writes:
In other words, you basically concede my point. The SWAT team is
justified in their action because they have followed a moral course -
i.e. first attempting non-violent means. The terrorists are not,
because they did not follow a moral course. The righteous are
justified to kill, others are not.
Allow me to twist the situation - during the storming of the bus, the
terrorists kill a SWAT team member, and the SWAT team kills a terrorist.
Once again, the first killing is unjustifiable and wrong. The second
is not.
And snip, the rest of my post flew out a window. If it is discarded
summarily, then it is forgotten? You want to be a politician? You'll go
far. You creatively snip and clip other people's words to twist them into
what you *want* other people to see/hear. I am tired of debating this, as
you obviously won't admit the flaw in your own arguement. You say it is
wrong for Russians to spy on us, but it is ok for us to spy on them. You
claimed the reason was that we (USA) were "morally superior" without
clarification. When pinned on this, you used your SWAT team example. This
implies that you think there are circumstances underwhich spying is justified
(just as there are circumstances underwhich killing is justified). My point,
that you so conveniently snipped out of my post, was that if there are
circumstances underwhich our spying is justified, then if the Russians are
presented with those same circumstances, then *they too* are justified in
spying.
Michael Harney
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
