Atrocities in war

[Neo-Floriano]

How is it moral to bomb terrorists back to the Stone Age (where they may or may not have been living anyway) but immoral to urinate of their corpses?

[Su]

How is it moral to bomb terrorists back to the Stone Age (where they may or may not have been living anyway) but immoral to urinate of their corpses?

How it is worthy of apology to apologise and reprimand soldiers/marines for burning the Koran, but the same government ordered the burning of a large number of Bibles?

I think we'll find that the motivating principles of the government involved are not morality or ethics, but on avoiding rousing the public ire because they know the people involved are prone to violent uprisings and destructive behaviour at the slightest provocation. The enemy is not just the enemy, but the people too.

[Mithrandylan]

When was it established that it's moral to bomb terrorists to the stone age? 

[Su]

When was it established that it's moral to bomb terrorists to the stone age? 

Desecrating corpses either.

But I took it to mean the expressed values of the US/NATO occupation of Afghanistan.

[rbjmartin]

When was it established that it's moral to bomb terrorists to the stone age? 

Further development of this question:
How is it moral to arbitrarily assess another human being as "a terrorist," determine that all such individuals falling under this nebulous label have forfeited their God-given right to live, and then bomb these individuals to the stone age?

[Walty]

This is why it is important that we recognize certain individual rights.  The right to life is chief among these, and we cannot override this right simply because we believe that a good will come out of it.  We may kill in defense.  We may not kill in offense, justifying it as defense.

We've reached the time where we now execute before crimes are committed, like in the movie Minority Report.  As we can see, this isn't just applied to external enemies either.  The government's chief concern is not defending the life of its citizens, but defending itself, and thus even citizens can now be labelled "terrorists" and punished without having actually broken any just laws.

As Catholics, we recognize that, even if it were to save the world from some apocalyptic catastrophe, we could not sacrifice an innocent life.  The world, however, increasingly sees that view as backward and dangerous.

[Pilgrim]

We've reached the time where we now execute before crimes are committed, like in the movie Minority Report.  As we can see, this isn't just applied to external enemies either.  The government's chief concern is not defending the life of its citizens, but defending itself, and thus even citizens can now be labelled "terrorists" and punished without having actually broken any just laws.

So, if we have solid evidence that a crime (like a terrorist attack) is going to happen, should we wait until such crime actually happens?

[Tim]

There are problems with war even a just one like WWII. I've said this before here in the tank but it bears repating. My father was in charge of a tank destroyer unit in WWII, he fought with Patton. Those tank destroyers were called by the Germans the American SS. They were the tip of the spear and besides the infantry men attached to the units, there was no support. My father said he executed all German soldiers after the battles because there was no way to stop and no one to hold them. The B-17's bombing Dresden and the firestorm which ensued on Ash Wednesday, is a testament to our own wickedness.

Sacred Heart of Jesus have mercy on us.

tim

[newyorkcatholic]

We've reached the time where we now execute before crimes are committed, like in the movie Minority Report.  As we can see, this isn't just applied to external enemies either.  The government's chief concern is not defending the life of its citizens, but defending itself, and thus even citizens can now be labelled "terrorists" and punished without having actually broken any just laws.

So, if we have solid evidence that a crime (like a terrorist attack) is going to happen, should we wait until such crime actually happens?

The idea that we know what someone will do with their free will is crap.  But if you know someone is conspiring to commit a crime, arrest them for conspiring.

In your scenario there was solid evidence, so use it.

But do you arrest someone for murder if you think they will murder, but haven't?  No, of course not. 

If they conspire, charge them; if they attempt, charge them; if they incite, charge them with that; and if they murder, charge them with that.

[Crusading Philologist]

How is it moral to bomb terrorists back to the Stone Age (where they may or may not have been living anyway) but immoral to urinate of their corpses?

You can act respectfully and honorably toward your enemy even while fighting him. I suppose that is difficult to see these days because we have an extremely abstract sense of morality.