Quote:
Originally posted by ltl/fb
How is "concerns about killing civilians"not moral? Or is it not immoral to kill people as long as they are infidel? This concern would seem to be amplified if the questions about intelligence were whether OBL was actually in the place he was purported to be -- it's even more embarrassing to kill a bunch of civilians if you don't even get the guy.
But perhaps you are watching it live on CNN.com. I dont' know that my system is up to streaming video and the noise might raise eyebrows anyway.
|
I think Clinton's people would argue that the concern is about a cost/benefit, so that the "concerns about killing civilians" are seen as a "cost", albeit moral. However, the moral cost is not a prohibitive moral cost on killing the intended, er, "civilian", target.
As an analogy, I think what they are saying is more along the lines of what happened after Israel dropped a 2000 pound bomb on an apartment building last year in order to get Rantisi?? or one of those guys. When they started pulling bodies of 8 year old kids out of the building, but no Rantisi, the "cost" suddenly seemed to outweigh the "benefit". If it was just Rantisi though, it would be okay with them.
Similarly, if we could fairly-well-argue that we'd only be risking OBL, Clinton (and I'd hope every last person in this country') wouldn't have a "moral" objection to it.
So, maybe I'm just parsing the type of moral objection that they are talking about compared to the one that S_A_M says exists.
Hello
