Fellow Bostonians: How many of us wished we had an assault weapon last night?

Why is killing a Bostonian civilian evil, but killing an Iraqi civilian perfectly alright?

Evil is real and both you and PrezBO need to realize
the worldwide fight between good & evil is forever.

The Project on Defense Alternatives estimated that in a 3-month period between October 7, 2001 and January 1, 2002, at least 1,000-1,300 civilians were directly killed by the U.S.-led aerial bombing campaign, and that by mid-January 2002, at least 3,200 more Afghans had died of "starvation, exposure, associated illnesses, or injury sustained while in flight from war zones", as a result of war.
The Los Angeles Times found that in a 5-month period from October 7, 2001 to February 28, 2002, there were between 1,067 and 1,201 civilian deaths from the bombing campaign reported in U.S., British, and Pakistani newspapers and international wire services.
According to the The Guardian, possibly as many as 20,000 Afghans died in 2001 as an indirect result of the initial U.S. airstrikes and ground invasion.
Professor Marc W. Herold of the University of New Hampshire estimated that in the 20-month period between October 7, 2001 and June 3, 2003, at least 3,100 to 3,600 civilians were directly killed by U.S.-led forces.

You use the word evil just like Oralboy, it's meaningless, and why you'll never understand what's going on.

Why is killing a Bostonian civilian evil, but killing an Iraqi civilian perfectly alright?

The American Way is if there's perceived problem, shoot at it or maybe bomb it.
We used to do that. It used to be called "gunboat diplomacy", and it doesn't work. It is counter-productive. The problem does not go away. It shifts and increases in vehemence.

Somebody made an interesting observation about the Guantanamo Bay problem yesterday, in The Guardian. I'll see if I can find it.
It said that instead of bringing suspects to Guantanamo, US policy now is to shoot them with drones. 4700 so far dealt with in this way.
Here it is:
In the US, Bellinger accused the Obama administration of overusing drones because of its reluctance to capture prisoners who would otherwise have to be sent to Guantánamo Bay.
Bellinger, who drafted the legal framework for targeted drone killings while working for George W Bush after 9/11, said he believed their use had increased since because Obama was unwilling to deal with the consequences of jailing suspected al-Qaida members. "This government has decided that instead of detaining members of al-Qaida [at Guantánamo], they are going to kill them," he told a conference at the Bipartisan Policy Centre.

An estimated 4,700 people have now been killed in some 300 US drone attacks in four countries – Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia – and the question of the programme's status under international and domestic law remains highly controversial.

"A terrorist is a man with a bomb, but no air force".

We can kill all of them.

It's called diplomacy with a neighboring country.

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Mohammedan] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.