Re: How many do support the war?

--- [email protected] wrote:
> From: dep <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: How many do support the war?
> Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 09:29:45 -0400
> 
> begin  Michael Grimborounis's  quote:
> 
> | What I saw where
> | pieces of brick or concrete flying about as the
> | bullets started hitting the wall, just before
> hitting
> | their actual target. The sound is also very
> | informative. It is the sound of bullets _hitting_
> the
> | target, not the sounds of bullets being _fired_
> from a
> | place near the camera.
> 
> c'mon. they don't do much building in iraq with
> bricks, because 
> there's not a lot of clay there, so it would all
> have to be brought 
> in. and concrete is not the color of brass, nor does
> debris rise in a 
> specific stream, at specific intervals.
> additionally, the claim being 
> made by al jazeera (which they've backed off from in
> their arabic 
> broadcasts) is that a single tank round was fired.
Are we talking about the same video here? Here is what
I saw and heard: The sound of bullets hitting a hard
substance at intervals. The first few (I did not count
them) where accompanied by grayish pieces (OK, I'll
take your word for it and assume not bricks of any
sort where involved, it could be concrete, but you can
place any construction material you like here) flying
about. So debris can fly at specific intervals, if
forced to do so. I discerned no other pattern in the
stream. Then another bullet hit, and the camera tilted
to the left. The next bullet made the camera fall. Are
we talking about the same thing here? Did anyone else
see the video? do you think one can find it on the
Internet somewhere?
> 
> | I had also the benefit of viewing a video taken by
> a
> | French TV crew, depicting the US tank fire at the
> | Palestine hotel. Reporters at the hotel had to say
> | that _no_ shots were heard coming from or arround
> the
> | hotel, widely contradicting the US army
> | representative.
> 
> reporters at the hotel have been consistently wrong,
> and the claim not 
> to have seen something is scarcely a refutation. you
> have never seen 
> me, but i exist. you have never seen the far side of
> the moon, but 
> it's there, too. it's simply a nonstarter as an
> argument.
Well, I am replying to your messages, so at least I
believe you exist. Others in this list have never seen
you, but reply to your messages, so I presume they
believe you exist too. If i were to say "you don't
exist, and members of this list are consistently
wrong", would that make you vanish? If so, it might be
worth a try. No comment about the moon, there are
plenty of images of the dark side lying about.
However, "I think you exist, therefore you are" is a
school of thought entirely new to me. Reporters at the
hotel were of various nationalities, and not inclined
to support Iraqi propaganda in unison. What is more,
they are war correspondents, some of them experienced
I believe, and they should know the sound of gunfire
when they hear it. The American military forces
however have a clear motivation in trying to spread
such false assumptions. Shooting at the press is,
according to international law, a murder, and is best
described as a crime of war.
> 
> | Did US mass media inform public opinion about the
> | fact? I have reasons to believe media arround the
> | world would have taken the word up, had it been
> made
> | more public. Did the US government opose these
> | actions? And of course, no country's actions can
> | justify US and its president for their policies...
> 
> what *are* you talking about? what fact? what
> actions?
You said: "france has been shooting up the ivory coast
for some months now", and I thought it was a fact that
France was performing these actions. Perhaps I should
have known better...
> 
> | Well, it seems you now place Bush in the same
> league
> | as the tyrant Mugabe.
> 
> of course i don't, and neither does anyone else with
> at least two 
> brain cells to rub together. my point, which i give
> you the benefit 
> of the doubt in presuming you did not miss
> deliberately, is that much 
> of the world gives mugabe a pass -- and his actions
> are demonstrably 
> execrable -- while without the slightest evidence
> those people 
> denounce bush. which is to say that people who hold
> your opinion are 
> as wrong as can possibly be.
Having an insight to the inner thoughts of all the
human population employing more than two brain cells
in their reasoning process is quite a feat by my
standards. Since you don't have an insight into my
thoughts however, I must work my single brain cell to
death trying to explain that the syntactical structure
you are referring to is often called sarcasm. Mugabe
tortures his people with the aid of alien forces who
find it suiting their purposes. Bush has enough power
to torture the whole world, so they clearly are not in
the same league. The US foreign policy is becoming
more and more arrogant every day, and that is
dangerous.
> 
> |A good point I must say. It is
> | terrible to note how many people are dying in
> Africa,
> | without any country doing anything much to help
> them.
> 
> there is a difference between dying and being
> killed. yes, it is 
> tragic that many people in africa are dying; even
> more tragic that so 
> many are dying of the entirely preventable aids. but
> it is beyond 
> tragic and indeed criminal that robert mugabe's
> regime is killing so 
> many of the citizens of zimbabwe. i am sorry that
