In article <41ff62ff.3561295@news.melbpc.org.au>,

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 19:22:47 -0500, Howard Berkowitz
<hcb@gettcomm.com> wrote:

In article <41fe07f2.4599913@news.melbpc.org.au>,

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 17:06:58 -0500, Howard Berkowitz
<hcb@gettcomm.com> wrote:

In article <41fdf809.526408@news.melbpc.org.au>,

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 13:52:10 +0300, Colin Campbell
<activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote:

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 22:12:59 GMT,

So you consider car-bombing a Mosque a legitimate act of war?

its is traditional. Look how many churches we bombed in WW2

Name _one_ instance where a church was deliberately targeted
during
services.

Amazing that you seem to think that there is nothing wrong with
people
massacring others just because they practice a different version
of
Islam.

No one said I did. I just pointed out that during WW2 the Allies
targeted churches

True, but mainly either by lack of precision in strategic bombing, or
tactically because they were believed to be in use by the enemy. I
have
seen no evidence suggested the Allies, for example, specifically
targeted the Dresden Cathedral. Monte Cassino was deliberately
bombed,
for example, based on incorrect information that the Germans were
using
it tactically, which they were not.

True there. The allies were looking for an excuse for their failure
to move thru the Valley and blamed it on the Monks.

Your cite about "looking for an excuse" except "The Germans fought
well"? I agree they thought, incorrectly, the Germans were using the
monastery for cover, and only moved into it after it was bombed and the
monks moved out.

The Germans had a
small post about 300 feet down the side of the mountain and thats it.
Once they bombed Monte Cassino, the paratroopers moved in and took up
positions. It took the New Zealanders and Indians to take the hill.

and also remember that since the Vatican was also
part of the Axis

Huh? The Axis powers were defined by the Tripartite Pact. Where is
the
signature of a Vatican official on it?

There was a Concordat between the Vatican and Germany, but that
hardly
made the Vatican part of the Axis.

I disagree. The Vatican was up to its ears in the Axis and after the
war it smuggled thousands of Nazis out of Europe. The Germans fielded
more Catholic Chaplins than all the Allies put together.

You made a statement that the Vatican was "part" of the Axis. You are
saying now that the Vatican was supportive of the Germans, although had
very little to do with the Japanese and had a long-term treaty with
Italy.

I would be amazed if the Pope of the day even knew where Japan was!

Being a part of the Axis means that you are a signatory to the
Tripartite Pact. There might be individual alliances, such as Romania
or Hungary with Germany, but they weren't part of the core Axis alliane

I was taught in school (catholic school by the way) that the Vatican
was part of the axis because hitler was fighting the godless
communists!

You were taught incorrectly. The Axis powers were the signatories to the
Tripartite Pact. Period.

Individual nations formed alliances with one or more Axis powers, but
there was no mechanism in the Pact for allying with the whole thing --
there was no central Axis organization such as NATO.

There was a Concordat between the Vatican and Germany, but that was not
an alliance; it was an agreement to protect certain Catholics and
reources.

Was this, or was this not, part of the Holy See? Not adjoining it, part.
There are many Papal things, such as the railroad car, Castel Gandolfo,
etc., that are not part of the Holy See.

You need to expand on your question a bit. There is a city state
officially created in 1929 called Vatican City and its one of 3 City
States within Italy. I'm not sure how you are using the term Holy
Sea?

Are you specifically saying the bombs hit the Vatican track and railroad
station, Building 65? Was the Pope's

Popes' what? Yes they went after the RR yards of Vatican city. I
have no idea if they hit the station and I have never seen the BDA
photos of the raid.

As the map shows, the Vatican doesn't have railroad yards. It has a
short strip of siding that goes to its station.

<It was the only raid on the

Vatican

From your own description, it sounds like a small number of bombs went
over the line from a legitimate Italian military target. That isn't
exactly blowing away St. Peter's, which comes to mind when I hear
"bombing the Vatican:"

yes and no. You have to remember that most people in the 40's were
dumb as a stump concerning Europe etc etc. I honestly can't see a
bunch of yawning guys in the breifing room one morning and a guy with
egg all over his hat coming and say "Today we're going to blow the
***** out of the Pope".

