Re: MD Fox News and Logical Analysis

From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Wed Aug 18 2004 - 15:16:13 BST

  • Next message: Platt Holden: "RE: MD The individual in the MOQ"

    Platt,

    On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 08:53:56 +0000, "Platt Holden" wrote:

    > Arlo inadvertently expresses the cry of a victim of the twin towers massacre
    > leaping to her death"
    >
    > > Aaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!
    >
    > It's heartwarming to see Arlo defend terrorist acts.
    >

    ??? You see the problem, right? Where in my post did I defend terrorist acts?
    You see how the dialogue is being manipulated??

    I renounced radical lunacy in all its guises- from radical Islam to radical
    patriotism. But of course, say anything other than "let's go kill those
    terrorists" and the radical "patriots" denounce you as supporting terrorist
    acts.

    This knee-jerk patriotism, and renunciation of dissent and pacifism, is just
    what makes the propaganda machine in this country so strong, and (as Mark
    pointed out) would make Goebbels so proud.

    > Invading totalitarian countries and freeing their citizens is moral. But
    > moral standards alone will not suffice to initiate force. When a
    > totalitarian country, such as Iraq, violates a truce and is a threat to
    > peace, then an invasion is justified.

    I'm confused. Do we invade when "we" are threatened (or perceive ourselves to
    be), or do we invade when a regime oppresses its citizens?

    When do we invade Saudi Arabia?

    When do we invade China?

    When do we invade North Korea?

    Why was Iraq more a candidate for invasion than these three?

    Here's a toughie...

    Why is it when the CIA sends covert ops into a sovereign nation to train
    guerrilla fighters to topple a legitimately elected democratic leader, or to
    train them to commit terrorist acts against their neighbor, you do not renounce
    this as "terrorism" on our part?

    And...

    Why is it wrong to ask for the truth of our involvement in this area to be
    admitted to and denounced? We have a large part to play in this, and "kicking
    ass and taking names" is not going to do anything but fuel more fire.

    But of course, it is simply easier to kill them off... they are "germs" after
    all.

    We are never going to elimate radical fundamentalism, or radical patriotism, or
    radical white-supremacy... there will always be idiots in this world who are
    lured by the eternal "other" as the source to all woes. A "war on terror" will
    do nothing for this. Nothing. But, standing up and being honest and taking our
    share of blame and beginning to rectify the gross injustices we have committed
    there, I believe would be a grand first step in keeping the majority of the
    population in favor of peaceful co-existance with us.
     

    Had Hitler been met with force when
    > he violated the Treaty of Versailles, the horrors of WWII might have been
    > averted.
    >
    > Not this time.

    You can compare Iraq to Nazi Germany all you want. But it leaves wide open the
    question why other, more "dangerous" regimes go unchallenged, and in the case
    of China attain "most favored nation" status.

    You can be fanatical all you want, but don't be hypocritical.

    Arlo

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Aug 18 2004 - 15:17:43 BST