Point taken, Robin - though all the justifications for the loss of
civilian life follow the same kind of logic, to my ears. Both
inside and outside war.
All opinions may stink, Dom, but that doesn't mean that we're not
allowed to have them, nor that all information we can glean is
totally misleading. I'm sorry if I've been a bit much today, but it
seems to me exchange is one way to worry towards understanding. And
more accurate facts are one tool that we all need.
Best
Alison
> > From the point of view of Al-Qaeda, the victims of the WTC were
>> "collateral damage" and perfectly justifiable in terms of their
>> higher aims, that is, their war with the US.
>
>Don't get this -- the +primary+ aim of the strike on the WTC was to kill as
>many people as possible.
>
>This isn't "collateral" (but I'm with you, Alison, on that particular
>weasel-word).
>
>Robin
--
Alison Croggon
Home page
http://www.users.bigpond.com/acroggon/
Masthead
http://au.geocities.com/masthead_2/
|