War on France

[Chefranden]

In Iraq, the civilian population was targeted directly and indirectly. The idea behind it was to cause such unrest in the Iraqi population that they would rise up and overthrow Hussein, or that - at the very least - Iraq would have to surrender or have its people killed systematically.

This is a perfectly 'legitimate' strategy of war; the intimidation and destruction of civilians. To pretend it doesn't exist, and that the US doesn't do it is to shame the US generals and tacticians in charge.

If it is truely a legitimate strategy of war for us, then it is also a legitimate strategy of war for our enemies. Further if preemtive strikes are legitimate for us then they are also legitimate for our enemies. Preemtive strikes are best done as suprizes. Given this philosophy Bin Ladin's attack on us is legitimate. We are hung by our own rope I think.

Pay attention to the thread's core issue of contention: that civilians were specifically targeted. The destruction of certain key infrastructures was meant to cause mass havoc within the population, as seen by the detailed army and DIA studies. As I already said above, this is standard procedure in any war.

Again if it is permissible for us to target "key infrastructure" of the enemy then the enemy is also permitted to target our key infrastructure such as centers of economic activity -World Trade Center, or command and control centers - Pentagon. If it is legitimate for us to kill civilians to accomplish the destruction of infrastructure, then again it is legitimate for the enemy to do so.