anti-war march

[Guest guest]

Jo wrote:

>

> Jane

>

> Don't take everything at face-value. There were military forces waiting out

> there two weeks before September 11, if I remember rightly.

 

There were excercises in the gulf. Presumably, Jo is seeking to imply

that that's not a coincidence.

 

Jo: why do you think the excercises were taking place there? Are you

tyring to say that the atrocities were carried out by the US government

on itself and its own people?

 

 

--

Ian McDonald

 

http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~type40/alternative.html

http://travel.to/startrekcolony - Star Trek: Colony site & .mov

http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~type40/who-rpg.html - Dr. Who RPGs

[Guest guest]

Peter wrote:

>

> > Don't take everything at face-value. There were military forces waiting

> out

> > there two weeks before September 11, if I remember rightly.

>

> And Pakistan was being told as early as July that military action against

> Afghanistan was being planned for October!

 

Source?

 

> BB

> Peter

>

> ---

> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

> Version: 6.0.281 / Virus Database: 149 - Release 18/09/01

>

>

> To send an email to -

>

>

[Guest guest]

Peter wrote:

>

> Hi Jane

>

> > Oh come on Peter! *sigh*. I've never read such rubbish. You and I know

> > perfectly well why the bombing is taking place in Afghanistan, and its got

> > nothing to do with financial gain.

>

> I suggest you read the article I posted earlier today.

 

I read it. Apparently, we are a puppet state of the US. The fact that

the writer wrote rubbish such as that made him less likely to believe

his statements of fact.

 

> As you will quite

> clearly see, this bombing, as with every other recent war concerning Britain

> and America has everything to do with financial gain, and nothing to do with

> terrorism or humanitarian reasons. Unless, of course, you believe the stuff

> the media spoonfeed us!

 

.... and if, of course, we believe what you spoonfeed us instead.

 

> BB

> Peter

>

> ---

> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

> Version: 6.0.281 / Virus Database: 149 - Release 18/09/01

>

>

> To send an email to -

>

>

[Guest guest]

Peter wrote:

>

> Hi Jane

>

> > Who are we to know what was planned and what is planned for future. We

> are

> > not world leaders, politicians or the like. We can only try to work

> things

> > out. Nobody knows so it seems a futile discussion anyway.

>

> OK, but it was you who said we should be bombing people! I still haven't

> heard the justification for killing more innocent people.

 

As well as misquoting, you seeing to be conflating Al-Quaeda and the

Taliban with the innocent people.

 

If you think that the coalition forces are targeting civillians, say so.

 

> BB

> Peter

>

> ---

> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

> Version: 6.0.281 / Virus Database: 149 - Release 18/09/01

>

>

> To send an email to -

>

>

[Guest guest]

Ian

 

I am not saying that they bombed their own people, (but all angles may be

considered) but they have

been known to spray DDT on people in swimsuits in the 1950's to show how

safe it is! So I don't feel inclined to put my blind trust in anything they

say.

 

In any case, I do not think it is right to be bombing the normal people of

Afghanistan, and although I would be pleased for the Taleban not to be in

control, I fear the Northern Alliance would not be much better.

 

Incidentally, are you saying that you believe everything that Bush, Blair

and the newspapers say?

 

If people think war is a good idea, why don't they organise their own

demonstration.

 

Jo

 

> Jo: why do you think the excercises were taking place there? Are you

> tyring to say that the atrocities were carried out by the US government

> on itself and its own people?

 

 

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.281 / Virus Database: 149 - Release 18/09/01

[Guest guest]

Hi Ian

 

> The fact that the increased interest in Afghanistan started a few days

> after the 11/9/1 atrocities. The big news in the month preceding was to

> do with atrocities in Afghanistan, not oil price issues?

 

You're forgetting that the Pakistani government was told to expect military

strikes against Afghanistan back in July. The " big news " is simply the

increased coverage by a puppet media to get people behind the military

action.

 

> The core public evidence against the Al-Quaeda network is:

> 1. Who else had the motive and the opportunity?

