tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post112779303596913003..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: Anti-War/Anti-TerrorismAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1128569359027526152005-10-05T21:29:00.000-06:002005-10-05T21:29:00.000-06:00Marty: Each act needs to be judged on its own meri...Marty: Each act needs to be judged on its own merits. Furthermore, I believe that only somebody who has studied an issue in detail can offer an informed opinion.<BR/><BR/>I do happen to have an interest in World War II. From what I know of the attack on Dresden, it was a terrorist act. Its purpose was to kill women and children for the sake of weaking German morale.<BR/><BR/>I view the British night-time firebombing attacks against Germany to be similarly wrong (though I am less certain of this -- I may not have all of the relevant facts).<BR/><BR/>I do not see the use of nuclear weapons in Japan to be any different than the firebombing of Japanese cities. The destruction was the same, it just took fewer planes to do it. The 'wrong' in this case is countered by the fact that Japan had decentralized its manufacturing. Military equipment was being manufactured in peoples' homes (than gathered and brought to the assembly plants).<BR/><BR/>Attacks on infrastructure where civilians work is not wrong, though care must be taken where possible to reduce civilian casualties. This is not the sole consideration, but this is a consideration.<BR/><BR/>In World War II, in Yugoslavia, the Germans would fasted Yugoslav citizens to their tanks to prevent the Partisans from attacking the tanks. I would still say that it is okay to shoot the tank. The innocent life lost is charged to the NAZI moral account, not the Partisans.<BR/><BR/>Regarding the World Trade Center attacks...<BR/><BR/>First, it was an agressive act, not an act of national defense.<BR/><BR/>Second, it targeted civilians for the purpose of killing as many civilians as possible. It aimed for a "status symbol", not a military target, and did so at a time to cause maximum civilian casualties.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1128555415883572862005-10-05T17:36:00.000-06:002005-10-05T17:36:00.000-06:00Also, would you make exceptions for the fire bombi...Also, would you make exceptions for the fire bombing of Dresden, or the atomic weapons dropped on Japan in WWII? Or would you condemn those acts as terrorist acts as well? How about conventional bombing of infrastructure targets (factories, railways, etc.) where civilians work? Or, for that matter, the World Trade Center, as Ward Churchill might contend?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1128348399025364032005-10-03T08:06:00.000-06:002005-10-03T08:06:00.000-06:00Obviously, this post made an impression, as it was...Obviously, this post made an impression, as it was the firt thing I thought of when I saw this story:<BR/><BR/>"A leading international human rights group has accused Iraq's insurgent groups of committing war crimes.<BR/><BR/>New York-based Human Rights Watch said rebels were breaking the laws of war by deliberately targeting civilians...."<BR/><BR/>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4298198.stmAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com