Originally posted by Rictor
Well, there's two parts to it really. One is the intent. The other is result. Now, obviously, the results are the same (well, worse).
The intent, which is what I think you were reffering to, is a much smaller part of the guilt equation. Even so, its iffy. I mean, you can think that the Army went to great pains to avoid civilian casualties, in which case they're off the hook for the intent. Or you can think that they just didn't care, in which case they're guilty but not as much as if they had intentionally harmed civilians. And thats the third one, in which case they're identical to the terrorists.
Frankly, I don't know the intent. I can make some educated guesses based to the actions of soldiers during the occupation, but thats it.
What I think most people have, and I'm not laying any blame, is that in their minds, you've got two categories. One is the Army (any Western army) and the other is terrorists and dictators. The Army is professional, loyal, compassionate and so forth. The terrorists are ther opposite of that, savage, brutal, crazed, fanatical. You've got them firmly established as such and its very unlikely that you're going to attribute the characteristics of one to the other. Its takes 
of effort to say that terrorists are "heros" and that soldiers are "fanatics"., even if there is ample evidence to suggest that. Its just rooted in your mind that way. And you know, thats pretty human. Its not a stereotype that you should consciously cling to, but its acceptable cause its only human nature to think that way.
Well, there's an induilt human instinct not to kill... even in soldiers. I think a study found that very few soliders in the Iraq war - and also WW2 before that - actually shot to kill. There's also evidence from the Napoleonic wars and American civil wars, etc, to support this. It's slightly different when it comes to bombing, of course (the 'not kill' response is largely due to the eyes and facial expresions seen, apparently).
But to deliberately deviate from that genetic 'programming' (i.e. as psychopaths does) and actually intentionally aim to kill people - is something that's very... wrong (and scary).
I mean, i'm not saying there aren't soldiers who are nutcases (there are....they're often the best soldiers or simply the best at killing), just that the vast majority would not intentionally set out to kill as many civillians as possible. Whereas terrorists do just th
