While the Crocus City Hall was still burning, speculations had begun about who was responsible: Russians whom blame Putin for the death of Alexei Navalny; protesters against the war in Ukraine; Putin himself to trigger a full mobilization of the Russian military; Ukraine itself (which was immediately denied).
As I casually followed live coverage, it felt that, while not explicitly stated, civilian deaths were acceptable to make a point, such as showing the size, strength and impact of the anti-war movement to both national and international audiences. Sure, it’s hundreds dead and injured, but perhaps justified if the war is ended more quickly and less battleground casualties ensue.
Then Islamic State claimed responsibility and governments, especially western governments, took the moral high ground and quickly condemned the attacks. Is there really a difference?
Just months before the end of World War II, the allies firebombed Dresden, Germany, killing approximately 25,000 people, the necessity of which is still debated today. The US military dropped Agent Orange over Vietnam during the Vietnam War, ostensibly for military purposes but with major health ramifications for civilians and soldiers. The war between Israel and Hamas disproportionately affect civilians in the Gaza Strip. Russia continues to attack Ukrainian infrastructure that kills civilians directly and indirectly. Those instigating attempt to justify; those impacted have little recourse.
Should the Islamic State responsibility claims change the perception? Probably not, but Muslims fighting for the same freedom of religion that other religions receive in western or western-leaning countries don’t have the same level of governmental support and increasingly rely on terrorist attacks. Is it acceptable? No, but despite discussions of the need to avoid civilian casualties, it remains acceptable for civilians to be caught in the middle.
