On 2 Aug 2002 at 15:34, Balbir Blugan wrote:
> In reply to you Jo:
>
> Nope, not every one, but there were many less non-terrorist deaths
> >than the 9/112800, and their deaths, unlike thedeaths of the civilian
> >citizens in the Twin Towers, were accidental and unintended
>
> Is it true then, that the organisation which carried these attacks out
> can say that the motive was to destroy 2 buildinggs representing the
> heart of what is ultimately unethical foreign policy and the killing
> of all those people was accidental/unintentional?
>
No, we cannot. Bin Laden is an engineer by trade, and knew what that
burning jet fuel in an enclosed area would do to the tensile strength of
the steel support beams. In a seized video not meant for public
consumption, we find him laughing and rejoicing at the death toll.
>
> Don't kid yourself
> into thinking that the US went to war thinking there would be no
> civilian casualties. If you want to be so pedantic, we could always
> change the plea from murder to manslaughter!
>
Of course the US knew that there would most likely be civilian
casualties, but such casualties, for the thousanth frigging time, were
NOT THEIR INTENTION, while the Twin Towers deaths were
EXACTLY BIN LADEN'S INTENTION. Do I have to draw you a Venn
Diagram to illustrate the blatantly obvious difference?
>
> Talking of terrorists, we must not forget that ever since it's
> existance Israel (with the support of the US) has broken over 40 UN
> regulations and not been retributed. When Israel came into being and
> the land was being taken over Jewish terrorist groups burnt women and
> babies in ovens trhe local breadmakers had used (bit of a deja vu
> here?)
>
Where'd you get that? An Al Quaeda website? It sounds like another
version of the perennial antisemitic 'blood libel' to me.
>
> Lets also take into consideration that the US has huge grain stores
> which are slowly going to waste, while global infant mortality from
> poverty is 2 deaths every 5 seconds.
>
And that the US is the single greatest free food donor, by far, on the
globe, including in Afghanistan, both before AND AFTER 9/11, with
most of the hunger problems there being due to distribution, not supply.
We faced distribution problems (namely warlord Aidid's Al-Quaeda-
trained thugs) in Somalia, too.
>
> I think there should be a sense of perspective, with all due respect
> and sympathy 2800 people who lived full and affluent lives is nothing
> in comparison!
>
This statement is an ample illustration that your virulent bias allows for
no perspective whatsoever on your part.
>
> >From: joedees@bellsouth.net
> >Reply-To: virus@lucifer.com
> >To: virus@lucifer.com
> >Subject: Re: Re:virus: Finding the Golden Mean Middle Way
> >Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 00:00:11 -0500
> >
> >On 1 Aug 2002 at 21:51, ben wrote:
> >
> > > [Joe]
> > > And those who empathize with dead terrorists most likely
> > > empathized with them when they were alive; that is a wash, or a
> > > net negative, since dead terrorists reduce the total.
> > >
> > > [ben]
> > > sigh... so now every non-US casualty in Afghanistan was a
> > > terrorist? Should we start murdering brown people onsight Joe?I
> > >
> >Nope, not every one, but there were many less non-terrorist deaths
> >than the 9/112800, and their deaths, unlike thedeaths of the civilian
> >citizens in the Twin Towers, were accidental and unintended. Or does
> >it take a Venn Diagram to illustrate that popint for you?
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________ Send
> and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:17 MDT