What is the moral course

Ken Hanly khanly at mb.sympatico.ca
Mon Sep 17 10:58:05 PDT 2001


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
>
>
>
>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list