Morally superior?
You must be feeling morally inferior.
You want to know which school morally equates killing civilians and legitimate military targets?
The school of the end justifies the means of course.
Regarding 911, along with the rest of the world I tended to support the initial actions in Afghanistan with some reservations of course (too bad they didn't finish the job, but they need the troops for Saddam....), but at least in that strike there was world wide agreement and also as there was a much clearer cause and effect argument.
As far as Tillman goes, he had his own agenda. Neither you, nor I will even know what his real reasons were.
He is considered a hero in this country, in other countries they consider their patriots heroes too.
You must be feeling morally inferior.
You want to know which school morally equates killing civilians and legitimate military targets?
The school of the end justifies the means of course.
Regarding 911, along with the rest of the world I tended to support the initial actions in Afghanistan with some reservations of course (too bad they didn't finish the job, but they need the troops for Saddam....), but at least in that strike there was world wide agreement and also as there was a much clearer cause and effect argument.
As far as Tillman goes, he had his own agenda. Neither you, nor I will even know what his real reasons were.
He is considered a hero in this country, in other countries they consider their patriots heroes too.
Quote from spect8or:
ART, you know very well that that is no answer.
So answer my question, which school of 'secular ethics', as you put it, morally equates killing 'clearly' innocent civillians and 'legitimate' military targets?
And what do you think? How could you possibly miss that I asked you this? Come now, don't just sit there acting all morally superior, let us know your position.
Furthermore, even with Japan, a case could be made that given the all-encompassing nature of the conflict, in which entire countries' economies were ruled by the war effort, it could reasonably be established that an entire city's daily activities are a direct support to the country's forces and that vanquishing such a city could be reasonably expected to impact the enemy so greatly that defeat or surrender would be imminent, a decision to carry out such action may be thus legitimated.
This stands in stark contrast to 9.11, in which a state of all-encompassing war did not exist between the US and another nation, and even if a state of a limited, subversive 'war' was claimed, the same state of all-out effort to win such a war wasn't present and thus it could not be argued that an attack solely on New York could in any way be expected to cause a US defeat or 'surrender'.
As I said, I don't want to get sidetracked. If you like, assume that Japan was 'wrong'. Where does that leave you with 9.11 and Tillman?