 

Ummm - the American government? Palestine, Iraq, Nicaragua, Columbia,

Malaya, Milosevic's supporters, Cuba, etc. etc.

 

> 2. Why else are they warning people off tall buildings and airplanes?

 

Because they are considering retaliating against what seems to be an

unprovoked attack on them - that seems reasonable to most people who are

supporting the current action against Afghanistan

 

> 3. Bush & Blair have a lot to lose if they turn out to be making up the

> " secret evidence "

 

And how will anyone ever find out? All documentation of this nature is top

secret and doesn't have to be revealed for 100 years - by which time Bush

and Blair really won't be too worried!

 

Now, what actual *evidence* is there against Al Qaeda, other than the purely

circumstantial of motive and opportunity which would not stand up in any

court of law?

 

> So they didn't have any anti-aircraft guns before?

 

Anti aircraft guns are only useful if you have aircraft attcking you - they

are not an offensive weapon.

 

> But the IRS is a government department. How does anyone control it?

 

The IRS is a private business, owned by a group of about 15 families. It

only masquerades as a government department. Check out the paperwork

surrounding the foundation of it in the 1920s

 

BB

Peter

 

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.281 / Virus Database: 149 - Release 18/09/01

[Guest guest]

Hi Ian

 

> I don't think that his financial gain from a pipeline would be

> significant has been demonstrated.

 

I disagree - the experts in this field say that Unocal would make a distinct

financial gain. You are simply making an assumption based on your own views

which have so far been presented as points of view based on no solid fact.

Please provide your evidence for the above statement?

 

> No it isn't. It would show that he had a conflict of interests. That

> doesn't automatically mean that the public reason for bombing

> Afghanistan (War against Al-Quaeda) is wrong.

 

Who said anything about the " public " reason? I was talking about the real

reason. And that reasoning is still wrong, because it won't do anything but

inflame the situation.

 

BB

Peter

 

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.281 / Virus Database: 149 - Release 18/09/01

[Guest guest]

> > And Pakistan was being told as early as July that military action

against

> > Afghanistan was being planned for October!

> Source?

 

The BBC!

 

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.281 / Virus Database: 149 - Release 18/09/01

[Guest guest]

You're like a politician, not answering questions .

 

Why do you think the excercises were taking place in the gulf? (These

are the excercises that, according to HMG, just happened to put some

forces in the gulf at the right time.)

 

Jo wrote:

>

> Ian

>

> I am not saying that they bombed their own people,

 

The question I asked was about the Sep 11 atrocities, which were done by

flying planes into buildings, not bombing. Do you think that was carried

out by any part of the US government?

 

> (but all angles may be

> considered)

 

What does that mean?

 

> but they have

> been known to spray DDT on people in swimsuits in the 1950's to show how

> safe it is!

 

Who exactly did that? And how much did they know? I remember a JS Gummer

feeding burgers to his daughter for the same reasons ... but I think he

was sincere in his beliefs.

 

And of course, the facts are settled in a different way on questions of

public health than on questions of guerilla warfare.

 

> So I don't feel inclined to put my blind trust in anything they

> say.

 

I doubt we're talking about the same " they " .

 

In any case, I obviously don't advocate blind trust. But there's not a

dichotomy between either blind trust in the news are reported by HMG,

the US government, and blind trust in the posts you present us.

 

> In any case, I do not think it is right to be bombing the normal people of

> Afghanistan,

 

A statement which messrs Bush and Blair would be happy to endorse. Are

you saying that civilians are being targeted?

 

> and although I would be pleased for the Taleban not to be in

> control, I fear the Northern Alliance would not be much better.

 

I think the follow-up goverment should have been clearly set before

military action began. Thankfully, the coalition leaders appear to have

worked out the failings of the Northern Alliance. But I winced when I

heard the Taliban front line was being hit.

 

> Incidentally, are you saying that you believe everything that Bush, Blair

> and the newspapers say?

