Bombing The School: An Analogy

Alright, so I'd like to propose an analogy to find out why people stand where they stand, in reference to civilian casualties in the war in Iraq.

So, many of us excuse our actions overseas for one (or both) of two reasons: Either because we (including the U.N.) figured that Sadaam had WMDs, or because the attack on 9/11 gave us a right to go after the terrorists "where they live," so that they could not, again, attack us on our own soil. The latter is, time and time again, used as a rationale for why we should remain there until (as many have said) "all the terrorists have been killed," for the same reason stated above. This, subsequently (when the concept of civilian casualties comes into the equation) leads to the stance that "it's war. People die in wars. It's an unfortunate consequence" and grants us pardon in conducting our offensive.

The analogy I propose is this (and remember, I am not planning on pointing fingers at anyone for their point of view, simply trying to put some perspective on this whole thing. Also...I've tossed back a few cold ones and this may not come out exactly as intended :P):

If your neighborhood (close friends and family members included) were under attack from a group of "terrorists," and were being killed off by the dozen, how far would you be willing to go to stop any further attacks? For example: If you knew that a large group of those terrorists that were working to "kill as many of your people as possible" were holed up in an elementary school, high school, or university of students of your own nationality, would you, say, bomb and completely obliterate said school(s) for the purpose of getting those terrorists?

If you didn't, you'd, knowingly, face the chance of that faction of terrorists returning to kill more of those people close to you but, if you do, you will - most certainly - kill a number of innocent civilians that far outnumbers the terrorists that you would kill in your attack. Would this sort of action be justified? Would an all-out, offensive, "catch-all" (or in this case "catch some") tactic justify the innocent lives that it cost to set in motion?

If this is not a fair analogy, and I'm leaving something out, let me know, but basically I would like to see where people stand when the problem/solution is looked at on this scale.

I don't think it is ever justifiable to kill a single innocent just for the pure sake of getting even with terrorists. But I do think it is justifiable to kill innocents to save a far greater number of them. It is hard to say what the ratio involving that far greater number would be, but there is a point where I will agree with it. Very hypothetically, if a terrorist group is in a mall, and the only way to make sure they don't get away and blow up an entire city when they will have virtually a 100% chance of doing it otherwise, then the mall needs to be blown up. But the question of whether I would support doing that if I had family members in the mall creates a whole new topic. I would not be equipped to make a rational decision in that situation. It is not in me to make the decision to ever choose anybody over my family. However, from a purely logical standpoint, I can say right now that blowing up the mall with them in it would be the necessary thing to do. I would just be too emotionally locked to give the okay for it or to even say I agree with doing it when facing the actual reality of it.

Obviously, not too many people wanted to touch this one. :chuckle:
Thanks for giving an honest answer, UM.