Was it Something I Said?
Finally a comment! Thanks so much whoever you are.
I have been away defending my thesis. I am now a real Doctor. Don't worry, I won't change. I will continue to be the same pontificating ass I was before I was officially smarter than everyone else.
I recieved this interesting comment on my posting on the French:
"how do you define terrorism? I can say bombing a hospital or a wedding is also terrorism. oh, but those were done by mistake. sure, but no bombing whatsoever would have resulted in no mistakes. collateral damage terrorism is no less terrorism than an intended one. after all it is the number of graves and crying mothers in the end that counts.
also I thought democracy is about representing all people in a country not only the ones that someone from outside picks as representable. who is usa anyway to decide who is terrorist and who is not in iraq? i don't call that democracy."
Two things:
Bombing a wedding party unintentionally is terrorism the same way that hitting someone with a car accidentally is murder. It may not make a difference to the greiving family whether thier loved one was killed intentionally or not but it certainly makes a big differnce to a country if thier leaders kill people as a way of maintaining power or, in Sadaam's case, as a way of making home entertainment movies. In any case, the number of graves for mothers to weep besides is placed somewhere between 100,000 and 300,000--the EU won't help with the investigation because Iraq has the death penalty: they will sell him weapons to murder people with and bill his victims but they won't dirty thier hands by helping his victims gather evidence.
As far as representing all the people I think we are confused. The terrorists in Falluja, etc., aren't fighting so that the people in those cities can participate in the elections, the terrorists are fighting so the people in those cities can't participate in the elections. And by the way, our 'puppet' in Afganastan appears to have just won the first elections in that nation's history by a landslide. Can we pick'em or what?
3 comments:
"if thier leaders kill people as a way of maintaining power"
hmm, how about invading a country (with all the killing on both sides involved) as a way of maintaining power...
i really don't see a big difference.
"they [EU] will sell him weapons to murder people"
oops, didn't USA sell weapons to Iraq through all the 80s. I've seen a picture somewhere of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with some minister of Saddam's. But I guess those weapons were for killing Iranian people which was obviously fine then. But then again how do you know which weapons were used for what?
I am really amazed how selective memory Americans have.
"if thier leaders kill people as a way of maintaining power"
hmm, how about invading a country (with all the killing on both sides involved) as a way of maintaining power...
i really don't see a big difference.
"they [EU] will sell him weapons to murder people"
oops, didn't USA sell weapons to Iraq through all the 80s. I've seen a picture somewhere of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with some minister of Saddam's. But I guess those weapons were for killing Iranian people which was obviously fine then. But then again how do you know which weapons were used for what?
I am really amazed how selective memory Americans have.
"And by the way, our 'puppet' in Afganastan appears to have just won the first elections in that nation's history by a landslide"
but of course, isn't that what puppets are for. If they can't even organize an election they can win what's the use of putting them there in the first place.
Post a Comment