Originally posted by Vad
It means that you are against the war in Iraq where US struck houses, killed civilians? You are against Drezden and Hirochima bombing. You are against bombing Hanoi. You are pacifist!
Or you are not? May be you are just against enemy's actions like this, but when your country do that it is ok? When your country is bombing and killing civilians it is just accidental casualties. "Sorry, so happen, this is the war". But when enemies do the same it is terrorism. Do you forget that you have declared war on terrorism? Do you forget that Hezbollah and Hamas never signed peace with Israel? Or you have invented new type of war - your country in state of war but your enemy is not. So kind of one-way-war... Funny.
So, the PLO bomb in the pizza parlor "accidentally" killed civilians. When did pizza parlors become air force bases? Or are they naval bases.
So, the planes hitting the World Trade Center actually struck a military target, and the 3,000 civilian dead were "collateral" casualties.
Exactly how big is the steam shovel you're trying to heave that B.S. with?
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were industrial cities of a nation we were at war with, declared war between two recognized sovereign nations.
The same applies to Dresden.
And in both cases, the planes were military planes, with military markings from their nation of origin, flown by uniformed military crew.
Neither of the second two are remotely similar to the first two.
Once again, moral relativism is B.S. Plain and simple.
Hanoi was also a case of military planes, in military markings, flown by uniformed military crews.
In Iraq, great measures were and still are being taken to limit collateral damage and casualties. To the point where coalition soldiers are put at excessive risk and often do not return fire when fired upon from crowds of civilians or from mosques.
You show me any instances of Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, the PLO, the PLA, or Al Queada even remotely attempting to limit collateral damage or casualties. Hell, their GOAL is collateral damage and casualties, and it has been from the beginning. Further, none of them are uniformed military personnel of any rtecognized sovereign nation.
So, your B.S. moral relativism doesn't wash, and your comparisons are not even close to valid.