Temporary Archive: Suzanne Brockmann's Message Board

this "parameter"as pefect logic and good sense:
and as a result, you never try to protect 100, 1000 or 10,000 people--which, allows you to avoid problems like shooting bipolar people in airports, saves a lot of money etc----within a strategic framework, it makes perfect logic and good sense to set acceptable casualties in line with other, already accepted, amounts

and why then this "parameter" is problematic or uancceptable(and paraphrasing your prior remark):
when we kill a prominent Al Qaeda leader, he becomes a wash when the little girl is laid out next to him...

ok, so what I'm not following is the distinction that makes aacceptable casualties in one case "good sense", and an "unacceptable wash" in the second scenario?

to be clear, I'm not saying dead children are ok- I am saying in your parameter as set forth above there would always be a signifcant number of children - so that must not be the distinction - further, on any flight in or out of Orlando the number of children would be decidedly higher than other flights.

or does the distinction lie in global image vs writing off our own?
thanks