SOB’s Grins & Grumps

Everything Between Heaven and Earth and Beyond

  • Copyrights and Contact

    Henric C. Jensen
    All images and Artwork are
    © 2006-2018 Henric C. Jensen

  • July 2006
    S M T W T F S
  • Categories

  • Meta

  • Recent Posts

  • Archives

Archive for July 31st, 2006

Collateral Damage

Posted by Henric C. Jensen on July 31, 2006

Collateral damage is a military euphemism that was made popular during the Vietnam War (Army Technology). But the euphemism has now been in use so long that it is accepted as a correct and proper term within military forces, meaning “unintentional damage or incidental damage affecting facilities, equipment or personnel, occurring as a result of military actions directed against targeted enemy forces or facilities. Such damage can occur to friendly, neutral, and even enemy forces” (USAF Intelligence Targeting Guide). Note that this definition is not concerned with what is major or minor, lawful or unlawful (war crime), civilian or military, legitimate or not. The only thing relevant is if the damage was intended by those causing it. If it was targeted, it is not collateral. Even if it were enemy forces, if it was not targeted it is collateral. Etymologically, the expression “collateral damage” is a construction so convoluted that it probably was originally used as military doublespeak rather than a euphemism, as the adjective “collateral” doesn’t seem to have been used as a synonym for “unintentional” or “accidental” earlier. “Collateral” comes from medieval Latin collateralis, from col- ‘together with’ + lateralis (from latus, later- ‘side’ ) and is otherwise mainly used as a synonym for “parallel” or “additional” in certain expressions (“collateral veins” run parallel to each other and “collateral security” means additional security to the main obligation in a contract). However, “collateral” may also sometimes mean “additional but subordinate,” i.e. “secondary” (“collateral meanings of a word”), and that specific meaning of a rather obscure word in the English language seems to have been picked up and broadened by the military in the expression “collateral damage.” (from Wikipedia)

I do not like the term “collateral damage”. The way it is used implies both a premeditated intention or calculation and an fatalistic acceptance of loss of civilian life, casualties and material values. We all know that in war civilians suffer, get hit and killed, but knowing this and deliberately calculate with actual “acceptable numbers” of civilian casualties are two completely different and diametrically opposed things. The former is a matter of insight and common sense – the latter is nothing but crass, cold-hearted and dehumanizing cynicism. Collateral damage is just another way of reducing human life to a dispensable nuisance.

The term collateral damage is even more sinister when it is used, openly or in attitude, about one’s own civilians. Most countries do their best to protect their citizens during war – it’s a natural response to threat, to want to move the civilians out of the way. That is the job of the Army and Leadership of a country – to safe-guard the civilian population.

So what do we say about “soldiers” and “officers” who deliberately move the civilians close to military posts or stop them from leaving/fleeing the area with the intention of them getting hurt or killed? How is that even conceivable?

Loss of life can never be acceptable. Every death, even that of an enemy soldier, should be lamented as a tragedy.



Posted in Human Rights | 2 Comments »

Better News

Posted by Henric C. Jensen on July 31, 2006

Moshe Reads an Arab Newspaper

A story is told of a Jewish man who was riding on the subway reading an Arab newspaper. A friend of his, who happened to be riding in the same subway car, noticed this strange phenomenon. Very upset, he approached the newspaper reader.

“Moshe, have you lost your mind? Why are you reading an Arab newspaper?”Moshe replied, “I used to read the Jewish newspaper, but what did I find? Jews being persecuted, Israel being attacked, Jews disappearing through assimilation and intermarriage, Jews living in poverty. So I switched to the Arab newspaper. Now what do I find? Jews own all the banks, Jews control the media, Jews are all rich and powerful, Jews rule the world. The news is so much better!”From


Posted in General | Leave a Comment »

Bad Moves: False dichotomies

Posted by Henric C. Jensen on July 31, 2006

By Julian Baggini

“Every nation in every region now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.” George W Bush, 20 Sept 2001.

You couldn’t get a starker demonstration of a false dichotomy than President Bush’s bold statement, made shortly after the attack on the World Trade Center in 2001. A false dichotomy presents two options as though these exhausted all the possibilities, when in fact there are other choices available. In this example, one alternative to Bush’s choice is to oppose terrorism but also to oppose America’s preferred methods of dealing with it. A person or country that adopts that line is not with President Bush, but nor are they with the terrorists.

On a charitable interpretation of Bush’s speech, he wasn’t really trying to suggest that the choice was so stark. He continued by saying, “From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbour or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.” This suggests that not being “with us” requires acquiescence with terrorists and not just failure to support US policy.

Indeed, when Bush repeated the dichotomy a few weeks later, in the context of a crackdown on terrorist finances, again the main message seemed to be that turning a blind eye to terrorism counted as being against America in its fight against it.

However, if this is true, why did Bush not only choose these particular words but also to repeat the same formulation again? The answer could be that as a description of the facts, the dichotomy is false. But as a description of America’s intentions, they sent out a clear message. As a matter of fact, you may be with neither the terrorists nor America. But if you choose not to be with America, America will view you as being against her. America makes the untruth of the false dichotomy true by deciding that it will treat all those who are not with her as being against her, whether they see themselves in that way or not. This is one reason why many Europeans have accused Bush’s administration of adopting a bullying attitude.

Whichever way you interpret Bush’s words, it is clear that taken literally they are just false. Yet the rhetorical trick of presenting a false dichotomy (or false set of more options than two) is very popular. You often see a version of it in Christian evangelical literature. Christ, they say, claimed to be the son of God. He must have been telling the truth, lying or mad. There is no evidence that he was a liar or mad, so therefore he must have been telling the truth.

Of course, the problem is again that the options presented don’t exhaust the possibilities. Jesus may well not have claimed any such thing – the Gospels may be unreliable. He may also have meant something more metaphorical. After all, in Genesis it is said that “When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose.” (6:1-2)
So clearly being the son of God isn’t a unique achievement and may mean something less than it is usually taken to be. Whichever way you look at it, there are more than the three options presented.

If we were to be too strict in our policing of false dichotomies, we would be robbed of some great quotes. “Life is either a great adventure or nothing,” said Helen Keller. Well, no, but I see her point and it wouldn’t have quite the same ring suitably qualified. Ditto Anthony Robbins’ maxim, “In life you need either inspiration or desperation.” Better still, Max Lerner’s warning, “Either men will learn to live like brothers, or they will die like beasts,” is no less forceful for being literally false.

The false dichotomy is a great simplifier. It cuts out all the complexity of an issue and presents just two choices, take ’em or leave ’em. There are times when rhetorical force justifies this wilful simplification. But we have to remember that it is simplification. If we accept such dichotomies too easily or at face value, then we are in danger of imagining the world is all black and white and we will miss the critical shades of grey.

Julian Baggini is editor of The Philosophers’ Magazine.


Posted in False dichotomies, President Bush | Leave a Comment »

%d bloggers like this: