Sorry. It was 4 am. And this awful business hasn't put me at my best.
Mark
At 12:32 PM 9/26/2001 +0100, you wrote:
>Dear Mark
>
>I regret that you see yourself as a hunted rodent when all I have done is
>invite you to elaborate upon your own words' meaning.
>
>You anticipate my conclusions and you get it wrong; the conclusions you
>attribute to me are NOT my conclusions.
>
>I find no comfort in anything much at the moment, in what has happened, in
>what is happening and what may well happen. Just now some slightly jolly
>voices are saying maybe there won't be war when people are already dying
>because of frightening utterances. But no one mentions that; and the opinion
>seems to be that sending aid will somehow make it all right. Bring back
>indulgences!
>
>As to a moral claim to life... I don't know what you are talking about.
>Those are your words.
>
>I am questioning the relevance of _innocence_ and _relative innocence_. I am
>also questioning the *use of those terms. I am trying to discuss such issues
>with anyone who will discuss them in an endeavour to learn more about my
>thoughts, others' thoughts and what needs to be done. There's a lot of
>muddled thinking around and I am not free of it
>
>It seems to me self-evident that some are more or less complicit in all
>goods and bads - if you'll accept such a sloppy term. If they are not, I do
>not know what we are to do with any concept of taking people to justice. If
>it's true that we are all complicit to an equal extent, ok. I wouldn't want
>to stand in the way of updating our ethics; but be sure where that leads us.
>We're all guilty, person - you, me, Bin Laden, Bush, the aid worker. I was
>only doing my duty.
>
>If, for whatever reason, you will not respond to me, there's nothing I can
>do and nothing that I shall do. However, I protest at your offensive
>response on the basis of defensive misreadings of my intentions
>
>All the very best
>
>
>Lawrence
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Mark Weiss" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: 26 September 2001 11:52
>Subject: Re: Letter to a leftist friend
>
>
>| This little cat and mouse gets sillier and crueler by the moment,
>Lawrence.
>| I wasn't so much positing relative innocence as questioning the relevance
>| of the term. But if you wish to comfort yourself that some are less
>| complicit in the society in which they live and that that somehow gives
>| them a greater moral claim to life be my guest.
>|
>| Mark
>|
>|
>| At 10:39 AM 9/26/2001 +0100, you wrote:
>| >Ah, so - for Mark - we are speaking of relative innocence. I don't know
>if
>| >that applies to Frederick, but let's go on from what Mark has told us -
>if
>| >we're all agreeable.
>| >
>| >Are they, the workers in the Pentagon, as relatively innocent as those in
>| >WTC who were not in the military, a janitor perhaps? Let's compare, say,
>a
>| >procurement officer in the Pentagon and a janitor in WTC - are they of
>the
>| >same relative innocence? And, if so, why?
>| >
>| >Are there not degrees of complicity?
>| >
>| >L
>| >
>| >----- Original Message -----
>| >From: "Mark Weiss" <[log in to unmask]>
>| >To: <[log in to unmask]>
>| >Sent: 26 September 2001 04:03
>| >Subject: Re: Letter to a leftist friend
>| >
>| >
>| >| I'm with you, Fred. In this country soldiers and sailors I've known
>refer
>| >| to the military as "the iron tit," the source of lifetime security. It
>| >| provides our only socialized medicine system, subsidized housing,
>moving
>| >| expenses, higher education, even subsidized department stores. And a
>| >| healthy pension after 20 years, with most of the other benefits
>continuing
>| >| till death. Very few sign up to be warriors--it's usually the best gig
>| >they
>| >| can find. And that goes double for the civilian employees. So yes, I'd
>say
>| >| that they're usually among the innocent, as innocent as any of us in
>this
>| >| society where it's impossible not to be complicit, whatever our
>politics.
>| >| The same, I imagine, could be said for the average Afghani.
>| >|
>| >| Mark
>| >|
>| >| At 09:59 PM 9/25/2001 -0400, you wrote:
>| >| >Lawrence Upton wrote:
>| >| >>
>| >| >> ----- Original Message -----
>| >| >> From: "Frederick Pollack" <[log in to unmask]>
>| >| >> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>| >| >> Sent: 25 September 2001 16:43
>| >| >> Subject: Re: Letter to a leftist friend
>| >| >>
>| >| >> | Someone will pay, in blood and pain, for what has been done to
>| >innocent
>| >| >> | American civilians.
>| >| >>
>| >| >> Do you include in that category "innocent American citizens" those
>who
>| >| >> worked in the Pentagon. If so, why? If not, why not?
>| >| >>
>| >| >> Serious question. Please answer.
>| >| >>
>| >| >> all the best
>| >| >>
>| >| >> L
>| >| >
>| >| >Yes. If one assumes that everyone who works in the Pentagon,
>including
>| >| >janitors, clerks, quartermasters etc., is guilty of neocolonialism and
>| >| >imperialism, one is following the same standard whereby already
>starving
>| >| >(and perhaps apolitical) Afghans may soon be "acceptable collateral
>| >| >damage." One accedes also to the idea, with which GWB agrees, that
>this
>| >| >attack was an act of war.
>| >| >
>| >|
>| >
>|
>
|