>>>>>Killing people and destroying their infrastructure/possessions simply is not a reasonable or sensible cost/benefits equation. Period. No ifs, and, or buts.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Killing a hundred thousand people so billions can live lives whose potential isn't squelched by mad despots seems like a sensible cost/benefit equation to me.
>>>
>>>The radical Jihadists feel exactly the same way.
>>
>>So they're both morally equivalent?
>
>No, not even close IN MY MIND.
>But that's not the point. The point is that the Jihadists believe that their objective is the right objective.
>
>That Jihadists plane-bombed the World Trade Center and the Pentagon because they wished to push their objective on the U.S. and the rest of the world.

What is their objective?
What is the United States' objective? Even IF it is oil, so what? They make it available for all the nations.

>
>The U.S. bombed the hell out of a country because it wished to push its objectives on Iraq and influence things in the rest of the middle east.

>On those two issues I see equivalence but I see morality in neither.

Then I say you're morally confused if you think they are morally equal.