From: fester@island.COM (Mike Fester)
Subject: Re: Why firebomb civilians?/WWII
Organization: /usr/local/rn/organization
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 15:54:17 GMT

In article <nhvu2n4@zola.esd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>In article <1992Jul20.183113.5186@island.COM>, fester@island.COM (Mike Fester) writes:
>|> In article <nbouc1c@zola.esd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>|> >In article <1992Jul15.232054.13899@island.COM>, fester@island.COM (Mike Fester) writes:
>|> >|> >
>|> >|> >How does the attack on a military attack justify bombing civilians?
>|> >|> 
>|> >|> I believe it's called "starting a war". It involves provoking a power to
>|> >|> use said power against you. This is not considered A GOOD THING TO DO, 
>|> >|> particularly if that power is very much greater than yours. BTW, said state 
>|> >|> did not exist, so so far as convention is concerned, the attack on Pearl 
>|> >|> Harbor was against a friendly power (and BTW, it DID entail the bombing/killing
>|> >|> of civilians).
>|> >
>|> >Well, no.   That's much too glib. 
>|> 
>|> Well, yes. And not inaccurate.

>Pardon me?  What kind of "accuracy" are you talking about here?

You said my statement was too glib. It wasn't, nor was there any inaccuracy in
it.

>You equate "starting a war" with "justify bombing civilians",
>and then you say that this is "not inaccurate".

No, no. I equate 'starting a war" with "accepting the consequnces".

>What I pointed out was that it has *become* the expected thing
>through a process of one side doing it, the other side retaliating,
>and so on.

It became the "expected" thing to do as soon as the technology to do it
came into being. This seems to amaze you (why, I no idea).

>That does not mean that bombing civilians is a natural consequence
>of war, or that it is justified: only that we have *made* it a 
>consequence of war.

?? Civilians being killed is a natural consequence of war. Has been for
millenia. Ah, your point is on 'bombing' (not that it makes a difference).
We "made" it a consequence by introducing the technology to do it.

>Incidentally, you made a few factual errors.   For example, it's 

Actually, not. You simply didn't read the post.

>certainly not the case that civilians have only been bombed
>since ten years before The Second World war.   Civilians were 
>bombed from the air in the First World War as well, and they were
>being bombarded by artillery long before that.  

Hardly inaccurate, as the statement was that the technology for mass-bombing
did not exist until about 10 years before WWII.

>However, it's not the technical inaccuracy of what you wrote that 

Good, as it was NOT inaccurate.

>bothers me.   Rather it's the implication that if something *does* 
>happen, then it's justified.  That if the US bombed Japanese
>civilians, for example, they had it coming to them. 

Actually, we bombed areas of production, as we did in Germany. Justifiable?
Yes.

>That is both glib and amoral.

As mentioned above, you don't start wars if you can't finish 'em. And until you
read posts more accurately, I'll disregard your morality judgements.

Mike
-- 
Disclaimer - These opiini^H^H damn! ^H^H ^Q ^[ .... :w  :q  :wq  :wq! ^d  X ^?
exit X Q  ^C ^? :quitbye  CtrlAltDel   ~~q  :~q  logout  save/quit :!QUIT
^[zz ^[ZZZZZZ ^H  man vi ^@  ^L  ^[c  ^# ^E ^X ^I ^T ? help  helpquit ^D  ^d 
man help ^C ^c help exit ?Quit ?q CtrlShftDel "Hey, what does this button d..."