Alberto Monteiro wrote:
>
> >
> >>> As for accusing the US of bombing children, I think that such hyperbola is
> >>> not helpful. The US bombed military positions, and errant bombs killed
> >>> civilians. (...)
>
> Julia Thompson wrote:
>
> (...)
> >
> >The OC bomber looked upon the deaths of the children as "collateral
> >damage". He indicated no remorse over those deaths.
> >
> 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.
I do see your point. As much as anything, I wanted to point out that,
contrary to what you had posted, there *were* children killed in the OC
bombing, and the attitude of the bomber towards the fact that he'd
killed children.
> This is **not** a good indicator of what is Good and
> what is Evil !!!!!!
The OC bomber was evil. Osama bin Laden is evil. Killing civilians is
evil. Did I miss anything?
> 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.
I don't think that the civilian deaths are acceptable, but the
alternatives I've seen are also not acceptable. It's a mess.
I'm hoping that there's some sort of official apology for the civilian
deaths, as well as other non-military damage. (Hitting the wrong sort
of target can be Embarassing, as well as Bad.)
Julia