>

> If people think war is a good idea, why don't they organise their own

> demonstration.

 

I'm translating " war is a good idea " as " war is a regrettable

necessity " , because that's what the coalition leaders are saying.

 

The answer is because they don't need to. Why should other people be

obligated to use the same political techniques as you?

 

>

> Jo

>

> > Jo: why do you think the excercises were taking place there? Are you

> > tyring to say that the atrocities were carried out by the US government

> > on itself and its own people?

>

> ---

> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

> Version: 6.0.281 / Virus Database: 149 - Release 18/09/01

>

>

> To send an email to -

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Ian

 

> I read it. Apparently, we are a puppet state of the US.

 

I think you read his comments a bit too literally. I interpreted his

comments on a " puppet " government as references to the fact the the British

government follows America like a lost puppy. Our government certainly

behaves as though it is a puppet of the American government.

 

> The fact that

> the writer wrote rubbish such as that made him less likely to believe

> his statements of fact.

 

It really isn't valid to completely ignore evidence just because it doesn't

fit in with what you'd like to believe. If you believe his statements of

fact are incorrect, please cite sources which contradict what he says.

 

> ... and if, of course, we believe what you spoonfeed us instead.

 

I see you are not familiar with the concept of making an informed decision

based on all the evidence available. You're not a journalist are you? How

can you hope to make an informed decision based on evidence from only one

source? If you were feeling particularly adventurous, you could look at more

than one side to the story, and do a little bit of your own investigation -

I'd be interested to know what you find. :-)

 

BB

Peter

 

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.281 / Virus Database: 149 - Release 18/09/01

[Guest guest]

Hi Ian

 

> As well as misquoting

 

In order to misquote, you need to quote in the first place! I merely

paraphrased.

 

> you seeing to be conflating Al-Quaeda and the

> Taliban with the innocent people.

 

Oh - I'm pleased to hear that the 200+ civillians who we are told have been

killed were all really Taliban and Al-Qaeda people. They must be recruiting

young - I'm sure some of the pictures I've seen are of children under 5. I'd

also be intrigued as to the role of the 16 year old ice-cream seller who

lost both his legs and one arm in terrorism.

 

> If you think that the coalition forces are targeting civillians, say so.

 

It doesn't matter whether they are targetting civilians - they are still

hitting them! If you are saying there are no civilian casualties, you are

going to need to provide some pretty strong evidence! Or are you suggesting

that a certain level of death of innocents is OK - as long as it's not

intentional?

 

BB

Peter

 

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.281 / Virus Database: 149 - Release 18/09/01

[Guest guest]

Ian

 

You know, you're really going to have to stop playing with semantics if you

wish to discuss issues. You know full well what the meaning of mine and Jo's

posts are.

 

> You're like a politician, not answering questions .

 

Pots, Kettles and dark colours. :-)

 

> Why do you think the excercises were taking place in the gulf? (These

> are the excercises that, according to HMG, just happened to put some

> forces in the gulf at the right time.)

 

Why do *you* think they were taking place? We've already given our views.

 

> > (but all angles may be

> > considered)

> What does that mean?

 

Oh boy - OK, let's try to keep this simple:

 

All: everything, not excluding anything.

Angles: different possibilities and ways of looking at things.

May be: can be, are available for.

Considered: thought about, digested.

 

I don't think I can do any better than that.

 

> > If people think war is a good idea, why don't they organise their own

> > demonstration.

> I'm translating " war is a good idea " as " war is a regrettable

> necessity " , because that's what the coalition leaders are saying.

 

Well, they'd hardly get much support if they said " we'd love to bomb

Afghanistan " . Beside which, I agree that they do consider it a regrettable

necessity - they'd much rather lay their pipeline without having to go to

all this bother.

 

> The answer is because they don't need to. Why should other people be

> obligated to use the same political techniques as you?

