blueveinedthrobber wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:Zippo wrote:Brandon9000
Quote:I guess those women and children were Hussein's enemies, then. Hard to distinguish between them except for the obviously trivial fact that one targets combatants with some accidental harm to civilans, as in every war in history, and the other specifically targets noncombatants including children.
Bush call's it 'Collateral Damage' why can't Hussein use that term ?
Because in Hussein's case it isn't collateral. He tried to get them. He intentionally attacked the whole town, knowing full well that the gas wouldn't exclude non-combatants, or even children. Only a fool would regard this as morally equivalent to the unintended and undesired loss of civilian life which has occurred in ever war.
If history teaches us that there are always collateral deaths of civilians when combatants are gone after in the midst of the general populace and the attacks, bombings whatever are made anyway, one can scarcely call it unintentional loss of civilian life unless one is either
A: completely uncaring of the loss
B: a complete idiot
C: both.
So, is it that you don't understand the word intentional? The US intends to kill terrorists, insurgents, people doing harm towards the US. That does not include civilians or people not trying to do harm towards US interests. Therefore, their deaths would be UNINTENTIONAL. That is not to say they won't be killed in some instances, but that it is indeed unintential.
Saddam on the other hand, had the intention to slaughter every single person that dared rebel against his government. He meant to wipe them ALL out so as to stop any future uprisings. His killing of women and children was intentional, because he aimed at them.
