|
So they were a sacrifice in order to accomplish a goal.
I say this because it was a known fact that innocent people would die, right?
So please once again tell me how this is different.
Mark
-------Original Message-------
Date: 07/22/06 22:36:35
Subject: Re: [QUAD-L] Viewing the "Big Picture"
Since you said please...
Innocent people are not purposely being targeted to be killed. At least not by U.S. military. The U.S. military uses every option available to avoid killing innocent people.
In the case where those soldiers are accused of raping that girl and killing the family, if they are found guilty after an investigation and court marshal, then they should get the death penalty.
Removing the stem cells from a human embryo means it is purposely being killed.
President Truman weight the options and decided to use 2 atomic bombs to try to end WWII. It was his decision alone to make. Some say he was right, some say he was right to kill a few thousand people to end the war where many were being killed. Over 60 years later some people think he made the wrong decision, but the rest of the world had to live with his decision.
Like President Truman's decision to use the atomic bombs, it was a tough decision to make. Unlike President Truman's decision, Congress had the chance to override President Bush's decision but failed to do so.
At 03:11 PM 7/22/2006, RollinOn wrote:
But it's ok to kill innocent civilians in the name of Freedom?
How come nobody will answer that question?
It's being done by the same man, right?
Why is it ok to sacrifice Iraqi people?
I guess calling them collateral damage makes it ok?
I'm just curious on what makes killing these people so different so please answer.
----
Jim Lubin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://makoa.org/jim
disAbility Resources: http://www.makoa.org
Please Help: Inkjet & Toner Cartridge Recycling
| 
