If you accept violence as a way of protecting innocent lives, then how could you view a US attack on bin Laden as wrong?
Take a step back and view this not as revenge, but as prevention, then an anology of protecting innocents with violence is acceptable is it not?
The problem that is encountered is how do you justify the potential deaths of innocents now by our attack, against the potential deaths of innocents later by more terrorist attacks? It is a very difficult decesion to be made.
I know that snipers (either military or police) are trained to wait to eliminate a target until their is little or no threat to innocents, but I know that they are also trained, that when a sitution does not improve, to take out a threat, even if it may harm/kill an innocent, b/c by doing so they are inevitably saving more lives.
Like I said, a very difficult question!
------------------
Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig
I've got to admit it's getting better, it's getting better all the time
Bossman of Better Funny Stuff.....of the Laughing Hyenas!