oh, and to be fair, no: there's no difference to the person getting bombed. but intent has always been a vital consideration in moral and legal determinations. intending to kill civilians is significantly different than intending to kill combatants and unintentionally killing civilians in a densely packed area.
as discussed already, if america intended -- or even had no qualms about -- civilian death, this conflict would have ended exceptionally quickly. respect for civilian life is the only reason al qaeda, et al has been able to operate effectively. so your notion that international dictates against targeting civilians (as with terrorism) benefit the strong is bunk. it more greatly benefits the weak, who are able to hide amongst civilians as their primary measure of defense
|