I did not claim they were not different. Your last sentence is broadening the scope considerably. I was talking about bombing civilians. But still, it is hard to come up with wars where that did not happen (which does not make it any less horrible).
It's ridiculous that civilized nations have strict rules for war. There should be no war.
Except there is war and no one has yet figured out a way not to have war. Given the reality of war, we are profoundly lucky to live in an era where civilized nations have agreed on rules for war, and many of those rules forbid the intentional targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure.
This is unprecedented. And fragile. There are uncivilized nations which do not follow those rules. They find the idea of not targeting civilians quaint at best. They love those rules, only because those rules hamstring their enemies, not themselves. They happily target civilians. Not coincidentally, these are the most venal, corrupt and incompetent of nations, and fortunately they are handily beaten by their moral betters, rules notwithstanding.
Still, implying as you did that one is like the other is confused, at best. On principle I disagree with conflating the two kinds of civilian deaths: collateral damage (unironic, no scare quotes) and intentional atrocity are not the same. Conflating the two gives aid and comfort to bad actors, to morally confused souls who support uncivilized nations in their adventurism.
> I did not claim they were not different.
I claimed only that you conflated them, and you did, quite casually. The stakes are too high for that.
I reject your notion that I have to add a detailed paragraph about those two different ways civilians get bombed, when my point was that they are getting bombed, practically always.
Also, "collateral damage" is on a spectrum, in my opinion. How much collateral damage is acceptable before you can call it an atrocity in itself? So, that is much less of a black-white distinction as it seems to be in your statement.
Of course "collateral damage" (with scare quotes) is on a spectrum as is "consent". Those with sinister motives make sure to emphasize this "spectrum" in order to diffuse and confuse its meaning. They also reject the necessity to be precise with their terms.
Collateral damage (no scare quotes) on the other hand, like consent (no scare quotes), has a very precise and important meaning with real, binary values. A civilian death is either collateral or intentional. Consent is either knowingly given or withheld.
Let's live in a world where these distinctions are clear.
