Both Blair and bombers justify civilian deaths as means to a Good end

Evidence

The Blairite objection to terrorism cannot be its means, since he, too, considers the killing of a certain number of civilians an acceptable sacrifice for the greater Good. (One of the problems this kind of utilitarian calculus has always faced is that there is no obvious point at which to stop counting the consequences. But, as we’ve already established, surely Thursday must count amongst the consequences of the Iraq misadventure.) It is the ends, then, in which the difference must reside, not the means. Blair is supernaturally confident that he is on the side of the angels, that he is pursuing the Good, whereas his enemies are Evil. The problem is that they think exactly the same way. — Mark Fisher (edited by Darren Ambrose), K-Punk, 1445

Categorization

• XREF: Echoes the moral-merit analysis of counterterrorism discourse in The New Crusades; both sides claim angelic ends. — connects to: FLN leaders justified civilian bombing as equivalent to French aerial bombardment. — Horne, Alistair, A Savage War of Peace- Algeria 1954-1962, 559; Blair’s anti-terror objection rests on ends, not means, and shows symmetrical certitude; The F.L.N. justified civilian bombing as morally equivalent to French air attack.

Broader Connections

• FLN leaders justified civilian bombing as equivalent to French aerial bombardment. #exemplifies (0.90) — Horne, Alistair, A Savage War of Peace- Algeria 1954-1962, 559
• The F.L.N. justified civilian bombing as morally equivalent to French air attack. #exemplifies (0.90)
• Blair’s anti-terror objection rests on ends, not means, and shows symmetrical certitude #complicates (0.85)