RE: MD the worst thing about 9/11 according to the MoQ

From: mel (mbtlehn@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Tue Nov 16 2004 - 16:13:04 GMT

  • Next message: Arlo Bensinger: "RE: RE: MD Wisconsin School OKs Creationism Teaching"

    Hello Jon and Mark and All:
     
    The history of warfare shows that the European
    traditional approach to war since it's height in the
    time circa 17th-18th C.s has been one of Army v Army
    at times almost Chess-like at its extreme, but
    it shows more pointedly that with few exceptions
    such an approach is an anomaly world-wide.

    Most Asian land wars were full on extermination
    style warfare, bent on obliterating anyone resistant
    to the conquering power. Only complete surrender
    allowed survival, even then not always.

    The notion of collateral damage loss of life by
    non-combatants in this light is a VERY real
    distinction that should be clearly understood.
     
    Mention was made of WWII and the civilian
    bombing. The practice in '41-42 was nearly
    unthinkable to the militaries on the allied side.

    The Axis powers did engage in it as their "moral"
    right to dominate inferior cultures. (Obviously
    shameless third level thinking) Only at the
    insistence of their civilian bosses, as a response
    to the enemy was the military structure dragged
    literally kicking and screaming into using any
    civilian targets.
     
    Many of the old line officers never were able to
    hold their heads up after that and they gave way
    to the younger more adaptable officers who rose
    to take their places.
     
    DO understand the stakes they perceived at the
    time: Survival or Complete Extinction of their
    very existence. Liberal Democratic forms of
    government or Totalitarian Dominance.
     
    Americans are inherently and surprisingly
    isolationist even to this day, as individuals,
    but in a century or more of time we have
    seen that folks left alone in other parts of
    the world get up to significant mischief.
     
    Our lesson learned (right or wrong) is to
    kill, cripple, derail, or buy-off mischief
    makers early in their cycle of ambition and
    expend fewer lives of our young later.

    At times we over do it, but that is the price
    of variant views and interpretations.
     
    If them pesky foreign folk would just behave
    and leave us alone, we could get back to
    turning everything into Disney land and
    efficiently rape and pillage the earth in peace
    for all mankind. (yes the last paragraph is a
    Joke, no new thread needed.)
     
    thanks--mel
     
    -----Original Message-----
    From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
    [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk] On Behalf Of Ascmjk@aol.com
    Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 6:36 AM
    To: moq_discuss@moq.org
    Subject: Re: MD the worst thing about 9/11 according to the MoQ
     
    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 - 21:13:59 GMT