Julia Thompson wrote:
(...) > >The OC bomber looked upon the deaths of the children as "collateral >damage". He indicated no remorse over those deaths. > Alberto: I *do* hope you can see my point. The deaths of children in Afghanistan are also "collateral damage", and I guess that not everybody that command those bombings feel remorse over those deaths. Me: Alberto, the difference is that the US high command is taking extraordinary measures to minimize the death of innocents, while Timothy McVeigh actively sought out ways in which to _maximize_ the number of innocent deaths. Julia, I'm afraid, understates the case. McVeigh said that the only reason he regretted that there was a day care center in the building was that it generated bad publicity for his cause. Alberto again: I believe we all hope that all this is not in vain, that the WTC attack was not only the first of this magnitude, but also the last. But in order to prevent further attacks, we must prevent the formation of such a big hatred that thinks that a few civilian deaths are an acceptable collateral damage to the greater good. If the USA wants to pose as a force of Good without any qualifier, it's necessary to concede that killing children is a mistake, and that everything was done to prevent it. Otherwise, we might see another cycle of hatred as anti-USA terrorist cells form in Jordania or Paraguay. Alberto Monteiro Me: Alberto I don't think anyone in the US high command would argue that killing children (or any other innocent) is anything but a mistake - and something that US forces have gone to considerable lengths, and taken considerable risks, to avoid. The Pentagon has been quite open about the extent to which it is being extremely selective in choosing targets. The Air Force, in fact, has been quietly complaining quite a bit that any target that even has the potential to result in civilian deaths faces so many layers of oversight that they have missed hitting several very senior members of Al Q'eda and the Taliban. I'm afraid I don't quite understand what your point is, to be honest. Everyone agrees that killing any innocent person - child or not - is a tragedy, and that ethical warriors take pains to avoid doing this. Any reasonable person would agree that the American military is fulfilling this standard - and, in fact, is doing so more successfully than any military in history. The _Taliban's_ own estimates of civilian casualties suggest that a strategic bombing campaign that's lasted for more than a month has resulted in civilian deaths that number only in the hundreds - and so far every claim of the Taliban with regards to such things that we have been able to investigate has been shown to be a vast exaggeration. Even if you _believe_ their claims, the level of precision involved in this campaign is like nothing else in military history. As far as I can tell, you _agree_ that the American military is taking steps to minimize the death of innocent people. So I have to say that I don't understand what you are trying to argue. Could you clarify it? Gautam
