Quote:
Originally posted by bigred875
Is this what you are saying is a legitimate reason to them to kill our 100% INNOCENT civilians? |
Absolutely not. Targetting civilians is morally reprehensible. But we do it to reduce american casualties all the time, sure there are civilians in the cities but there are enemy troops too. How many bombs were dropped on baghdad, 100,000? How many civilians died there? If we're a representative democracy, and our government elects to bomb cities, what percentage of responsibility falls on the constituents?
You believe we're justified in killing civilians in the middle east because of a perceived threat to us, they believe they're justified in killing civilians here because of a perceived threat to them. I believe you're both wrong, but who cares what I think.
What's notable is, 9/11 is just a fraction of a percentage of the civilian deaths caused by U.S. military action in the other parts of the world. We're only shocked and horrified by it because we've never seen real suffering, noone has waged a foreign war on U.S. soil in the last 200 years. We don't feel the consequences of war here, we project them. I don't think the author really felt that the people in the world trade center deserved to die, it was more of a reactionary message that tried to drive home the point that
this is just a fraction the suffering we inflict on other countries every day. It was a point poorly made, but who would have read the article if it was just about suffering iraqis?
