John Horn wrote:
>
> The US has done nothing wrong that would warrant this
> sort of action.
> Especially against a purely civilian target.
>
The dichotomy of civilian/military target is, IIRC, a
very modern concept. In European wars in the middle
ages - maybe even until the XVIII century - included,
as a prize for mercenary units, the right to plunder
and rape whole cities. During WWI, gas was used against
civilian targets. During WWII, the Nazis bombed London
with rockets, and the Allies bombed german and japanese
cities. In the Paraguay War of the XIX century, the
Triple Alliance [Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay] killed
90% of the Paraguay male population - it's improbable
that they were *all* military!
Also, in all recent wars it's been considered ok if
there are some civilian causalities.
Those fanatics that attacked NY see no distinction between
civilian and military targets.
Alberto Monteiro
