What is the moral course

[Ken Hanly]

But how do you successfully kill these terrorists, who operate in dozens of
countries-- without significant collateral damage?
Presumably any acceptable ratio must be a minimum  that for every terrorist
(or presumed terrorist) killed  less than one terrorist is created. Where do
the innocents killed as collateral damage  fit into this equation?
What reason is there to believe that even that ratio is possible given that
many presumed terrorists killed may be innocent and this will enrage
associates not to mentiion those killed as part of the collateral damage.

    Furthermore, unilaterally killing terrorists in military actions, makes
legitimate a type of justice by lynch mob but here the lynch mob has the
full support of every patriotic citizen. This was an act of international
terrorism, the culprits should have been apprehended and punished as with
the Lockerbie and other incidents. Instead the US is  to be accuser, judge,
and executioner. No restraint of law applies. No one has to show that Bin
Laden or anyone else was responsible for these specific acts. Bin Laden is a
prime suspect but no judge will hear the evidence and no defence will
present evidence in his defence.Of course that is one of the  purposes in
making this a WAR against terrorism there will be no legal processes of this
sort.

Cheers, Ken Hanly

P.S. Why should anyone seek just an acceptable ratio when the best ratio is
simple enough to determine? Isnt the best ratio obvious?   Taking y as the
number of terrorists created as 1,  the best  ratio, x/y,  is that in which
x is the largest,  x being the number of terrorists killed.

----- Original Message ----- . People understand that when the
> U.S. kills a terrorist or someone it takes for a
> terrorist, it can create additional ones.  The only
> question is what the acceptable ratio is.
>
> mbs
>
>
>
>