<....as long as Arafat is alive>
Would it be appropriate for me to post that the War On Terror can't be won, as long as Bush is alive? Would it be appropriate for me to hint that political murder (of Bush, or anyone else) has its place in the toolbox of any nation's foreign policy? If it isn't, then why is it appropriate for you (and several others, in earlier posts) to talk about solving problems by murdering Arafat?
This is just one more example of the double standard. All life is sacred, the Good Book says so, but......some lives are more valuable than others. Killing some people is an atrocity; killing some other people is......convenient. And the distinction seems to depend entirely on their politics, not their methods.
I can quantify this, based on recent events. In round numbers, about 100 Americans and 10,000 Iraqis died, doing Regime Change there. Reading American newspapers, listening to the TV news, there are far, far more articles about our dead than theirs. So, our double standard gives more value to 100 lives (ours), than 10,000 lives (theirs). A ratio of 100 to 1, in the relative value of lives.
The Right is always criticizing the Left, saying our morals are relative. And one of the Right's litmus tests is being ProLife. So here's a non-relativist rule:
All Life Is Sacred.
From embryos to convicted murderers to foreigners who hate us, to U.S. soldiers. All means all. Even Arafat. Unless your morals are relative. |
