From: Ascmjk@aol.com
Date: Tue Nov 16 2004 - 13:36:07 GMT
In a message dated 11/15/2004 9:24:54 PM Central Standard Time,
markheyman@infoproconsulting.com writes:
Let's set aside for the moment the historical fact that the US most
certainly has deliberately killed civilians, in Dresden, Nagasaki,
Hiroshima, Royan in France at the very end of WWII for no military
reason other than wanting to test Napalm, which would then be used to
kill more civilians in North and South Vietnam, Laos, illegal and
secret carpet-bombing of Cambodia... Not to mention financial,
military, and diplomatic support of Indonesia's genocide in East
Timor, direct military, financial, and logistical support for death
squads in El Salvador and Guatemala, direct terrorist strikes against
the democratically elected government of Nicaragua..... Well, it
goes on and on, and back to the very beginnings of the country.
Translation: See, the United States is a fundamentally evil, murdering
nation, all the way back to its very beginning. Anything good it has accomplished is
inconsequential compared to its overwhelming contribution to human misery and
an unforgivable roadblock to ultimate utopia.
MSH:
Instead, let's focus on the first few days and nights of the recent
US invasion of Iraq, when hundreds of Cruise missiles were fired into
Baghdad business and government centers and surrounding
neighborhoods. Conservative estimates put the civilian death toll at
well over a thousand due to these missile attacks alone. In what
sense, precisely, is this not intentionally murdering civilians?
What's the argument? "Well, we didn't tell them to be sleeping
there, in their homes, at 3am, dammit. They got in the way!"
JON:
Again, you prove me fundamental point about intent. You're actually
suggesting that civilians being killed accidentally is the SAME as the civilians who
have been beheaded? Again, INTENT. If you set out to "prove" that killing
civilians accidentally is the SAME as proudly holding up a severed head, you're
going to sound increasingly foolish.
And if civilian killing were actually a goal of the US, wouldn't it be a lot
easier to simply round up some innocents off the street, and execute them? Why
go to the elaborate lengths of ordering expensive bombing missions, when
outright executions would be so much economical? Maybe because the US does NOT
want to give the impression of being proud of killing, yet the terrorists
demonstrably DO want to give the impression that they are happy to execute innocents?
MSH:
Jon, your little essay is nonsense, the rantings of a mind horribly
brain-washed of historical reality. Sorry. Nothing personal: you
can probably blame it on your parents, or maybe Rush Limbaugh or
something, Bill O'Reilly. Or have you been hanging around with my
friend Platt? Anyway...thanks for the fantasy diversion.
JON:
Translation: Obviously, anyone who disagrees with your unspeakably powerful
logic must be insane. After all, you speak of self-evident truths, right? Sorry
you can't handle the possibility of being wrong about Iraq and the United
States. It seems that you have ready-made pigeonholes for all the varieties of
people who disagree with you. If someone agrees with Rush or O'Reilly, they must
be brainwashed. Funny how you can't discuss views that are different from
yours without A: making personal comments/observations about the mind of the
posters, or B: telling the posters how they are supposed to respond to you. You
can argue a point forcefully without resorting to personal comments.
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 : Tue Nov 16 2004 - 13:52:40 GMT