I'm sorry, Michael, but the absence of civilian targetting in US reprisals
overseas would be all too consistent with its past behaviour. I'm not for a
moment trying to belittle the deaths in the USA (quite a number of whom were
British) but previous US attacks on Iraq, Sudan and Libya have been
noticeable for the deaths of civilians.
Because an atrocity has been committed, it does not mean we should abandon
our critical faculties to the military-political-industrial complex. If
Afganistan is to become 'The Enemy' we have the spectacle of the US
attacking a country consisting of about 85% subsistence farmers almost all
of whom would never even have heard of what happened on Tuesday. A country
so poor even its Foreign Ministry has to rely on an exchange in Peshawar,
Pakistan for a telephone number and about 25% of whose population are within
a fortnight of starvation.
As all overseas aid agencies have withdrawn because of the likelihood of US
attacks then the innocents are already soon to die.
David Bircumshaw
Leicester, England
A Chide's Alphabet
www.chidesplay.8m.com
Painting Without Numbers
www.paintstuff.20m.com/default.htm
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.bircumshaw/default.htm
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Snider" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 4:44 PM
Subject: Re: WTC
> You don't get it, do you? There will be no deliberate targeting of
> civilians, and all possible care will be taken to avoid it.
>
> But if those who planned and supported the murder of 5,000 innocent
> people are not brought to justice -- and that will be the intent,
> though inevitably some of these murderers will die -- then more
> innocents will die.
>
>
> On Friday, September 14, 2001, at 11:03 AM, david.bircumshaw wrote:
>
> > Most interesting this, from a point of view of language use, I see the
> > US
> > Senate has just approved the quote 'use of force' unquote against
> > terrorists.
> >
> > As too the US has declared itself at war, and 'leading the world in that
> > war' (I quote GW), the question of 'collateral damage' arises, that is
> > to
> > say, it therefore becomes justifiable for 'civilian' casualties to
> > occur in
> > that war against a nameless enemy.
> >
> > David Bircumshaw
> >
> > Leicester, England
> >
> > A Chide's Alphabet
> > www.chidesplay.8m.com
> >
> > Painting Without Numbers
> > www.paintstuff.20m.com/default.htm
> > http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.bircumshaw/default.htm
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "david.bircumshaw" <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 2:21 PM
> > Subject: Re: WTC
> >
> >
> >> This isn't a comment on anything anyone's posted but I was just
> > accidentally
> >> caught the end of the special service at St Paul's. I listened in
> >> bewilderment as I thought I was hearing a satirical parody of the worst
> >> rhetoric imaginable.
> >>
> >>
> >> David Bircumshaw
> >>
> >> Leicester, England
> >>
> >> A Chide's Alphabet
> >> www.chidesplay.8m.com
> >>
> >> Painting Without Numbers
> >> www.paintstuff.20m.com/default.htm
> >> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.bircumshaw/default.htm
> >>
> >
>
|