Only bombs are pouring on people from the sky. Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) are what kill people walking on the earth. Are these really capable of distinguishing civilians from soldiers?The US started to use the giant Blu-82 bomb --weighing about 6.5 tons, originally developed for incinerating forested areas in Vietnam, and having high destructive and burning effects -- in Afghanistan in 2001. Also used in Iraq during the Gulf War and nicknamed the “daisy cutter,” this bomb can flatten an area with a diameter of 600 meters and its shock waves can be felt even kilometers away.
Bombs released by B-52 aircraft and having less destructive effects than Blu-82 can create earthquake-like effects. Even cameras shooting the explosion several kilometers away shake as they might in an earthquake. Bombs released by aircraft and missiles launched from a marine base or submarine have not only destructive effects on human and living beings, but also geological, seismic, environmental and ecological impacts.
Who knows whether these relentless bombardments will trigger earthquakes in some part of the world that will cost the lives of thousands of people? A war in which bombs that destroy not only humans, but also living beings, are used cannot be properly defined as a “war.” It is something different.
Another bit of hair-rising information: it is reported that the accuracy of the aircraft that bombed Serbia for months was only 2 percent, and this rate was increased to 10 percent in Afghanistan. One cannot believe it: in the first month of the war, more than 2,000 sorties were made and more than 3,000 bombs were released. And only 10 percent of these bombs hit military targets. Where do you think the remaining 90 percent went? Of course, they were mainly poured on civilians. Hospitals, mosques, help centers, bridges, villages and houses are being annihilated.
This is a passion for destruction that does not fit into the human imagination. This has nothing to do with a legitimate war as an “extension of a positive policy.” Tony Blair, the former British prime minister who adopted Catholicism because of his strong religious beliefs, George W. Bush and the hawkish politicians of their governments would argue that it is necessary to use such weapons in these wars and that civilians will inevitably suffer damages from them.
One is urged to ask another question: even if this is not publicly voiced, can it be that the new concept of modern war is no longer focused on obtaining political results from military targets, but on doing so through the destruction of civilians? Can we say that the secret targets of wars are now civilians?
This exposes the horrifying face of a civilization that is essentially violent, aggressive and destructive. Paul Feyerabend says that the Western/modern science can make big leaps only thanks to big wars and horrific military operations: “It is true that Western science now reigns supreme all over the globe; however, the reason was not insight in its ‘inherent rationality’ but power play (the colonizing nations imposed their ways of living) and the need for weapons” (Feyerabend, “Against Method”).
Islam preaches that the purpose of a war is not to destroy, but to neutralize. For this reason, the basic rules of engagement include ensuring minimal casualties, protecting civilians and avoiding damage to living beings. There is no doubt that Muslims would have been capable of developing highly destructive weapons in the beginning if they had been allowed to do so by their religion. But they never accepted it as lawful or ethical. When the Prophet was asked about the “incinerating of enemy soldiers,” he replied: “Only the Lord of the fire can use fire to punish people” (Bukhari, Jihad, 149). The medieval church would “hate the sword,” but burn people. Bruno and hundreds of other people were burned. The secular West, too, incinerates human and living beings.
