Alberto Monteiro said:
> The dichotomy of civilian/military target is, IIRC, a
> very modern concept. In European wars in the middle
..
> Those fanatics that attacked NY see no distinction between
> civilian and military targets.
Yeah, I'll certainly accept that, but perhaps the historical
lack of distinction is one reason why we still have these
problems today. When you kill civilians, you leave behind
children and loved ones who are very bitter. If all you
care about is getting through life day by day and making
sure your family has enough food, and then some war finds
its way to your front door, I imagine that's enough to
get you to say, "Let's get back at those bastards," as it
seems to be happening with us. Then years down the line,
you end up with the same conflicts you've had before, and
more civilians die and the cycle repeats itself.
We had innocent civilians die in a horrific attack, so now
the ball's in our court. I hope that we can find a way to
get out of this that enables us to both respond to the
attack and spare the lives of those who are just trying to
make a living. WE are in the position to be able to break
out of this cycle. We've been hurt badly. Our civilians
have been attacked, and if it's discovered that a government
is behind this in some way, I'm sure that historically we've
got a strong precedent for responding without this new
distinction between civilian and military. But I believe
all that will accomplish is to leave bitter survivors
behind, content to wait and fester and tell their children
about the "evils those foreign devils have brought upon
us."
If only military targets are hit, the people killed will
have been those who have willingly given their lives for
their country. They'll still leave behind loved ones and
children, but it was with the understanding that it's
a conscious choice to be in the line of fire.
What would the world be like now if the distinction HAD
been made? If you're only in danger of being killed if
you attempt to do the same to someone else?
-CJ