> moral relativism 
> has reached the point where it does not recognize
> the distinction.
People in Africa are dying because of illnesses, civil
wars, starvation, lack of water... Certainly, to
support a dictator who kills his people is taking part
in the murders. But then, the US has supported many
dictatorships around the world, Africa is not a novel
situation. Since you are making a clear distinction
however, is it not criminal to treat Africa as just a
market for new agricultural products, that will make
the people even more dependent on fertilizers and
chemicals, rather than financially supporting them in
creating the techniques for more productive farming?
Is it not criminal when any aid takes the form of
surplus supplies that will only temporarily feed the
starving, than the form of money and aid that will
enable them to build an infrastructure, and allow them
to produce what they need? It is all a mater of
whether they become more independent or not. And
independence is something no one is offering to them.
After all, it all winds down to who will get the
resources, doesn't it?
> 
> | Please keep in mind though, US is trying to
> enforce
> | its presence as global leader, and advertising
> itself
> | as enforcing law and order worldwide.
> 
> no, it is manifestly not doing that, or else we'd be
> in a lot more 
> places than we are now. we are, post-9/11, acting to
> enforce our own 
> safety. i would like to add "and let the rest of the
> world be 
> damned," but in fact that's not the case. 
Yes, it's not the case. US is damning the world with
its actions. Surely your own safety was not endangered
by US ex-ally, Sadam. He is definitely not in league
with Osama Bin Laden. And, if you think about it
(though I am certain you won't,) the more people US
strikes, the more people are willing to strike back.
No, it is not a matter of safety, it's a matter of
finding a good excuse to drag some countries along in
performing some "new ordering" of the world around, to
best suit US aspirations. It wouldn't have been that
way if it was not for Iraqi oil. It wouldn't have been
that way if it was not for the oil pipe passing
through Afghanistan.
> 
> | That role carries with it great responsibility
> towards the whole
> | of humanity. Are these the signs of a responsible
> | power? Killing women and children was justified as
> | being inevitable aside casualties (not sure about
> the
> | term here), let's see how murdering reporters will
> fit
> | in the new order of things...
> 
> now you're just being goofy. there have been about a
> dozen reporters 
> killed in this conflict, and all but four (the three
> earlier this 
> week and david bloom of nbc) unquestionably as the
> result of iraqi 
> action or that of the syrians, saudis, sudanese,
> yemenis and others 
> who it is now clear made up most of the "special
> republican guard." 
> your outrage is absent in this regard, i notice. you
> are not calling 
> those "murders," though three were killed by a bomb
> at a checkpoint, 
> where their identity was clearly evident. and in
> none of the cases am 
> i outraged, because war correspondents get killed.
> that risk is part 
> of the job.
Dying is part of no one's job. And, I again have to
note that you are placing the US army in the same
league as the republican guard. Are they just two
faces of one and the same coin? Because people who
respect law and order do not shoot reporters. Not even
war correspondents. That is a crime of war. And I
never read a message by anyone on this list trying to
justify murdering reporters. Except you, of course.
But then, they were war correspondents, and dying is
their job, right?
> 
> instead, i proffer the idea that there is a vast
> grasping now at 
> anything which can cast blame on the u.s., and those
> things have 
> consistently become fewer and weaker. there is, of
> course, a 
> fundamental problem faced by the side that ascribes
> great satan 
> characteristics to the u.s.: if what they claim are
> true, we would 
> certainly have caught and killed them by now.
Anyone who wants to play a role in international
affairs ought to be prepared to take criticism from
all affected. And no, at this time not even the US can
kill anyone they like without at least a faked reason:
There is public opinion to take into account, and
public opinion wants to believe its country is doing
the right thing. Will the US do that in the future?
Who knows. You see, the US is a term used to describe
two distinct parts. The US government and its
policies, as well as the means of enforcing these
policies, such as the US army. And the US people. The
thing is, the government is trying to control the
people, and vice versa. That is true for any country.
What makes the US so interesting is that it is so
powerful, that what happens to it affects us all
> 
> so if you believe what you say, you'd probably best
> hide under your 
> bed.
Nah, if I do, it would be just people like you left
around, and what good would that be, eh?
> -- 
> dep
> 
> http://www.linuxandmain.com -- outside the box,
> barely within
> the envelope, and no animated paperclip anywhere.
--

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are my own and
represent no one but me.

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com

Kde-cafe mailing list - [email protected]
http://ofb.biz/lists/listinfo.cgi/kde-cafe

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this mailinglist are the personal
opinions of the author and do not represent KDE or the author's employer.