[Vision2020] inadvertent casualties, or deliberate targeting of civilians?

[Tony]

Well Ralph, I still persist that there is a distinction between abortion, 
which involves NO GOAL whatsoever than ending the life of an innocent, and 
the carpet bombing of industrial centers in order to destroy a nation's war 
making capability.  Now of course the brass at the time knew there would be 
large numbers of innocents killed - still, were these cities not industrial 
centers, I think it accurate to say they would not have been targeted at 
all.  A fine line I know Ralph, but in my personal view, a critical 
distinction.  I can however, cordially agree to disagree if necessary.

That point aside, there have been instances historically where terrorizing 
the civilian population of an enemy territory has been undertaken 
intentionally as a means to make war so intolerable for the civilian 
population that it would cause a groundswell of domestic opposition to the 
conflict in question.  Sherman's march to the sea comes to mind.  Do you 
have information which would indicate that this was the rational behind the 
saturation bombings you spoke of?  Clearly such information would be 
critical in this debate.

My very best,   -T
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ralph Nielsen" <nielsen at uidaho.edu>
To: "Tony" <tonytime at clearwire.net>
Cc: "Sue Hovey" <suehovey at moscow.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 10:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Saundra tries to mislead Matt with phoney 
sweetness


> Come on, Tony. The saturation bombing of Rotterdam, Birmingham,  Hamburg, 
> Dresden, Cambodia, etc., ad nauseam, was the "the  inadvertent killing of 
> untargeted innocents?" Gimme a break!
>
>
> On Nov 15, 2006, at 8:38 PM, Tony wrote:
>
>> Oh come now Ralph.  Is it really fair to say that there is no  difference 
>> between the inadvertent killing of untargeted innocents  as in war, and 
>> the direct and deliberate targeting of an innocent  for death as in the 
>> case of abortion?  Please!  I have read your  letters for years Ralph, 
>> and I know your reasoning to be crisper  than that.
>>
>> Have a good Friday.   -T
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ralph Nielsen"  <nielsen at uidaho.edu>
>> To: <Vision2020 at moscow.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 10:51 AM
>> Subject: [Vision2020] Saundra tries to mislead Matt with phoney 
>> sweetness
>>
>>
>>> Sue,
>>>
>>> The term "collateral damage" is usually employed by those who make a
>>> big deal about being "pro-life."
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>>
>>> Sue Hovey suehovey at moscow.com
>>> Tue Nov 14 23:02:23 PST 2006
>>>
>>> Referring to human casualties as "collateral damage" is supposed  to 
>>> make
>>> ones opinions legitimate???
>>>
>>> Sue Hovey
>>>
>>> =======================================================
>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>               http://www.fsr.net
>>>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>> =======================================================
>>>
>>
>>
>
>