 

Well, if you're not willing to stand up for what you feel is right, then you

really can't complain when things don't go how you want them to. Protest is

one of the few ways that people in this country can get their voice heard in

what is laughingly called a democracy. Why should 20,000 people who are

willing to get up off their backsides be ignored simply because you disagree

with them? I find your comment particularly offensive, as it denigrates the

efforts of every one of those 20,000 people.

 

BB

Peter

 

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.281 / Virus Database: 149 - Release 18/09/01

[Guest guest]

Peter wrote:

>

> Hi Ian

>

> > The fact that the increased interest in Afghanistan started a few days

> > after the 11/9/1 atrocities. The big news in the month preceding was to

> > do with atrocities in Afghanistan, not oil price issues?

>

> You're forgetting that the Pakistani government was told to expect military

> strikes against Afghanistan back in July. The " big news " is simply the

> increased coverage by a puppet media to get people behind the military

> action.

 

There's *some* press freedom in Pakistan, so I wouldn't call even that a

puppet media. Although some bias is obvious, it's silly to call US and

UK media " puppet " . To which are you referring?

 

> > The core public evidence against the Al-Quaeda network is:

> > 1. Who else had the motive and the opportunity?

>

> Ummm - the American government?

No motive.

 

> Palestine

No experience of hijacking. Few of the hijackers are Palestinian - the

culprits are clearly international in scope. Even Hez'bollah has sworn

off the hijacking. Hamas' targets are Israel, not America. I doubt they

have six educated intelligent suicide bombers. Kill at most by the

score.

 

No motive or opportunity.

 

> , Iraq

I believe the motivation. But the culprits aren't Iraqi either, and the

Ba'athist party is secular, not Muslim. No opportunity.

 

> Nicaragua, Columbia,

> Malaya,

 

All liberal democracies of varying stability. Why would they want to

kill Americans by the thousand?

 

> Milosevic's supporters

Christians.

 

> Cuba, etc. etc.

>

 

> > 2. Why else are they warning people off tall buildings and airplanes?

>

> Because they are considering retaliating against what seems to be an

> unprovoked attack on them - that seems reasonable to most people who are

> supporting the current action against Afghanistan

 

What do you think seems reasonable, the retaliation, the explanation, or

the attack?

 

If they want to retaliate, why would they retaliate in exactly the same

way that the first attack was carried out?

 

> > 3. Bush & Blair have a lot to lose if they turn out to be making up the

> > " secret evidence "

>

> And how will anyone ever find out? All documentation of this nature is top

> secret and doesn't have to be revealed for 100 years - by which time Bush

> and Blair really won't be too worried!

 

They may well have to reveal it sooner if things go to trial. The

international pressure to reveal it is immense. Plus, why would the UK

opposition - who *have* seen it and have every reason to want to bring

down HMG - co-operate with Blair in such a cover-up?

 

> Now, what actual *evidence* is there against Al Qaeda, other than the purely

> circumstantial of motive and opportunity which would not stand up in any

> court of law?

 

You're right that this wouldn't stand up in court. As we both know,

coalition governments claim secret evidence.

 

> > So they didn't have any anti-aircraft guns before?

>

> Anti aircraft guns are only useful if you have aircraft attcking you - they

> are not an offensive weapon.

 

Obviously, the aircraft don't have to be attacking. And they are still

military resources that can be struck out.

 

> > But the IRS is a government department. How does anyone control it?

>

> The IRS is a private business, owned by a group of about 15 families. It

> only masquerades as a government department. Check out the paperwork

> surrounding the foundation of it in the 1920s

 

Interesting.

 

> BB

> Peter

>

> ---

> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

> Version: 6.0.281 / Virus Database: 149 - Release 18/09/01

>

> To send an email to -

>

>

[Guest guest]

Ian

 

> You're like a politician, not answering questions .

 

Me!!! You could give lessons!

 

> The answer is because they don't need to. Why should other people be

> obligated to use the same political techniques as you?

 

They are not obligated - it was merely a suggestion. By the same token I am

not obligated to explain why I disagree with war.

