Quote:
|
Originally Posted by irateplatypus
but do you really think that is true? do you not think that the US could have saved a few more of its soldiers by having a more liberal definition of what are valid military targets?
|
I'm simply stating a fact.
A hostage killed by a terrorist is considered collateral damage. If they believed they could effectively win the war without killing any civilians, they would. But they are not in a position to fight this war by solely targeting the military and/or gov't intallations.
The U.S. believes that civilians that are near a school which contains munitions are collateral damage because the U.S. does not believe it can effectively win (or fight, as the case may be) this war without killing civilians that are near the enemy. If they believed they could effectively win/fight the war without killing any civilians, they would. But they are not in a position to fight this war by solely targetting military assets far from civilians.
I, personally, do not even remotely agree with the tactics of either side. But both sides are equally logical as long as you do not consider the root causes of the conflict. And only one side, the U.S., has the option of addressing the root causes of the conflict.