I agree -- it doesn't make any sense. Your initial post seemed to
suggest that the Allies deliberately bombed the Vatican.

I can't believe though that the photo people didn't recognize St
Peters and the like but figured these yards were legit target. I
doubt if 1 in 10,000 yanks of the day knew anything about the city
states in Italy much less the 3 in Rome or where they were.

Photointerpreters and target analysts were considerably fewer than 1 in
10,000. They worked from the best available maps.

Realistically, the accuracy of bombs from heavy bombers that they might
have aimed at the Italian yards to the West of the Vatican, and had the
bomb completely skip over the Vatican and hit to the East of it.

<and like I said when FDR read about it in the papers he went

ballistic thinking that Catholics, especially Italian-Americans would
revolt. He order the Colonel in charge of the raid courts marshalled
but it didn't stick since the guy was following orders. It is most
likely the aerial recon people just saw the Vatican State Railways as
just another yard of the Italian system and the nig boys just said
bomb it. Now only has 0.86 km of standard gauge track left:

Do you have a cite of exactly where the bomb(s) hit?

I had the subject in school and being an old USAF photo recon type
(Viet Nam) I've had an interest in such things. BUT I have never seen
anything on that raid, it was like they tried to forget it ever
happened. Bombing Rome is a tricky business with all the ancient
stuff around. They were trying to get the Germans out and not *****
off the Italians so there wasn't the indescriminant bombing like there
was in germany. The first raids on the Rome Central Station and Yards
had an amazing effect on the Italian people.

If you ever see any photos (BDA's) let me know.

Sounds like it was a fair attempt to affect the Italians and go after a
legitimate target that wouldn't directly hurt the people, but interfere
with German transport. Your comment that FDR went ballistic certainly
suggests there was no policy-level intent to bomb the Vatican.

Anyway, if a bomb did come near, some nun would probably bat it away
with a ruler! :-)

THOM

The Vatican is sort of a triangle and the RR comes into the county
about in the middle and then turns to the west where the yards are.
At the border is the RR Station (next to St Charles' Palace). If you
go to
http://www.pellegrinocattolico.com/ctv/city_map.htm
and look and the B&W map you can see the railroad with its multiple
tracks coming in from the left. The building marked 65 is the
Station.

In article <3tELd.25797$wZ2.13923@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, Sam
<srcarruth@yahoo.NO.SPAM.com> wrote:

Colin Campbell wrote:

On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 11:23:36 GMT,

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 10:56:14 +0300, Colin Campbell
<activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote:

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 09:29:30 GMT,

As I pointed out - I was not interested in examples of collator al
damage.

"collateral damage" is a stopgap justification to placate people, it has
no real meaning. its like saying that a rapist shouldnt be charged for
damage to clothing, since it was merely collateral damage from the crime
(and please dont attack that example, its explicative not definitive)

It does have meaning, just as in many situations where one has to try to
extract the best possible outcome from alternatives that all have
problems. If a patient has gas gangrene in a leg, the choices may be to
amputate, let them die, or try some drug (and hyperbaric oxygen)
treatments that don't work very often.

There's a reasonable similarity to having to amputate a leg to save a
life.

From a standpoint of formal ethics, one of the classic analyses is
Thomas Aquinas' "Principle of Double Intent". Simplifying a complex
argument, under that principle, an action, which will have multiple
results, is licit when the primary intent is to do something considered
good. When one gets into the details, this is subtly different than "the
ends justify the means", because the person making the decision is
expected to be responsible for all outcomes and effects, and mitigate
the bad ones as much as is possible.

The principle is widely used in making tough decisions in medical
ethics. One, which the Vatican has approved, is that it is licit to give
a person in terrible pain enough narcotics (opioids) to banish pain,
even if those drugs have the indirect of depressing respiration. In a
terminal patient, it is not necessary to provide artificial respiratory
support, although that is expected if the patient should recover.