That's been the traditional military strategy. You don't attack civilian targets, per se, to inflict casualties, but you want to drag down a nation's moral. In that line of thinking, it's a lot like terrorism. The difference being, as noted earlier, you're talking about an organized military campaign by a legitimate government, or an inducted (meaning an organized military structure) revolutionary force, i.e., Washington's troops or the Contras, etc.
However, for a nation with advanced weaponry, like, today, the US and Britain, I think the moral obligation is even greater to try and avoid civilian causalities. It's just easier to do. In an organized military action, however, attacking civilian or pseudo civilian targets, with the intention of bringing the war to a swifter end, has the ethical impetus of protecting your own soldiers and your own populace. A swifter conclusion to the war means fewer causalities for your side. That's another distinction with the Palestinians. There intention is not to bring the war to an end, if you can call it a war, it is to prolong it and to provoke Israel into military action, with the hope of drawing in other Arab states into the conflict, widening the war and, hopefully, bringing about the total destruction of Israel. Even when we bomb Japan or Germany, our ultimate goal wasn't genocide or the total destruction of a country, but, rather, it was to bring the war to an end. We rebuilt Germany and Japan. Do you think, if by some miracle, Palestine or another Arab nation defeated Israel, they would rebuild Israel? H. -----Original Message----- From: Nick McClure [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 10:10 PM To: CF-Community Subject: Re: Why (Re: They invaded! 0_0) Exactly! The primary targets were military, at some point you must take away their support. Same with the bombs. You attack the military, but that will only get you so far. at some point you have to give them a reason to give up. At 06:09 PM 4/2/2002 -0800, you wrote: >Making themselves legitimate military targets, and putting at risk other >"loyalists" who may have had sympathies without anti-Revolutionary action, >thereby making that second class of loyalists a legitimate target (who's >to know which class of loyalists a person actually belongs in). > >H. > > >---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- >from: Nick McClure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 12:26:38 -0500 > > >The people who were locked up and had lands confiscated were more than just > >loyalists, they were they people who were informing the British Army. They > >were the ones supporting them with food and clothing. > > > >As a supporter of the crown they were keeping the colonists from declaring > >independence. > > > >At 11:58 AM 4/2/2002 -0500, you wrote: > >>Michael, > >> > >>Nope, attacked the civilians too. The American revolutionaries went on a > >>campaign against those civilians who still supported the crown during the > >>revolutionary war. About one third of the population were loyalists, those > >>who supported the crown. Quite a few of them were locked up in > >>concentration camps and had their land and property confiscated. Later they > >>were deported from the 13 colonies. > >> > >>Hate to say it, but that sounds very familiar. > >> > >>larry > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-community@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
