Actually, I'm getting pretty sick of this numbers game.

Does it matter whether 3,000 or 6,000 died in the Twin Towers?

Does it matter whether 300 or 30,000 died in Afghanistan as a result of
"collateral damage"?

There are lots of dead people, whatever.

At least (for the moment) the UK won't extradite to the US. We still (but
give David Blunkett time) won't extradite to nations who decide that it's OK
to kill people after a process of trial.

You'd think after -- what is it? -- 5000 years of civilisation, we could do
better than this.

Robin Hamilton

(Sorry Lawrence, not directed at you -- just that your post was the one to
hand to hang this on.)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lawrence Upton" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 10:54 AM
Subject: Re: Hypocrisies


> 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