Thread: 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 ):

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.