Foreign Affairs Discussion Group Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Bilow who wrote (15188)	12/31/2001 12:45:48 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) of 281500

It was probably somewhat against the Geneva convention (which did not yet exist, I suppose), at least as the event is remembered in the South today. Thanks for the info, Bilow. Even as the materials you provided describe it, the distinction was no so much between rich and poor civilians as between those who were perceived as hostiles and those who were perceived as neutrals. Or do you think that Sherman would have refrained from burning out the poor had he perceived them to be equally as hostile as the rich? The difficulty of describing terrorism inside the context of modern war is that modern wars aim at rendering the enemy's economy incapable of sustaining the war effort. Since the enemy does not have two separate economies, civilian and military, but only one, the efforts to cripple the economy will of necessity strike at civilian as well as military targets. In that context, you can note whether the military commanders used discrimination in picking their targets, and you can still call deliberate massacre of non-combatants a war crime. But it seems to me that you cannot say that if you strike at any civilian targets, that is terrorism. Because it cannot be wholly avoided.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next