While on the one hand I agree with those writers that it's somewhat idiotic to hold all Muslims responsible for the actions of Al Quaeda, I take issue with his assertion that we should feel bad because our armed forces are much more talented at killing people and breaking things than the ones we've squared off against in Africa/the Middle East.
Originally Posted by Hedgehogey
U.S. air strikes have probably killed a lot of civilian innocent bystanders (as opposed to those civilians who happen to be pointing an RPG at a Humvee convoy) but, in theory anyway, they're supposed to be directed at LEGITIMATE MILITARY TARGETS ONLY. Not only that, there are clear mechanisms in place for punishment and repatriation should a U.S. commander go full on Kurtz and start firebombing villages just because.
(Yes, Hedge, I'm aware that whether of not those mechanisms are ever used is a whole 'nother kettle of fish).
Meanwhile, things like 9-11 and the Libyan embassy murders are specifically targeted towards civilian populations and, in the case of the U.S. ambassador, those who are supposed to be inviolate during conflicts, and those responsible aren't held accountable by their respective organizations, they get attaboys and slaps on the back.
There's a reason why we didn't react to the USS Cole with the rage and indignation that 9-11 produced, like it or not a warship is a legitimate military target. Office buildings and passenger jets full of people are not.