The Japanese didn't attack Pearl Harbor (which in any case was a purely military target);
Pearl Harbor would have been a military target if Japan had attacked us after
declaring war. However, they attacked Pearl Harbor before
They also murdered thousands of American POWs throughout the war.
And if we expand the scope beyond American victims, Japanese soldiers wantonly murdered countless civilians for pure fun.
the Japanese military government attacked Pearl Harbor. So how were popular calls to bomb the Japs back to the Stone Age reasonable or moral?
They were moral because they called for the destruction of the nation that had launched the outrageous attack.
As for what the Muslims are reacting to (and by "Muslims of today" you presumably refer to groups like al Qaeda which the majority of Muslims regard as impious murderers),
"Muslims of today" refers to your post here:
where you said "why expect third world Muslims to react any more rationally or morally"
You were comparing today's Muslims to 1941 Americans. But in 1941 the Americans were the victims of the attack. The Muslims of today are not the victims. The victims today are the people who are murdered by the terrorists.
If you want a WWII comparison for innocent Muslims killed in dronestrikes, the best comparison would be to Japanese civilians killed by the A-bombs.
If the majority of Muslims regard al-Qa'ida as impious murderers, I sure wish they would speak out about it more.
consider what Osama bin Laden cited in his 1996 "Declaration of Jihad Against the Americans":
"More than six hundred thousand Iraqi children have died due to lack of food and medicine as a result of your unjustifiable and aggressive sanctions imposed on Iraq. and its nation. Iraqi children are our children. You (America), together with the Saudi regime are responsible for the shedding of the blood of these innocent children."
UNICEF seems to agree about the numbers and cause:
"Ms. Bellamy noted that if the substantial reduction in child mortality throughout Iraq during the 1980s had continued through the 1990s, there would have been half a million fewer deaths of children under-five in the country as a whole during the eight year period 1991 to 1998. As a partial explanation, she pointed to a March statement of the Security Council Panel on Humanitarian Issues which states: "Even if not all suffering in Iraq can be imputed to external factors, especially sanctions, the Iraqi people would not be undergoing such deprivations in the absence of the prolonged measures imposed by the Security Council and the effects of war." "
Something had to be done to keep Saddam under control. The only alternative to the sanctions was the invasion that took place in 2003.
All blame for the suffering in Iraq should be directed at Saddam Hussein.
Now of course, to this it should be added that two wrongs don't make a right, that you can't do good by doing evil, that there are several important distinctions between sanctions targeting the regime of Saddam Hussein and the actions of (for example) the 9/11 attackers. One might also question the sincerity of this concern as expressed by bin Laden.
I do not accept that there are two wrongs here. The sanctions on Iraq were necessary because of Saddam's behavior. They are not a wrong.
But there are several important observations to be had from all this.
First, blanket references to the sins of "Muslims" are just as morally undiscriminating as references to the sins of "Americans".
Which blanket references are these?
Second, the willingness to blithely dismiss the deaths of civilians as acceptable "collateral damage" of military operations (that are largely cosmetic anyway) is disturbingly similar to the arguments used by terrorists in attacking civilians as military targets as the Paris attackers did (much like the British in the Second World War in their use of terror bombing to undermine German morale). Bombs are bombs, and dead civilians are just as dead either way.
There is no similarity whatsoever. The terrorists are deliberately targeting civilians. The West is doing their very best to avoid striking civilians.
Third, at some point it becomes more important to break the cycle of violence than to argue about who started it.
The only way to do that is to eradicate the terrorists.
I would hate to have to argue against Native American terrorists attempting to regain their land and arguing that Europeans started it.
If they are actually terrorists (meaning they intentionally target civilians), they can be condemned for their intentional targeting of civilians.
If they do not intentionally target civilians, then they are not terrorists, and moral condemnation might be difficult.
Terrorist incidents have skyrocketed since the so-called war on terror was declared and since the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Now you and others like you are talking about invading Syria, and Iraq again too.
As long as U.S. military actions are seen through the prism of geopolitics or war game strategies, and as long as all those civilian casualties are written off as statistics on a collateral damage chart, I don't see how this is possible.
The cycle of violence will break when we've eradicated the groups that are attacking us.
Somebody has to break the cycle of violence by being BETTER than the other side. If the United States can't see its way to being better for moral reasons, it might at least do so for practical reasons.
This term "better" presumes some sort of superiority in not defending ourselves when people try to murder us. I do not accept such a superiority.
I also question the practicality of not defending oneself from a murder attempt.
But I'm afraid that the habit of demonizing entire peoples in response to the actions of their governments or of groups unilaterally claiming to act for them, is not a habit of Muslims alone. We often speak of the Judeo-Christian tradition, though it's difficult to imagine Jesus approving of the callously inflicted deaths of innocents carried out in the name of a civilization representing this tradition. One also wonders whether those who bombed the King David Hotel that killed 91 were acting within this tradition. Among the psalms popularly attributed to King David, there is one that shocks the modern reader:
"...happy the one who repays you as you have served us! Happy the one who dashes your little ones against the rocks."
Who is demonizing entire peoples? The dronestrikes are being aimed at the terrorists specifically.
Perhaps it is time to try something truly radical now that militarism has failed yet again:
Militarism hasn't failed. Our military is actively defending us from those who seek to harm us.
follow the Golden Rule and treat the noncombatant inhabitants of foreign cities as we would be treated.
We already do that. It is the terrorists who intentionally target civilians.
Stop trying to minimize, justify, and euphemise reflexive military responses that are known in advance will kill many civilians and are not even effective in accomplishing strategic goals.
There are no such military responses (at least on the part of the West). The only time a strike will be authorized with the knowledge that it will kill many civilians is if that strike will accomplish a huge strategic goal.
Stop invading other countries, treating their citizens like potential terrorists and little brown monkeys, then asking why anti-American attitudes are so prevalent among them.
Sometimes invasions are necessary.
We don't treat anyone like potential terrorists and little brown monkeys. If we launch a dronestrike at someone, we do so because we are firmly convinced that they really are terrorists.
There is no need to ask why they hate us. If they are a threat to us, then take military action. If not a threat to us, then we can safely leave them alone.