A noble "intent" is ALWAYS invented.

Current Events » in reply to Did you even READ his post? Intent does count. (n/t)

Bowser — 7/26/2002 5:55:39 PM (archived)

Some of us think that when, for instance, 40 innocent civilians are killed, including 25 from one family, and NO hostiles are killed, "intent" is irrelevant. There needs to be reasonable care.

(For there to be "collateral" damage, there needs to be damage to the primary target, or at least a primary target within range. Slaughtering everyone in sight without hitting a legitimate target isn't usually considered warfare - more like "terrorism", more like Hamas than civilized self-defense.)

Calley could rationalize My Lai with the "intent" of ridding the area of hostiles.

"Intent" is irrelevant. It's what you DO that counts. You could "intend" to drive to the grocery store, but if you actually run over a Girl Scout troop, that matters.

Arf

The whole thread (9 posts)

Terrorism and Counter Terrorism are not morally equivilent - Buck Galaxy - 7/25/2002 2:59:35 PM
- Re: No -- but the attack was not counterterrorism . . . - D. Spires - 7/26/2002 5:55:50 PM
- Unfortunately, it is only clear in hindsight. - ebnelson - 7/26/2002 3:51:15 PM
- It's always retaliation! - Bowser - 7/26/2002 3:36:25 PM
  - Did you even READ his post? Intent does count. (n/t) (n/t) - Tom Brosz - 7/26/2002 5:35:06 PM
    - A noble "intent" is ALWAYS invented. - Bowser - 7/26/2002 5:55:39 PM
- well said, Bucko (n/t) (n/t) - p - 7/26/2002 12:51:26 PM
- A good article on the subject of the attack - Tom Brosz - 7/26/2002 11:05:06 AM
  - Re: Thoughtful . . . - D. Spires - 7/26/2002 11:57:09 AM

Recent posts

On this day in Current Events

The whole thread (9 posts)