doma, please, again, I said clearly I find collateral damage killing to be morally vacuous. Indeed I find all wartime killing to generally lack moral standing.
Don't lump me in.
Seriously, Do not lump me in.
I made a reference to long-standing common law and in some circles what is considered part of Christian derived common law.
I am not doing body counts. And I am not excusing anybody (as I hope you are not as well).
I believe there is a difference between deliberately seeking to and positively killing a 10 year old and doing something for a different purpose that might include killing a 10 year old.
In both cases the 10 year old is dead. In both cases I hold no favor with the parties involved.
But I do discriminate between the morality of trying to do one thing (and callously killing a 10 year old in the process) and specifically designing a mission with the express purpose of killing the 10 year old, nothing else, the goal is to kill the 10 year old.
Certainly in the context of the US carpet bombing shock and awe atrocities, I can see how this seems hypocritical. But the point is, I find the shock and awe atrocities to be reprehensible, I vote that way, I scream at people who defend those atrocities and so on.
It is, to me, still different then walking into a town with the deliberate attempt to kill babies, only babies, and maybe some mommies if you bump into them.
I think any effort to use this to create moral equivalency is EXACTLY kind moral equivalency you are likely riling up against.
Folks looked at 911 and felt it gave them the moral authority to carpet bomb Iraq. I don't think so. The people I voted for don't think so. The people I voted for consider it "atrocities" as do I.
But to me (and perhaps not you) it does not shake a stick at walking into a town to specifically target and deliberately kill the babies.
| 