Quote:
Originally posted by Botnst
Slavery being the worst possible thing that can happen, I understand why you believe any action taken, even against civilians, is justified.
This is the argument of Al Queda, against the west. Once Din laden defined the ultimate evil as being the USA, then he can justify any lesser behavior perpetrated against the ultimate as being worth it.
I am not, in any way, comparing you with Bin Laden. I am comparing the arguments. To me, that is a huge distinction. Do you agree that they are separable?
B
|
The ethics of warfare is a pretty well known body of work that goes back to St. Augustine. The justifications I have given are found in there - you seem to think I have an ideological justification mentality like some fanatic. Civilians should only be killed in war if it is for a legimate, justifiable use of war, and is a totally unavoidable part of protecting ones troops. Killing people on purely ideological grounds is the mark of a fanatic. Bin Laden is such. If we declared war on Iran, it would be for the purpose of stopping in its tracks a group of men who mean to kill me and my kids. No justification on ideology, no definition of anyone as evil, simple law of the jungle. Under international law, a nation has a right to respond to unprovoked attack, and a nation has a right to defend themselves from those that mean them harm. But we cannot simply claim these conditions exist, or we are no better than Hitler. Once the facts have been established, as Lincoln would say, the truth becomes self-evident, and action obvious.
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/j/justwar.htm
will help you understand where people like myself are coming from.