger atrocity than I do, but NOT because – as is often argued – it killed “innocent civilians.”

That term, like “terrorist” and “Islamo-fascist,” is meant to mislead rather than inform. Excepting children, when it comes to war (and most other problems), it is not much of a stretch to say, “There are no innocent civilians.”

Of course there ARE civilians – those not in the “armed services” - and apparently, while killing soldiers is acceptable, it is unacceptable – by definition – to kill civilians (because, I guess, they are “innocent”). That always sounded strange and arbitrary to me.

Why was it OK to kill soldiers? Self defense? Most soldiers killed in “modern” warfare are killed from a great distance – not in hand to hand or even door to door combat. More likely than not, the military killer or killee had to travel great distances – sometimes thousands of miles – to kill or be killed.

It seems like most of the time it would be untrue that the dead soldier was a direct threat to the life of his killer; so, self-defense in that sense is out. Even in cases of what the Pope and others characterize as “just” wars (e.g.WWII ) where it is supposed that one or more countries are fighting one or more other countries in self-defense, a large part of the killing that goes on can be shown to be unnecessary simply for defense. It might be necessary to achieve some political end (see my earlier posting on “terrorism,” below), but not for self-defense.Be that as it may, we don’t hear that it’s wrong to kill soldiers.

But what about not killing civilians because they are innocent? For some reason, at a gut level, that always seemed akin to the story we have all heard about the British whining “No fair” when colonial soldiers shot from behind rocks and trees instead of standing up in the middle of the road to make a better target. It's like: “No fair killing civilians!!”

Well, I must admit that I’m not big on killing civilians OR soldiers, and my perspective on the issue at hand owes nothing to blood-lust. It has more to do with hypocrisy.

IF those who whine REALLY opposed killing civilians, I’d be with them, but they don’t. What these clods object to is the “enemy” killing “innocent civilians” (just like we want everyone to follow the Geneva Conventions with OUR soldiers, but we don’t have to with THEIRS).

A big deal is made out of Arab suicide bombers killing “innocent civilians,” but when we or our ally Israel kill “innocent civilians” it’s OK because we “didn’t mean to,” “it was an accident,” just “collateral damage.” No matter that WE have killed multiple times the number of civilians killed by all suicide bombers added together.

I’m sure that “accidentally-killed” civilians (and their survivors) are much happier than civilians killed by indiscriminate "terrorists."

No, the main reason and use of the term – as with “terrorist” and “Islamo-fascist” is to demonize one’s enemy. By definition WE Americans don’t use “terror”; by definition we Americans are not “fascists”; and by definition we Americans don’t kill innocent civilians. Only our enemies ever do THOSE things.

Finally, to the question of whether there actually IS such a thing as an “innocent civilian.”

I’ve heard all sorts of justifications for dropping the Atom Bomb twice on Japan (we might have dropped more, but we only had two), killing mainly civilians. I guess they weren’t considered INNOCENT civilians, but they certainly weren’t “collateral damage” either. Some say they were fair game because they worked to provide war materials for the Japanese war effort.

Well, before my father joined the Navy and became a "legitimate" target, he worked in an aircraft war-factory. I’m sure that if he and his fellow workers had been killed by German or Japanese commandos, we’d have screamed bloody murder about “innocent civilians”!!

Of course, for my part, I would not have wanted either the civilian Japanese workers or my civilian Dad killed, but it is NOT because they were innocent. They were guilty as hell!!

Think about the notion of “innocent civilians.” How are they innocent and of what?

Well, it’s supposedly OK to kill soldiers because they’re guilty of waging war. Civilians are not soldiers; so they’re not guilty; they’re “innocent.”

That’s idiotic. It makes no more sense than saying an army cook and meteorologist - since they don't wage war - are “innocent combatants” or - if those two jobs were contracted out to Halliburton - they THEN are "innocent civilians."

No, every adult in every country that goes to war bears responsibility to varying degrees. Whether we work in munitions factories, work for war-profiteering corporations; scream from the tube, the pulpit, or the street corner for the war; demonize the enemy in our daily activities, support our leaders, fail to stop our leaders from going to war, or actually fight the war; in all these ways and more we all are guilty. We are NOT innocent. We bear responsibility. We know what is going on. We are part of it. There's no magical "King's X"!!

All this we hear from our leaders and their toadies in the media about the evil enemy killing civilians is crap. Many, many civilians ARE being killed, and neither they nor the soldiers SHOULD be killed, but they are NOT innocent – on either side – and, in reality, the monsters who rattle on about this “horrible” killing of civilians don’t give a damn about civilian casualties – on EITHER side - except as they can be used to demonize their competitor!!!

- Uke Man