Is dropping bombs or firing missiles killing civilians purposely?

I see the argument all the time that says the difference between terrorists and "us" is terrorists kill civilians on purpose while the military never does so intentionally.

I'll wait to post my feelings in the comments as not to add bias to the poll. If you feel the poll question itself is biased please explain in the comment section

Why are bombs being loaded for dropping and bullets being loaded for firing to begin with? Does it really matter to the dead victims why or how they died? Just that they died at all?

It's missing the bigger question, isn't it?

armed resisters are shot.

To answer the original question out of context, though...it depends on the target. It is incumbent on any force that is intent on maintaining "jus in bello" to avoid causing civilian casualties to the greatest extent possible, even if that puts one's own troops at greater risk. The only time any civilian casualties can be justified is if the necessity of destroying a military target is so great that it really can't be avoided...if the only way to stop a truly imminent WMD attack, that could kill hundreds of thousands of people, would be to bomb a house in a civilian area, for instance, then it would be just to bomb it, I think.

Of course, in the case of an illegal act of aggression, you are correct...every bombing/shooting/killing of any kind is un-just, and a crime against peace.

It doesn't matter whether the life was taken intentionally or not -- it's unacceptable. Too often in human history, right up to the current day, civilian deaths have been deemed acceptable by referring to them as a "regrettable part of war". Ask the survivors of the dead victims if their loss is acceptable.

I also think it's misleading to differentiate between terrorists and a military by suggesting a military supposedly only "kills civilians accidentally". (Otherwise known as "collateral damage".) There's plenty of evidence throughout history, again straight up to current times, that military forces engage in the intentional massacre of civilians. "They don't do it as much" or "it's not their stated purpose as it is with terrorists" are strawman arguments. It's wrong; there's no distinction in the minds of those affected; it's facilitated by the "collateral damage" mentality; and worst of all it promotes the blowback of further violence and bloodshed.

If killing a person like Zarqawi will save countless lives in terrorist attacks both in and out of Iraq, isn't it an acceptable tragedy to have civilian loss during a rare chance to target him? Do the lives of two or three people outweigh the lives of hundreds or even thousands? Not an easy decision to make - but not much room for doubt, either.

That logic only holds up to a point, though - I would say it's not worth killing a hundred people in a raid to hit a target whose death will not have such an extreme impact on future violence - if done intentionally, it might even be fairly considered a war crime.

It's the very same logic Truman used when deciding on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He killed thousands, but saved countless more lives in addition to ending the misery of a brutal war.

Your answer brings in moral relativism that can be used equally by terrorists that claim their actions are serving to try and end a larger abuse.

I'm looking for an end to they false argument that "we" don't intentional kill civilians.

If the military, any military, would be honest like you are it would open them up to having to debate the value of the targets they choose.

Saying they never kill innocents on purpose means they never have to justify target selection to the public, or if they do, only when the casualty rate is so high they can't just sweep it under the rug.

... but it definitely happens.

they don't listen to me and there is a whole body of law on this. The Pentagon goes by a formula of the importance of the target, the accuracy of the bomb, the number of civilian casualties and a frew other things.

According to the Pentagon lawyers interpreting the Geneva Conventions-- the more important the target, the more "collateral damage" is allowed.

So, one al-Zucchini might be worth 50 civilians, but a low-level lieutenant only 3 or 4.

(Don't blame me-- I didn't make this shit up)

Dropping bombs in civilian population areas, for whatever alleged purpose...