On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Brad DeLong wrote:
> ...Of course, the issue ducked is that of intentionality: the WTC
> bombers did not intend to reduce the U.S.'s capacity to manufacture
> weapons of mass destruction and unfortunately managed to hit the WTC
> by accident. The intention in the Sudan bombing was to to do something
> that would make the world a safer place and avoid killing civilians. I
> don't know how much intentionality counts, but it counts for
> something...
Yes, it does, but it's difficult to specify (cf. the problem with "hate crimes"), even setting aside the possible differences in intention among the perpetrators of the same crime. Still, on the one side we have people who -- without regard to "collateral damage," in the Pentagon phrase -- are willing to sacrifice their lives to damage the financial and military centers of the state that they understand to be oppressing members of their religious community and invading its territory; on the other side we have people who -- also without regard to "collateral damage" -- are willing to damage any assets (70+ cruise missiles in Afghanistan and Sudan) of those opposing their exploitation of the people and resources (principally oil) of the region.
There is of course a notable difference: I don't think Clinton or his hirelings were willing to commit suicide to accomplish the damage; and there may be another difference, regarding Lewinsky's testimony.
Regards, CGE