From: "Michael Snider" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 21 December 2001 01:30
| On Thursday, December 20, 2001, at 07:07 PM, Lawrence Upton wrote:
|
| > It's good if we are getting more realistic figures, but the lies have
| > served
| > their purpose successfully...
|
| There's precious little evidence that the Guardian's figures any more
| accurate than the Pentagon's, or that the Pentagon has been lying, or
| that the Guardian is lying. People have chosen to believe the
| statistics that fit their expectations. Since none of us has access to
| real data, why not just drop it and talk about poetry -- something we,
| presumably, know something about.
Dear Michael
The key word here would be _realistic_
What is likely? That is not the same thing as choosing figures which fit
expectations
Why would the Guardian lie? Whereas the Pentagon has reasons for lying.
If the Pentagon is not lying but does not know the true figures, then on
what basis are they and the admin making their claims to have kept the
numbers low
There was of course no evidence that Bin Laden "did it" when the bombing
started. I haven't seen the supposedly recent discovered video I DID IT
starring Bin Laden as Himself so I cannot comment on that; but I am deeply
suspicious of the unwillingness to show the supposed evidence and of finding
a smoking gun in enemy territory in a place that was clearly going to have
to be evacuated
My reasons for writing about it here are at least 2 fold: one there has been
a degree of what I regard as sloganising in favour of the attack and I want
to answer two I cannot separate the political from poetic
No one is preventing you from writing about poetry. I enjoy people writing
about poetry. I learn from it. I look forward to your posts on the subject
I did think of saying no more in view of Candice's post, but then Frederick
monosyllabically indicated he thought that a point had been made in
rom: "Michael Snider" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 21 December 2001 02:28
Subject: Re: Hypocrisies
I won't repeat the answers to this, points which have been made already in
other ways by a number of us...
Apart from lamenting that these points are not answered but just ignored,
let me take another line:
| despite real efforts, however
| inadequate in practice, to avoid those deaths.
I doubt that any real efforts have been made. We know from the previous
recent escapades in Iraq and Serbia that the smart bombs aren't smart; and
we know the inclination to fly so high or to fire from so far away that no
judgement on the part of the bomber is possible
Then there's those things of which I have forgotten the name, that open up
like a kindersurprise... Now, we are told that 40% of the scattered
explosives don't explode when they are dropped. That was quoted rather
proudly recently to explain why USUK isn't responsible for subsequent
injuries...
This is rather like the person who throws a chunk of concrete on a railway
and then says they didn't mean any harm... For myself, I am happy if your
military and you wish to plead diminuished responsibility; I don't care
whether we lock you up for murder or for being innocent but dangerous
The simple line, whether you want God saying it or a book of law, is THOU
SHALT NOT KILL
I find that hard to live with. There are people in the world - I am talking
publicly, not about my own loves and hates - who I'd like to see interred.
That's my clutching monkey... but we have to live with it or we shall be in
bigger and bigger trouble
You cannot drop that sort of ordinance and say you are not responsible for
the consequences
It's not that you don't want there to be collateral damage, but that you
know there will be; and still you do it - Murder (I am saying "you" because
you support it)
| The people of Afghanistan have no trouble seeing the
| distinction -- why can't you?
Really. Did you do all the surveys yourself?
The BBC commissioned a survey in 4 Pakistani cities yesterday. 40% support
the taliban, I think 70% but it may be higher don't trust USA
Perhaps the only reason that USA has Pakistan behind it is thatit isn't a
democracy. Hallelujah we may have elections in Afghanistan
(I don't think anyone mentioned Airstrip One in the bbc survey, which may
upset the Dear Leader)
L
|