Human Shields and Choice

[Chaerophon]

Good lord...

What I had intended as a mere side comment has become something else.

I can't believe that ANYONE would try to justify the purposeful, deliberate murder of 135,000 PLUS mostly refugee civilians as being "part of war". The city had practically no strategic significance, and, as has been stated above, was largely filled with women, children, and those fleeing the war. Crushing the spirit? The war was nearly over! (Not that I feel that such a motivation justifies this particular act in the first place)

Yes, war is war. Murder is also just that, murder. The attack was orchestrated so as to absolutely maximise the amount of death. It progressed, as I understand it, in three waves, the second and third of which were intended to catch civilians out of their homes, surveying the damage and those emergency vehicles that were able to respond. It was a calculated massacre. If it's crushing the spirit that the west was after, they had, no doubt, achieved their goal after the mass deployment of incendiaries on the first night, an atrocity, to my mind, in the first place. Their deployments had no tactical significance as far as military targets are concerned - if that had been the case, the results would have been much better served through the use of other munitions.

I'm not saying that the Germans didn't commit and exceed such atrocities. What I am saying is that this fact doesn't justify further atrocity. If we act in the same (even if to a lesser degree) way as do our enemies, then what is it that makes them our enemies? From your point of view, it would seem that the answers to this question and the only interests of concern in war are solely political and that morality has no place alongside such concerns. Essentially, it would seem that we are saying that, "we don't mind the manner in which you conduct war, just stop trying to take over other countries." While this MAY, indeed, be true, my question would have to then be, "how is that a good thing?" and, "how is this 'truth' not shameful?".

By your reasoning, the Americans should carpet bomb Baghdad and kill as many of its citizens as possible -and each and every one of them would absolutely deserve it. Because they didn't oppose Saddam, of course. Damn weaklings. Not to mention the immense strategic significance of such an act! I mean, the more women and children that you murder when a nation is already on its knees, the more secure is your victory, right?

Edit: Thought that I would address Pete's point re: how is this bombing an example of an atrocity? To my mind, the people of Dresden were as much a part of an extermination plan, if a less demeaning and terrible one, as were the Jews. The Jews were persecuted and exterminated on the basis of race. The people of Dresden were, to take it perhaps a fraction too far, in one night, for all intents and purposes, premeditatedly persecuted and to a frightening degree, exterminated on the basis of their geographic location. I suppose that the key word here is EXTERMINATED. The goal was no less than complete and total eradication. While Nazi Germany's persecution of the Jewish populace was, perhaps, more vile, demeaning, and uninstigated; the nature of the crimes are, to my mind, not so far apart as you seem to believe.