 

Jo

 

 

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.281 / Virus Database: 149 - Release 18/09/01

[Guest guest]

Peter wrote:

>

> > > And Pakistan was being told as early as July that military action

> against

> > > Afghanistan was being planned for October!

> > Source?

>

> The BBC!

 

I looked on the BBC Website for this. I couldn't find it.

 

But I did find a story about the strategic importance of a pipeline.

They commentator agrees with you that such a pipeline is of great

strategic importance, but say that one can only be constructed if the

rival Afghani governments make peace. Which suggests that taking out the

Taleban is actually *against* US interests.

 

http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/analysis/newsid_16000/16777.stm

 

> ---

> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

> Version: 6.0.281 / Virus Database: 149 - Release 18/09/01

>

>

> To send an email to -

>

>

[Guest guest]

Peter wrote:

>

> Hi Ian

>

> > There were excercises in the gulf. Presumably, Jo is seeking to imply

> > that that's not a coincidence.

>

> I would agree that it's not a co-incidence. We aren't simply talking about

> normal " exercises " , we are talking about the largest British fleet ever sent

> to a foreign area outside of wartime!

 

Interesting. But in the event, British ships turned out not to be that

important. So the coincidence isn't particularly serving British

interests.

 

> > Jo: why do you think the excercises were taking place there? Are you

> > tyring to say that the atrocities were carried out by the US government

> > on itself and its own people?

>

> I don't think that is what Jo is saying, but I still think you need to

> consider it as a possibility. After all, who else had the motive, the

> resources, and a previous history of having considered such an incident?

 

Al-Quaeda had the motive, the resources, and had recently publically

threatened a major incident.

 

> BB

> Peter

>

> ---

> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

> Version: 6.0.281 / Virus Database: 149 - Release 18/09/01

>

>

> To send an email to -

>

>

[Guest guest]

Peter wrote:

>

> Hi Ian

>

> > I read it. Apparently, we are a puppet state of the US.

>

> I think you read his comments a bit too literally. I interpreted his

> comments on a " puppet " government as references to the fact the the British

> government follows America like a lost puppy. Our government certainly

> behaves as though it is a puppet of the American government.

 

So why should I take anything else he says literally? This is sounding

like scriptural exegesis!

 

> > The fact that

> > the writer wrote rubbish such as that made him less likely to believe

> > his statements of fact.

>

> It really isn't valid to completely ignore evidence just because it doesn't

> fit in with what you'd like to believe.

 

I hope it's obvious to everyone that evaluating the reliability of

secondary evidence (eg the post you forwarded) isn't the same as

discarding secondary evidence you dislike.

 

> If you believe his statements of

> fact are incorrect, please cite sources which contradict what he says.

 

I could just as easily say " If you believe his statements of fact are

correct, please cite sources which back up what he says " . Stan Goff, the

author of Peter's " A bit long, but very interesting " post, doesn't

provide many sources himself.

 

> > ... and if, of course, we believe what you spoonfeed us instead.

>

> I see you are not familiar with the concept of making an informed decision

> based on all the evidence available.

 

Now you're just being rude. But since my comment about you spoonfeeding

was pretty rude as well, I suppose I can't complain .

 

> You're not a journalist are you? How

> can you hope to make an informed decision based on evidence from only one

> source?

 

I get my news from a multiplicity of channels, which each get their news

from multiple channels.

 

> If you were feeling particularly adventurous, you could look at more

> than one side to the story, and do a little bit of your own investigation -

> I'd be interested to know what you find. :-)

 

I've got to manage my time, of course. Which is why I don't personally

investigate every fringe medical or conspiracy theory that I hear

espoused.

 

> BB

> Peter

>

> ---

> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

> Version: 6.0.281 / Virus Database: 149 - Release 18/09/01

>

>

> To send an email to -

>

>

[Guest guest]

Peter you are being incredibly naive. You must remember that these people

*use* the media. The injured people shown could have been injured before

the air strikes began - it wouldn't be the first time that false footage has

been shown. Who can prove that these people were injured as a result of the

air strikes? Don't fall for that one Peter.

