Is the West really morally superior?

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: SMOKE20
Do some real research and you'll find that indeed the bombing save far more lives than it cost. Negotiations were being attempted even up to the night before the initial drop and up to the second dropping.......the Japanese refused to surrender and have stated bluntly and honestly that they would have fought to the last man/woman/child if not for the overwhelming devestation caused by the two bombs.

But this is STILL not addressing the central issue.

Why cannot Al Qaeda make the same claim that its terror tactics are, in the long run, saving lives? In it's struggle against the West, Al Qaida can claim that its short-term strategy of terrorizing civilians - perhaps killing thousands - will in the long run save lives, since the West's will to continue the fight might be broken. In other words, Al Qaeda can claim that if the West abandons the fight, a protracted war between the West and the Middle East will be avoided, thus saving many, many thousands of lives. Why is that argument not JUST as valid as those put forth in support of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

It seems to me either that targeting civilians is NEVER acceptable, regardless of the "big picture" (in which case Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Al Qaeda's acts, and perhaps Dresden CANNOT be justified), or it IS acceptable (in which case we really can't criticize Al Qaeda for its strategy).

"Why cannot Al Qaeda make the same claim that its terror tactics are, in the long run, saving lives? "

Because they have no decent motive for their terroist attacks? How can you possibly be defending them...I don't get it.

 

[Agrooreo]

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: SMOKE20
Do some real research and you'll find that indeed the bombing save far more lives than it cost. Negotiations were being attempted even up to the night before the initial drop and up to the second dropping.......the Japanese refused to surrender and have stated bluntly and honestly that they would have fought to the last man/woman/child if not for the overwhelming devestation caused by the two bombs.

But this is STILL not addressing the central issue.

Why cannot Al Qaeda make the same claim that its terror tactics are, in the long run, saving lives? In it's struggle against the West, Al Qaida can claim that its short-term strategy of terrorizing civilians - perhaps killing thousands - will in the long run save lives, since the West's will to continue the fight might be broken. In other words, Al Qaeda can claim that if the West abandons the fight, a protracted war between the West and the Middle East will be avoided, thus saving many, many thousands of lives. Why is that argument not JUST as valid as those put forth in support of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

It seems to me either that targeting civilians is NEVER acceptable, regardless of the "big picture" (in which case Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Al Qaeda's acts, and perhaps Dresden CANNOT be justified), or it IS acceptable (in which case we really can't criticize Al Qaeda for its strategy).

"Why cannot Al Qaeda make the same claim that its terror tactics are, in the long run, saving lives? "

Because they have no decent motive for their terroist attacks? How can you possibly be defending them...I don't get it.

Did you take the time to read his post??? To me the bold sentences seem like enough positive motive to strive for if I was in their position. Basically the same thing that we have always used as justification in the west. "We are going to protect ourselves, and our interests any way necessary, to hell with right and wrong."