The victim of an aggressor is always right, regardless what means of fighting he employs
This is the basis for Cybergnu's stance in all the various ME threads, and is the reason there is no room for progress in a debate on the matter with him (sure, you can post back and forth, but there is zero chance - none, zip, nada, of actually making progress). I'm not ripping on you, Cyber, just to be clear - it's an observation, and not one designed to be nasty. It's an absolute position, and thus there isn't room to manuever.
Since the victim is granted a blank moral check, nothing is out of bounds. Nothing. There is no proportionality. But there are a lot of conflicts in which identifying an "aggressor" isn't all that simple. One also may wish to get into Cyber's defintion of aggression, but I'm not going there righ tnow.
Let's take Kashmir as an example, simply because I think most of us have at least heard of it and probably know a little bit about it. I'm no expert on the matter, but here are the basics as I know them: the Brits want India & Pak to be one big state when they leave. The Muslims won't stand for it, demand their own country, Pakistan. Ok, that's done. But who gets Kashmir? India does, based on the wishes of the non-elected ruler of that area at the time of the partition (Hindu leader, mostly Muslim population). Decades of bloodletting commence. More at 11.
Anyway, who is the aggressor? India, because it kept a province whose leader chose to join it (one could obviously question the legitimacy of the leader)? Or Pakistan, because it funds/trains/otherwise supports people who go into Kashmir and blow things up? Who was the "aggressor" in each of the 3 wars between the two countries (IIRC, 2 of the 3 were over Kashmir)?
What if each side shares the blame for conflict? Who is the aggressor then?
So the statement "The victim of an aggressor is always right, regardless what means of fighting he employs" does not allow for gray areas. It also doesn't allow for much debate.
So don't bother arguing that point. Either you accept that civilians can be targetted (because, to one degree or another, they contribute toward their side's ability to wage war) or you do not.
-Arrian
Comment