 

> Oh - I'm pleased to hear that the 200+ civillians who we are told have

been

> killed were all really Taliban and Al-Qaeda people. They must be

recruiting

> young - I'm sure some of the pictures I've seen are of children under 5.

I'd

> also be intrigued as to the role of the 16 year old ice-cream seller who

> lost both his legs and one arm in terrorism.

>

[Guest guest]

Jo nobody likes war, but sometimes its a necessity. Nobody asked for 11 Sep

to happen but it did. More terrorist threats have been made this weekend.

You're happy for the world to sit back and wait for it to happen? Perhaps I

shouldn't even be discussing this with you guys. I'll let you go back to

the fairies at the bottom of your garden!

[Guest guest]

> I think you read his comments a bit too literally. I interpreted his

> comments on a " puppet " government as references to the fact the the

British

> government follows America like a lost puppy. Our government certainly

> behaves as though it is a puppet of the American government.

>

 

Really Peter? So who was the puppy in the Second World War? Was the

American government the puppy then? You need to throw your fancy Alice in

Wonderland ideas out of the window and face up to reality. We need America

and they need us too and I'm not just talking about war. I gather politics

isn't your strong point Peter.

[Guest guest]

> I get my news from a multiplicity of channels, which each get their news

> from multiple channels.

>

I'm with you on this one Ian.

[Guest guest]

Peter wrote:

>

> Ian

>

> You know, you're really going to have to stop playing with semantics if you

> wish to discuss issues. You know full well what the meaning of mine and Jo's

> posts are.

 

I don't like having to say " You said X, but you're obviously being

rehtorical, so I'll assume you mean Y. " I might think I know full well,

but I've seen too many online arguments tied down in misunderstandings

of each other's position. So I'd like to

 

> > You're like a politician, not answering questions .

>

> Pots, Kettles and dark colours. :-)

>

> > Why do you think the excercises were taking place in the gulf? (These

> > are the excercises that, according to HMG, just happened to put some

> > forces in the gulf at the right time.)

>

> Why do *you* think they were taking place? We've already given our views.

 

It's probably a coincidence, but it might be informed by the general

strategic importance and instability of the area. " Let's have a fleet in

there anyway. Oh ... something's happening hundreds of miles away - but

our fleet isn't much use anyway. Darn. "

 

> > > (but all angles may be

> > > considered)

> > What does that mean?

>

> Oh boy - OK, let's try to keep this simple:

>

> All: everything, not excluding anything.

> Angles: different possibilities and ways of looking at things.

> May be: can be, are available for.

> Considered: thought about, digested.

 

I thought there was a subtext there. I think that's fair.

 

> I don't think I can do any better than that.

>

> > > If people think war is a good idea, why don't they organise their own

> > > demonstration.

> > I'm translating " war is a good idea " as " war is a regrettable

> > necessity " , because that's what the coalition leaders are saying.

 

> > The answer is because they don't need to. Why should other people be

> > obligated to use the same political techniques as you?

>

> Well, if you're not willing to stand up for what you feel is right, then you

> really can't complain when things don't go how you want them to.

 

As long as you're not expecting people to give a day demonstrating for

every single issue they agree with. How much of an average person's

25-day holiday entitlement do you think they should spend demonstrating

for one cause or another? Even when HMG is doing what they want them to

do anyway?

 

> Protest is

> one of the few ways that people in this country can get their voice heard in

> what is laughingly called a democracy.

 

There's more than one way of protest.

 

> Why should 20,000 people who are

> willing to get up off their backsides be ignored simply because you disagree

> with them?

 

Semantics comes in useful when someone simply makes up an opinion and

attributes it to me. Which is exactly what you're doing.

 

> I find your comment particularly offensive, as it denigrates the

> efforts of every one of those 20,000 people.

 

No it doesn't. I simply point out that the non-doves are winning, so

don't need to do demos.

