(February 26, 2015 at 8:42 pm)Chuck Wrote: Killing civilians because you can justify it by saying you meant to do something else, even when doing something else has generally reliably killed civilians before, is different from doing something with reasonable expectation of not killing any civilians but then unlikely shit happened.
The former is a less honest version of killing civilians and admitting that's what one finds acceptable to do to further a cause.
Are you suggesting that our drone strikes are attempts to deliberately kill civilians? That would be a war crime.
Again, I'm not saying war crimes don't exist. Neither am I saying negligent manslaughter doesn't have any moral culpability. I'm just saying that negligent manslaughter is not the same thing as serial killer.
By definition, terrorists are serial killers. This is not necessarily true for military strikes that have civilian casualties. Please note the word "necessarily".
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
