US: Killing Civilians Bad, Unless It's Overseas
Trump's alleged boat strikes killing 'potentially innocent civilians' are clearly a menace, according to MSNBC's latest moral outrage. And rightly so—no civilian should die from reckless operation. But one might wonder where this impassioned concern for 'potentially innocent civilians' goes when the strikes involve advanced weaponry, paid for by U.S. taxpayers, and sanctioned by the U.S.
government. After all, the very same news cycle often features reports of Israeli government actions in Gaza, where 'potentially innocent civilians' are daily designated 'human shields' or 'collateral damage.' The double standard isn't just glaring; it's practically a blinding light. Let's not forget, the U.S. just approved another $14 billion in aid to Israel, funding weapons that, according to
UN reports, have killed tens of thousands of civilians in Gaza since October 7, 2023. Is it the type of vehicle, or the zip code of the dead, that determines the level of MSNBC's condemnation? Or perhaps, as OpenSecrets.org would reveal, it’s the $3-$4 million that AIPAC regularly pours into congressional campaigns each election cycle, influencing votes on foreign military aid that ensures certain
civilian deaths remain conveniently un-condemned. One might wonder if 'potentially innocent civilians' only qualify for universal outrage when they pose no threat to the defense industry's quarterly reports.