 

> BB

> Peter

>

> ---

> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

> Version: 6.0.281 / Virus Database: 149 - Release 18/09/01

>

>

> To send an email to -

>

>

[Guest guest]

Peter wrote:

>

> Hi Ian

>

> > As well as misquoting

>

> In order to misquote, you need to quote in the first place! I merely

> paraphrased.

 

Okay, then you mis-paraphrased.

 

> > you seeing to be conflating Al-Quaeda and the

> > Taliban with the innocent people.

 

If you mean " bomb guilty people, sometimes hitting innocents " , then say

so. " bomb innocent people " , by itself, implies that any guilty people

that are hit are hit by accident.

 

I don't want to spend too much time tying down exactly what you mean.

 

> Oh - I'm pleased to hear that the 200+ civillians who we are told have been

> killed were all really Taliban and Al-Qaeda people. They must be recruiting

> young - I'm sure some of the pictures I've seen are of children under 5. I'd

> also be intrigued as to the role of the 16 year old ice-cream seller who

> lost both his legs and one arm in terrorism.

 

You appear to be believing the Taliban figures without question. Which,

given the lack of an open press in Afghanistan, is rather worse than

believing the US figures without question.

 

Personally, I don't trust either source. Neither, I'm glad to see, to

the media I tend to watch.

 

> > If you think that the coalition forces are targeting civillians, say so.

 

> It doesn't matter whether they are targetting civilians

 

Do you think that they are targetting civillians?

 

> - they are still

> hitting them! If you are saying there are no civilian casualties, you are

> going to need to provide some pretty strong evidence! Or are you suggesting

> that a certain level of death of innocents is OK - as long as it's not

> intentional?

 

Nothing about this is OK. Not the prior situation in Afghanistan, not

the atrocities of September 11th, and not innocent deaths.

 

But the dispassionate mathematics of mercy would point out that

thousands of innocent deaths from future terrorism and Taliban misrule

in Afghanistan would be less bad than far fewer innocent deaths as

collateral damage.

 

I don't think the current level of innocent deaths is particularly

utilitarian ... I suspect that the numbers could be lowered if other

objectives (time, soldiers's safety) were sacrificed.

 

>

> BB

> Peter

>

> ---

> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

> Version: 6.0.281 / Virus Database: 149 - Release 18/09/01

>

> To send an email to -

>

>

[Guest guest]

> ----------

> Dr Ian McDonald[sMTP:ian.mcdonald]

>

> But the dispassionate mathematics of mercy would point out that

> thousands of innocent deaths from future terrorism and Taliban misrule

> in Afghanistan would be less bad than far fewer innocent deaths as

> collateral damage.

>

>

IAN !!! And this from a Star Trek fan!

 

I don't want to get too heavily involved in this discussion because I don't

have the in-depth knowledge that Ian and Peter obviously do (and I most

certainly don't want to have to quote sources, provide footnotes, or any of

the other tedious " proofs " that seem to be demanded). But I do want to make

my voice heard.

 

Firstly, the point above. This is EXACTLY the argument given by Iams in

defence of their fatal nutritional experiments on animals. IMO either every

life matters or none do. This point above assumes that theoretical deaths

will be greater that the actual deaths happening now. It also assumes that

the current actions will be successful AND that they are the only effective

way to prevent future international terrorism. I can't agree.

 

It seems to me that the voices I hear raised in favour of the current " war "

were totally silent as long as the deaths stayed in the Middle East. As

soon as America got back some of what it has been dishing out for years

(albeit in a more subtle way) we in the west are horrified and start

screaming for revenge. I would like to think that if we well-fed,

adequately clothed, and comfortably-housed people were shown as much of the

death and destruction meted out by the USA, in as much detail and with as

much repetition as we saw the Sept 11th footage, we would be as outraged as

we are by the Pentagon and World Trade Centre incidents.

 

But, do you know, I doubt it?

