* Dan Minette [Sat, 15/03/2003 at 11:26 -0600] > > No. I talked about bombing innocent civils. Sometimes force has to be > > counterd by force, military against military. > > But, if one tries as hard as possible to limit damage to military targets, > civilians will still be killed. Especially, if one's opponent knows that > one is trying to avoid killing civilians and uses them as shields for > military assets. So, given that fact, must we chose not to go after any > military targets?
Yes, it's my opinion, if there's a risk a Just should refrain. > > And somehow, talking about WWII, I can speak about WWII and bombing and > > civilian loss. My town (Saint-Nazaire) is an harbour and has been used > > by german navy. To prevent them to use the harbour Allies bombed it. > After > > the war 90% of the town was destroyed (not the harbour). One of the > > worst bombing killed 40 pupils in their school. It's still in the > collective > > memory. > > I think this illustrates the problem. Back in WWII, bombings were very > inaccurate. It was impossible to pick a military target without hitting > civilians. The question is/was: do we refrain from bombing military > targets so as not to kill civilians. Again yes, I'm absolutely positive > > I've read that French resistance was fairly minimal, and that most French > cooperated willingly with the Germans. Do you have a good source on the > extent of French resistance? I quickly searched the internet to find a source in English (excuse me I maybe assumed too quickly it was your only language). I found numerous. I overlooked this one (looks educational British) and didn't find errors compared to what I have in memory (I'm not an history scolar though). Maybe you could also look on the same site at other chapters that you know (like USA History) and give me feedback on wether you think it's a trustable source. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FRresistance.htm -- Jean-Marc _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
