Drich, even in those wars you mentioned, we did not specifically target non-combatants as a matter of course. Indeed, our recent military history (the last 60 years or so) is one of pushing for ever more precision in our attacks. Why? Because not giving a shit about (or worse, intentionally targeting) civilians is morally repugnant because it's unnecessary. Yes, collateral damage happens, but it's always seen as unfortunate and is always attempted to be minimized if not mitigated entirely. Killing innocents in war has never helped us ethically or practically.
There's simply no need, even in your idiotic Red Dawn sequel, to target civilians. And before you try to get all indignant, I live in New England. One of the journalists that was beheaded came from, literally, the next town over (look up James Foley). Even with all that, no, intentionally killing civilians is wrong.
There's simply no need, even in your idiotic Red Dawn sequel, to target civilians. And before you try to get all indignant, I live in New England. One of the journalists that was beheaded came from, literally, the next town over (look up James Foley). Even with all that, no, intentionally killing civilians is wrong.
"I was thirsty for everything, but blood wasn't my style" - Live, "Voodoo Lady"
