He did, in fact kill, innocent people.
Collateral damage is unavoidable in any war.
Now...if you change the definition of "innocent"...then all bets are off.
Take Hiroshima for example. Most people would assume that the majority of the old people, women, children and babies living in that city were "innocent". They would indeed be very wrong. Had an invasion of Japan ensued, those old people, women, children and babies would of fought the invading army landing on their shores. That would then change them from "innocent" to "enemy combatants".
So, even though the old people, women, children and babies in Hiroshima were not expecting an attack...the bomb was dropped from a plane CLEARLY marked with military insignia. That also makes it OK.
Simply put, innocent people are usually only killed by people who lose wars...not win them.[/QUOTE]
There is a difference between collateral damage and intentionally carrying out genocide....