How can someone be pro life yet support bombing the Middle East out of existance?

Question

Yes it would kill the minority of terrorists but murder millions of innocent people. Isn't that kind of thinking a little bit hypocritical?

Old Scout - Are you high?? You are saying that all of the millions of Arab people living in the middle east SUPPORT terrorism and hide them? I'm not talking about what the US is doing now, but the idea that we should drop nukes on the whole area. And who the hell are you to be judge and jury?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AiItS7CjwLqgI4.IOQqP4zLY7BR.;_ylv=3?qid=20071202023225AAVRkjG

So you would support mass genocide to eliminate the 2% of Arabs who are terrorists... but on the other hand, are against taking the lives of innocent babies? Really, when it comes down to it.. you are racist and zenophobic, and not too far off from facsist. Am I correct?

xenophobic...my bad

Answer 1

People are selective in their faith based interpretation of the bible. Do you remember when Bill Clinton had an opportunity to bomb Osama Bin Ladin but didn't because Osama was amongst civilians?(after the bombing of the American embassy in Kenya).I guess our beloved chimp thought it was okay to bomb a whole country in "shock and awe" to go after their oil.And where is Osama today????

Answer 2

Dear Racheal R...love your name, but you are mistaken.

2007 marks the most American casualties since the beginning of this illegal war.

Why would anyone believe a word that comes from the Bush White House, after we have been repeatedly lied to over and over again.

It's a known fact that Bush manipulates the "numbers" to make the occupation look better....for instance whether or not a soldier is shot in the front or the back of the head determines whether it is labeled as a terrorist attack.

Recently, it was discovered that the Bush government has hidden an additional 20,000 American soldier head wounds from those numbers you site. The number is actually 150,000 of our best American soldiers now suffering from serious brain injuries.

Now the Bush Pentagon is trying to take back the signing bonuses from wounded soldiers who cannot fullfill their enlistments??!!

You call that supporting the troops?

Any progress in Iraq is due to ethnic cleansing...Sunnuis killing Shiites, and making them move out of their areas. Plus the refugee crisis is in a shambles..with well over 2 million people who have been forced to leave Iraq.

Plus, in Anbar province, we pulled our troops out, gave weapons and money to the locals and had them police their own area. This is not a sign that the "surge" worked, but more a sign of a blueprint for our WITHDRAWAL!!!

Gee...think that might have a little something to do with lower civilian casualties, since no one wants to live there anymore?!

You can be pro-life and support bombing the Middle East, it's just that people will label you a hypocrite!

Answer 3

You criticize Old Scout. Give us one specific example of anyone in the middle east, excluding police or soldiers, killing a terrorist because they want to rid their region of the cancer (terrorism and terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbolla) that is holding them back from being a civilized community. At least there were some Germans in the 30s and 40s who tried to eliminate Hitler and some high level nazis. I don't hear of anyone besides pro-western government officials even speaking out against terrorism. As for your original question - if you can't tell the difference in killing an innocent baby, which is murder, or fighting terrorists and terrorist sympathizers, then there's no point in trying to reason with you.

Answer 4

Bush-co is not pro life in anyway shape or form.I think at this point its OK and acceptable to separate the Republicans that support Bush and his war policy,s from the rest of us who DESPISE THE WHOLE THING,,enough is enough,,NO WMDS in Iraq.Muslims in general are peaceful people.wait was the false started war about oil?cause that would explain the actions of insanity to some extent.elite republicans also have many reasons to benefit in Iraq,,not all just some,,,SAY IT ANT SO?...chow freepress

Answer 5

It's surprising how many people only respect life until a person is born. After you're born these same people believe you should be without health care, work in sweatshop conditions for less money than it takes to live, and die in a foreign war.

Answer 6

I think it's a mindset thing.
Just as "Unitary Executive" allows the president to stipulate conditional adherence to legislation (signing statements), the "Unitary Thought" process allows for conditional adherence to principles. In the face of complex issues, the conditional values of "Unitary Thought" quickly unravel and the result is often counter-productive and at cross purposes to the original goals. Caffeine-induced, theoretical BS you say? Perhaps, but here's some examples of "Unitary Thought" (I'm open to a more logical explanation)...
-- "pro-life" implies a respect for life, ALL life. However, most answers had to introduce the condition of innocence (fetus) vs the of "sinful state" of the entire Middle East in order to make the dichotomy work. There's also the condition of geography, the fetus is US (good) the adult is Middle East (bad).
-- "Unitary Thought" allows one to brag that civilian killings are down 60% and ignore that the killing of innocent civilians is contrary to principles that respect life. (Stats, thanks Rachel)
-- Torture... as a 'stand alone' principle it's wrong, introduce the condition of 'terrorist' and it's OK. Suddenly our values are not self-determined, but conditioned upon 'terrorists'. So, we allow the 'most reviled' to determine OUR 'morality' and 'values'? Chew on that one. (McCain gets it)
-- Abortion is bad; "pro-life" is good. "Unitary Thought" pays lip service to 'pro-life', yet literally throws 'the baby out with the bath water'. Planned Parenthood provides family planning counseling (pregnancy prevention), pregnancy tests, birth control, gynecological care, STI/STD testing and treatment, blood pressure tests, etc... and provides client-paid, NOT Federally funded, abortions. "Unitary Thought" says Planned Parenthood is bad, ignoring the obvious connection between access to birth control and fewer unwanted pregnancies (i.e., potential aborted fetuses). "Unitary Thought" backs legislation to cut Title X (Federal) funds for ALL family planning services because someone in the next room might be paying for an abortion with their (NOT Fed) own money. Despite defeat of amendments in the House (Pence/R-IN) and Senate (Vitter/R-LA) this summer, Pence introduced another bill this month to once again attempt in denying Title X funding for Family Planning services (NOT abortions, Family Planning to help PREVENT unwanted pregnancies.)
http://advocates.ppin.org/
Title X funds assist poor people who have no other access to family planning services. How many "Unitary Thinkers" back this legislation AND decry abortion AND complain that the poor breed like rabbits, popping out more kids to be supported by the 'liberal nanny state'. Show of hands?

Conclusion: "Unitary Thought" does not work for a complex world with complex problems.

Answer 7

Unborn baby = yet to do anything wrong

Middle East = evil

Not hard to understand. You want specifics? Google "terrorist." When you find a bunch of results linking "babies" haling from "wombs" as being responsible we'll talk. Right now though you'll see things about "Abu-al-scumbag" hailing from "some worthless piece of desert in the mid-east."

Answer 8

To ensure the safty of the many, we must be willing to accept the death of a few. To turn it around, how can someone prochoice be against it?

Answer 9

Im a from the middle east and i still dont get it! especially that killing innocent people is forbidden in Islam... I think its the way they understood religion, which is wrong

Answer 10

No one is bombing the Middle East out of existence. In the US, the right to life is guaranteed by the Constitution.