Is there a moral difference between bombing a city from the sky and 9-11?

[Armstead]

I hate to say it, but watching black smoike arising from skyscrapers in Beruit being bombed brought back images of the Twin Towers.

Smaller buildings maybe, but the effect is the same especially if you multiply the size by the number of buildings. Innocent civilian men, women and children die, and those doing the bombing know that.

Same thing in Iraq during the "liberation."

We can certainly apply differences of values and morality to the goals of "our side" as opposed to enemies of us.

And all forms of deliberate destruction and the killing of civilians should be roundly condemned.

But can we apply a different standard of morality to the methods? Is bombing of civilians by military forces from the sky, really more acceptable and morally superior than the bombing of civilian targets by terrorists on the ground?

Are we allowed to say "the ends justify the means," while condemning our enemies for applying the same standards?

[eallen]

1. I can think of at least two, important differences.

(1) Israel was responding to ongoing attacks on its populace. Whatever other criticisms one has of the Israeli government (I have many), this is a common function that every government performs. Al Qaeda is engaged in a religious jihad, motivated by a fundamentalist outlook every bit as insane as Jerry Falwell's and James Dobson's and Eric Rudoph's. Every liberal should view Al Qaeda as a prime example of the danger posed to the world by religious fundamentalism, when it has military ability and purpose.

(2) Israel's purpose in bombing south Lebanon was to directly counter an enemy's military capacity to launch attacks on it. And it did succeed in destroying some of Hezbollah's capacity. Al Qaeda's purpose in bringing down the World Trade Center was to kill civilians. Both actions did in fact kill civilians. Some will argue that whether that is the intended purpose or not doesn't matter. Before arguing that, at least recognize that the difference is factual.

[chimpymustgo]

4. What credible evidence do you have of Hezbollah and Al Qaeda working

together?

Is Hezbollah engaged in a religious jihad - or are they trying to protect Lebanon from aggressors (Israel).

If Israel really wanted to defend itself from rockets - it could militarize its OWN territory to provide a buffer zone WITHOUT INVADING AND OCCUPYING LEBANON.

Israel's STATED purpose may not be to kill civilians, but EVERYTHING THEY ARE DOING IS KILLING CIVILIANS. So, I think their INTENT is to KILL CIVILIANS.

So, my answer: it's pretty much the same.

[eallen]

6. I didn't assert they were. The poster referred to Beirut and 9/11.

Hezbollah's purpose is very clearly not defensive. Keep the time line straight. If Hezbollah hadn't continually been launching rocket attacks against Israel from southern Lebanon -- which attacks by the way were purposely targeting civilians -- Israel would not have attacked southern Lebanon to route out Hezbollah.

I understand those who point out that Israel's hands are dirty, because of its history, and are queasy in any case about supporting Israel, because its government is less than entirely secular. I'm not a fan of Israel. On the other hand, I have no sympathy for those who support groups like Hezbollah. Hezbollah makes no pretense to be fighting for liberal values. It explicitly is a radical Shi'ite group, seeking Islamic governance. Every liberal should hope for Hezbollah's demise.

[The Magistrate]

10. As A Matter Of Curiousity, Ma'am

Are you seriously proposing Israel evacuate all civilians from Haifa and points north, as a reaction to the presence of Hezbollah and its stated intentions regarding the state of Israel?

Do you imagine, after a glance at a map, that that would be a practical measure?

Are you aware of any instance in history where a state has responded to an armed threat from outside its borders by such an action?

[eallen]

14. Rather famously, the Athenians evacuated the population of Athens.

In 480 BCE, the Athenians evacuated the entire civilian population in front of the Persian army, allowing the city to be burned. The Athenian fleet, led by Themistocles, then decisively defeated the Persians at Salamis. I would say the Persian sacking of Athens was Pyrrhic, except that metaphor throws in a different part of Greek history.

[The Magistrate]

15. Scorched Earth, Ma'am, Certa.nly Has Occured

Always as an intended pre-lude to counter-attack, and always in the face of actual invasion. The circumstances are hardly comparable to what the member above has suggested.

[leesa]

5. "Israel was responding to ongoing attacks on its populace" And IF the

9-11 attacks were done by Muslims, which I highly doubt, they are also responding to ongoing attacks on their populace. Or does everything they do happen in a vacuum?

I see no difference.

[eallen]

8. Only if you credence religious identity over everything else.

Yes, if you credence the notion Muslims the world over should identify with other Muslims the world over, regardless of nationality and other political issues, and that the cause of Muslim governmance is a legitimate one, then yes, 9/11 made great sense. Then yes, by that reasoning, it makes great sense to think that what Israel is doing in Lebanon is the world's great crisis, because it is being done to Muslims, but the genocide in Darfur doesn't matter so much, since there Muslims are committing the crime.

As a liberal, I think that reasoning is absolutely and utterly insane.

[Armstead]

9. I partially agree -- but.....

I agree that fundamentalism of all stripes is the real problem. I am NOT defending the terrorist tactics of Hezbollah or Al Quadeh. They are reprehensable. But can we claim a moral high ground when we are doing shades of the same kind of thinking and actions? Terrorism at the press of a button is no less terrorism than when it is delivered personally.

Is there really a moral leap between Israel's logic that it has to "convince" Lebenon by bombing its major city to make a point and Osama using 9-11 to make a point?

Osama and his followers would justify their heinous acts on the same basis that Israel and the US are justifying ours. He saw the US presence in Saudi Arabia during Gulf War 1 as one more expample of attacks against the populace of the Middle East going back to at least WW1. They also see US/Western culture and capitalistic influence as a form of occupation that is undermining their culture and values.

Hezbollah also has a longer memory than one month ago. They see themselves as having to defend themselves and also as being victims of occupation on an ongoing basis.

The only real difference I can see is that Osama revels in civilian deaths while Israel and the US Neo Cons shed croccodile tears over the "unfortunate" deaths of Lebanese civilians that they are knowingly causing to make their point.

Again I am not defending either side in this. But we have must acknowledge that our own excessive violence is intensifying the problems, rather than alleviating them, and we sacrifice any claims to "moral authority" by doing so.

[theHandpuppet]

12. You're rebutting someone else's argument

As I read the OP the question was about tactics and end results, not motivations.

The original question was: Is there a moral difference between bombing a city from the sky and 9-11?

[Armstead]

16. That's right

The only moral difference is one of elevation, IMO

[kenny blankenship]

2. Smaller buildings maybe,

but if Beirut had larger ones, they would bomb those too.

[kentuck]

3. Not a moral distinction except....

in the propagation of ideas.

[elehhhhna]

7. Yes, but ONLY if the bombing is conducted according to standard

rules of engagement, which do not condone the bombing of civilian targets.

This is a BIG DISTINCTION, though the way we & our "allies" operate in this millennium, it is no longer exists.

The destruction of civilian targets is generally (historically) considered terrorism, regardless of who does it.

[Armstead]

17. That's what frosts me....

Even if the neighborhoods they are bombing are hezbollah "strongholds" they are still neighborhoods.

[earth mom]

11. Warmongers and Fearmongers have NO morals.

:puke:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. No difference. None. The murderers always have justifications.

“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy.” - Gandhi