Merged Gadaffi captured or killed.

[John Albert]

Some of those "outfits" he wore look like George Lucas designs from Star Wars Ep I-II-III.

I'd say Babylon 5 at best. Star Wars had much higher production values.

 

[dafydd]

That's rather a broad question, dafydd, but it wouldn't have included deleiberately incinerating civilians.

You wouldn't have been tempted to take revenge for Coventry?

What delusional belief are you talking about? Why do you think bin Laden wouldn't have used a weapon that could wipe out the US army without killing civilians?

Because he targeted civilians.
'Al-Qaeda, however, disputes the broad prohibition against killing civilians on two grounds. First, it takes issue with the notion that those killed in the September 11 attacks were "innocents" covered by the prophet's prohibitions. Second, al-Qaeda argues that the prohibition is not an absolute one and that there are conditions under which killing civilians becomes permissible. The movement thus takes on both the theological argument proffered against the September 11 attacks and reformist framings of the victims as innocent. The result is a broad set of conditions that provide religious justification for killing civilians in almost every possible circumstance. Only one condition need be met to legitimize an attack against civilians. '
http://ics.leeds.ac.uk/papers/vp01.cfm?outfit=pmt&folder=10&paper=540

 

[JihadJane]

You wouldn't have been tempted to take revenge for Coventry?

No. What did the incinerated German civilians (men, women, children and pets) have to do with bombing Coventry?

Because he targeted civilians.
'Al-Qaeda, however, disputes the broad prohibition against killing civilians on two grounds. First, it takes issue with the notion that those killed in the September 11 attacks were "innocents" covered by the prophet's prohibitions. Second, al-Qaeda argues that the prohibition is not an absolute one and that there are conditions under which killing civilians becomes permissible. The movement thus takes on both the theological argument proffered against the September 11 attacks and reformist framings of the victims as innocent. The result is a broad set of conditions that provide religious justification for killing civilians in almost every possible circumstance. Only one condition need be met to legitimize an attack against civilians. '
http://ics.leeds.ac.uk/papers/vp01.cfm?outfit=pmt&folder=10&paper=540

Just because Al-Qaeda may be able to justify attacking civilians doesn't mean it wouldn't prefer to use a magic weapon that only killed "combatants", if it could get hold of one.

You also appear to have overlooked the many instances of the US targeting civilians in, for example, Japan, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.

- - - - - -

So, do you think sane people would go to war if it was not for some kind of "them or us" construct?

Hans

That's not what you wrote. You wrote: "Wars are designed to get the worst out in people."

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

SO you don't think we should try to avoid atrocities?

Hans

*yawn*

Yeah, that's exactly what I meant when I said we have to consider the costs of our actions.

Belz -

I'm having trouble following you post. What are you saying ? Are you saying anything, in fact ?

Absolutely. You just proved a person like you cannot even grasp something as elementary as considering both costs and benefits of our actions.

You went to a government school.