Quote:
|
Originally Posted by towny
No matter how obnoxious you believe the motives of the Coalition to be, there is a clear and obvious difference between a strategy that seeks to minimise or avoid civilian casualties, and a strategy that relies on maximum civilian casualties in order to press home a dogma by means of terror.
|
That is true, but as I said, people die regardless. Therefore, the difference is only really relevant if you believe that some people have a greater right to live than others. It's not as though the coalition are innocent of waging a campaign deliberately designed to inspire fear and terror, "shock and awe".
The effort to minimise civilian casualties doesn`t stop when you stop firing weaponry. I wonder how many people have died as a result of the coalitions comical attempts to rebuild the infrastructure that they destroyed in the first instance. So what if they don`t deliberately target civilian areas, if you take out parts of the infrastructure that result in civilian deaths then the end result is the same.
All you've described are different gameplans, the end result is the same.