We shouldn't use the beheadings to justify our own wrongdings.

And vice versa, Carol. But I know you would agree with that.

My point was not directed at you in particular, though your 22 Jun 04 - 10:22 PM post is an example of that thinking I disagree with. McGrath for instance, 23 Jun 04 - 06:44 AM, makes a similar point in stressing the similarities and disregarding the differences.

All the other points you have repeated, 'animals' etc., I find nothing wrong with from my point of view.

There are so many things said in this thread nobody really is in disagreement with, whereever she comes from. We should not sink to the level of the terrorists and so on.

The interesting difference is which things one side stresses and which they do not. That shows their hidden (or less hidden) biases and I sometimes like to point out biases when I see them. (The funny thing with me is that I often point out biases when I am in principal agreement with a position. I know that's often difficult to understand). Take McGrath's statement
Killing prisoners is an evil thing to do...whether it's done by masked fanatics, stressed soldiers, or bored prison guards in Baghdad.
That's a statement noone here can be expected to disagree with. It is good, harmless, well meant, humane, ethically conscious and all that. I cannot but agree.

However, look at it in the context of this discussion. McGrath in one breath mentions unintended deaths with intended deaths. I'm sure he doesn't mean it to come over as it does when I read it, but by failing to mention the obvious differences and by only mentioning the similarities he puts the two incidents in the same class. When he does not agree with some point of view, he is very quick (and good, no doubt about that) to spot the differences and mention them.

Wolfgang