This is why I opposed this "humanitarian" war to begin with. It's just a matter of time -- very short in this instance -- before any warring nation starts sliding down the slipperly slope you describe. The logical conclusion is to justify the wholesale slaughter of civilians, a policy that can be described in one word: "genocide."
Carl Remick
Terrorism cannot be countenanced under any circumstances Sherman's
March was an act of war-related
> terrorism to "bring
> the war home" to Southern civilians, just as Hiroshima was an act of
> terrorism that obstensibly was aimed at ending the war early
> and preventing
> the deaths of even more soldiers. (We can skip the debate on
> whether other
> motives dominated, since the explicit goal was justified in
> terms that can
> only be deemed terroristic, and justified as moral on that basis).
>
> Terrorism like any other strategy can be condemned for being
> used for an
> unjustified cause or being ineffective in a particular
> situation - different
> propositions stated by those opposing the bombing - but I
> find the whole
> moral condemnation of the act of terror unto itself somewhat
> hypocritical,
> since almost everyone will justify versions of terrorism if
> the side using
> it has good cause and it is effective.
>
> (Note: One of my favorite Star Trek: The Next Generation
> episodes was gave
> a full hearing to justification for use of terrorism by the
> Bajorans (read
> PLO) against the Cardasians (read Israel).)
>
> --Nathan Newman
>