Is there a moral equivalence between US tactics in Korea, Vietnam and 9/11/01?

[SCitizen]

In Vietnam, USA has engaged in extensive bombing campaigns. During Korean War, USA engaged in bombing campaigns with about a million civilian losses in North Korea. On September 11 2001, the Islamic terrorist group Al-Qaeda conducted a terrorist attack on USA which killed 2996 innocent people.

 

[RJApple]

In Vietnam, USA has engaged in extensive bombing campaigns. During Korean War, USA engaged in bombing campaigns with about a million civilian losses in North Korea. On September 11 2001, the Islamic terrorist group Al-Qaeda conducted a terrorist attack on USA which killed 2996 innocent people.

While this is an interesting question and the two are similar, the difference lies in the respective intents of the attacks. As far as I am aware, the U.S. did not intend to kill civilians, they were likely the collateral damage of an attempt to destroy infrastructure and dug-in military positions; very similar tactics were used against the Nazis during WWII. It is vitally important, especially in modern war, to target infrastructure and the like, as you thereby destroy the enemy's ability to wage war, basically suffocating them into surrender. However, Al-Qaeda specifically targeted non-combatant civilians in their attacks; their primary objective was to inflict massive casualties, not destroy infrastructure. Intentions are generally inferior to the actions themselves, as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, however, in this case, the intentions behind the actions weigh heavily on our interpretation of said actions in this case. That isn't to minimize what those actions cost in terms of lives, but, to quote General William T. Sherman, "War is hell." And maybe it should stay that way, perhaps those hawks among us would not be so quick to call their people to arms and beat the drums of war if they saw for themselves the horror and the true cost of war. It was also Sherman who said, "The crueler it [war] is, the sooner it will be over."

 

[Van Basten]

Nope.

 

[legalimmigrant]

The U.S. and the U.K. did attack civilians in Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki with full premeditation and the intention to make it as painful as possible. Yet, those events do not make the U.S. anywhere near an equivalent - military or moral - of the 9/11 Muslim criminals. At any time, the Japs and the Germans had an option to surrender and the wars would come to a complete halt within hours. The 9/11 Muslims did not give the 2996 victims an option to surrender.

Bush's immediate reaction to the 9/11 attacks was mind boggling. In retaliation, just as Truman did in Japan, he could have tuned Mecca into a parking lot as a lesson not to ever screw with us. Instead, the weasel let the Osama family leave while all commercial flights were still grounded. Effectively, no one was punished - or even investigated - for the 9/11 attacks.

 

[SCitizen]

The U.S. and the U.K. did attack civilians in Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki with full premeditation and the intention to make it as painful as possible. Yet, those events do not make the U.S. anywhere near an equivalent - military or moral - of the 9/11 Muslim criminals.

I do not know -- in Japan 1945, Korea 1950 -- 53, Southeast Asia 1965 -- 73 USA caused at least 2,500,000 civilian losses -- much more then terrorism.

 

[Kal'Stang]

There is a difference between civilians killed in a war and civilians killed just to cause terror.