
Originally Posted by
Pancho Villa
It's kind of dumb. Uninvolved (the term 'innocent' ruffles my feathers a bit, as one can be a civilian and very much not 'innocent.') people die in war. In more rational times we held that it was the aggressor's fault that such people died, even when the other side (accidentally) killed them. They started it and necessitated the response, after all, and the hurt party's standard ought to be to preserve their own soldiers and people.
It's a very strange moral standard, that ties the good man's hands and works to the advantage of the evil man. We could speculate as to the motives of people who promote such a moral standard - what they hope to accomplish - but that is considered rude in this day and age.