Quote:
Originally posted by Conclamo Ludus
Okay. I'm not convinced that the United States decided that the best way to win the war was to bomb as many innocent people as possible. Like I said, innocent people are not the target. The objective is never to slaughter innocent people, how would that be effective in winning a war? Kill the people without weapons? Its not the best strategy. But it is often a strategy taken by terrorists. Of course we killed innocent people in Iraq, but we didn't aim our guns at innocent people simply to terrorize them. We aimed at military targets that were obviously in civilian areas, but we didn't just aim directly at civilian areas. A terrorist will walk into a shopping mall and blow himself up. Thats about as cowardly as you can get. The Kamikaze pilots of WWII I can have some respect for, they were aiming at a military installation, not a shopping mall or coffee shop. Its all semantics, you can call anybody a soldier if you want to, but for me I draw the line at when they purposefully open fire on unarmed people knowing full well that there are no military targets in sight.
|
The most current example of our use of non-military targets as cannon fodder:
"...US commanders have at times adopted Machiavellian tactics. North of Tikrit in Bayji, they set up a new police headquarters next to a US civil-military center. "Now if [guerrillas] shoot RPGs [rocket-propelled-grenades] at us at night, Iraqis are in the line of fire, so they have a great incentive to go out and find these guys," said one Army officer."
--http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0924/p01s02-woiq.html