T.T. Arvind
Russ <mcresq@aol.com>did boldly declaim:

I guess I should begin by saying that my views on these points are rather extreme, and you are welcome to disagree with me on these points - most people do. I also do not see much point in our attempting to convince each other of the rightness of our own POV. Our individual views on what is morally right and wrong, especially in relation to acts of violence that have, or originally had, a justifiable goal, are shaped by what we have gone through in life, and are unlikely to be altered by a few posts, no matter how well reasoned they may be.

Hmmm... perhaps we differ slightly on this. I would say that the deliberate destruction of cities such as Dresden was immoral, and its effect was to make the means employed in fighting Nazi Germany immoral. I'm not saying it was immoral to fight Nazi Germany - just that grinding Dresden into dust was not a moral way of going about it. I will say this even if you show (as you probably can) that Nazi Germany would not have surrendered if it had not been for such acts, because I believe that killing an innocent person is an act that is immoral _in se_, and therefore cannot be justified by any end that it may help achieve, however laudable that end might be.

Regarding inaccurate nighttime bombing. If a bomber command knew that their bombs would almost certainly cause a large number of civillian casualties because they simply could not be accurate enough, I would say that their decision was immoral. Again, this is because I believe that civillian casualties cannot be the subject of a cost-benefit analysis.

For this reason, I would say that the Aldershot bombing, for instance, was immoral, even though it was a military target, because it was bound to cause a significant number of non-combatant casualties.

Russ
Except no member of the IRA strapped on explosives and walked into a pizza parlor or a religious service.

T.T. Arvind
Although they may have not used suicide bombers, they have planted bombs in pubs and other public places in England, which have caused civilian casualties. I include the Bishopsgate bomb, the Warrington bomb, the Canary Wharf bomb, and the Manchester Arndale bomb in this list.

I see little difference between planting a bomb in a public place, and sending a suicide bomber into a public place, because the end result is, in substance, the same.

Russ
But the Islamic world as a whole was not.

T.T. Arvind
In point of fact, it makes as little sense to speak of the "Islamic world" as it does to speak of the "Christian world". The cultural differences between Saudi Arabia, Bosnia and Indonesia are about as significant as those between the Philippines, the US and Norway.

In recent times, these differences have tended to be obscured by the growth of Wahhabi Islam, but Wahhabi Islam is actually as much a part of Indonesian culture (or, for that matter, South Asian and Central Asian culture) as the Southern Baptists are of Swedish culture. If you've actually lived there (as I did for a while), you'll have seent that it is quite clearly a foreign graft.

Russ
OK, as long as what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

T.T. Arvind
Yes, alas, it is exactly that reasoning that all countries now use. "If the US can justify acting in national self-interest, why can't we?" The practical reason - "because you don't have the muscle of the US" - only leads to them trying to acquire more muscle. I'm fear it'll be difficult to break out of this loop unless we begin to accept that all states must find a general moral basis to their actions in the international sphere, and that national self interest will not provide such a basis. The consequences of our failing to do so will not be pretty, because the direction in which the world is presently headed is not very pretty.

Michael O'Neill
I cannot but agree in large part with your post, and note that IMO it was the public reaction to the IRA's bombing of civilian targets, or as you pointed out military targets with foreseeable civilian casualties that in part resulted in the peace process.

Those bombings you mentioned above lost the IRA a lot of support in Britain, where many Irish live and to which many had emigrated in years gone by. I have an aunt and several cousins living and working in England on my father's side of the family together with two brothers in law and their spouses [one of whom is also Irish] and a niece and nephew, and I am by no means unique in the republic. This little list excludes friends of both my wife and I in England Wales and Scotland.

Together with the Enniskillen Bombing, these bombings also IMO lost IRA grass roots support within its own community base. There was a saying doing the rounds at the time "When they lose the support of the little old ladies on the Falls Road, they'll have lost the war."

After Enniskillen in particular, I think that support was lost, especially in the south. I think for that reason - amongst others - a Ceasefire was looked on as the only viable way to be seen to try to do the right thing. Late in coming, and with blood still on may hands, it should still be welcomed and supported wholeheartedly by all concerned.

FWIW

M.