VTL
Member

Registered: Apr 2000
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 604 |
Yorrick wrote:
quote: wait a freaking second here. You noted that if an Afghani were in the wrong place at the wrong time because our country is bombing the hell out of his country, it's his own lookout. The people in the World trade center were in the wrong place at the wrong time. I'm not comparing anyone's actions here. Anyone can be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
quote: War is supposed to mean killing. The Geneva treaties were written to restrict that to soldiers and prevent civilian deaths. With apparent indiscriminate bombing the U.S. is behaving poorly.
Well, I think you are alluding to a comparison between the terrorist attack of 9/11 and the current military strikes in Afghanistan. And if you are, the comparison is completely specious.
The terrorist attack of 9/11 was intended , indeed designed, to kill innocent civilians. Bin Laden and his cronies wanted to kill every one of the 5,000+ folks in the Towers - in fact, they probably wanted to kill a whole lot more.
There were no targets of military value at the WTC (the Pentagon strike, or the earlier bombing of the U.S.S. Cole was arguably different. I'm not saying I excuse those strikes either, but the arguments are different from an analytical standpoint. Anyway, that's a different debate).
Our strikes on Afghanistan are intended to strike military, "leardership," command and control, and terrorist infrastructure targets. No one in the U.S. military or government intends to kill innocent civilians. That doesn't mean that civilians won't be killed by accident, but no one intends their death.
From a moral and legal standpoint - under the Geneva convention, and international law generally - the distinction is crucial.
As an aside, your allegation of "indiscriminate" bombing by the U.S. is factually inaccurate. If we wanted to, we could reduce Afghanistan to a plain of fused radioactive glass. Less drastically, we could use strategic bombing to do to Kabul what was done to London, Berlin, Tokyo, or Dresden during WWII. Either of those a would be indiscriminate, and indefensible morally or legally.
Of course, that's not what we are doing. We are primarilly using sophisticated (and expensive) precision-guided munitions to get at the targets that deserve destruction, while minmizing civilian casualties. The terrorists of course did the opposite. If you can't see the difference, I pity you.
|