You believe that any and all killing is wrong, regardless of number of deaths, quality of deaths, collateral damage, conditions, etc. Period.
The problem with you holding that position and your posts in this thread is that you have implied that war is better than assassination. I realize that you are probably unaware of this, but it's true.
You started by stating that Bush had not "stooped" to assassination, even though you know that he started a war. You therefore clearly placed war as morally superior to assassination. This doesn't jibe with your moral absolutist stance that _all_ killing is wrong.
Hope that helps. |