 

Jane's early email read: Well what is the answer then? Are we just

supposed to sit back and be the

targets for terrorists? Because that's what will happened if action isn't

taken.

 

I would like to ask the same question, but from the point of view of those

who have been suffering for years. What were they supposed to do?

Presumably these terrorists commited suicide for fun? I'm not even going to

bother stating my opposition to their actions - it should be perfectly

obvious from the tone of this mail that the avoidable loss of *any* life is

utterly unacceptable to me. But for Christ's sake. how bloody stupid does

someone have to be to think that they carried out these acts for the buzz of

it?

 

I'm going to stop soon before I turn into Edith, because my blood pressure

is rising as I write this. Jack Straw said yesterday that public opinion

was 4-1 in favour of the " war " - I'd love to know how he knows this (he

didn't site a source) because d'you know, nobody's ever asked me what I

want. He also mentioned that there was an anti-war march yestereday, but

that these people were " unrepresentative " . Arrogant bastard. Peter and Jo

- please let me know if there's another protest at a weekend and I'll be

there if I can. The knowledge that there are people who think that America

and Britain bombing the shit out of one of the poorest countries is a good

idea and that they deserved it, sickens me utterly.

 

Cathy

[Guest guest]

" Cathy Jupp (BR) " wrote:

>

> > ----------

> > Dr Ian McDonald[sMTP:ian.mcdonald]

> >

> > But the dispassionate mathematics of mercy would point out that

> > thousands of innocent deaths from future terrorism and Taliban misrule

> > in Afghanistan would be less bad than far fewer innocent deaths as

> > collateral damage.

> >

> >

> IAN !!! And this from a Star Trek fan!

 

I'm a utilitarian. Spock - a fellow vegan - might agree with me but Kirk

never would.

 

> I don't want to get too heavily involved in this discussion because I don't

> have the in-depth knowledge that Ian and Peter obviously do (and I most

> certainly don't want to have to quote sources, provide footnotes, or any of

> the other tedious " proofs " that seem to be demanded). But I do want to make

> my voice heard.

>

> Firstly, the point above. This is EXACTLY the argument given by Iams in

> defence of their fatal nutritional experiments on animals. IMO either every

> life matters or none do.

 

You're a Kantian. I'm a utilitarian - we have different bases for our

actions.

 

> This point above assumes that theoretical deaths

> will be greater that the actual deaths happening now.

 

Yes. On other lists I'm on, I have a reputation as a dove, for

criticising the level of collateral damage and implying not enough is

done to limit that. You could picture me (and Father Ted) with placards

saying " Bomb Afghanistan - but not too much " , and " Careful now " . It

would be very easy for the effect of bombing on aid distribution to tip

the scales the other way.

 

> It also assumes that

> the current actions will be successful AND that they are the only effective

> way to prevent future international terrorism. I can't agree.

 

Al-Quaeda is a very effective, and ruthless, terrorist network. Although

it's important to reduce the ocean in which the fish like bin Laden

swim, force needs to be applied to Al-Quaeda.

 

> It seems to me that the voices I hear raised in favour of the current " war "

> were totally silent as long as the deaths stayed in the Middle East. As

> soon as America got back some of what it has been dishing out for years

> (albeit in a more subtle way) we in the west are horrified and start

> screaming for revenge.

 

Post cold war America's crimes tend to be not doing enough - or doing

the wrong things - about the crimes of Saddam Hussein or Ariel Sharon.

Although I think the suffering in Palestine or Iraq need to be shown -

they involve more than 5,000 (IMHO UNHCR is even more deserving than the

various Sep 11 funds) - there's a difference of intention here.

 

> I would like to think that if we well-fed,

> adequately clothed, and comfortably-housed people were shown as much of the

> death and destruction meted out by the USA, in as much detail and with as

> much repetition as we saw the Sept 11th footage, we would be as outraged as

> we are by the Pentagon and World Trade Centre incidents.

>

> But, do you know, I doubt it?

 

Good point.

 

> Jane's early email read: Well what is the answer then? Are we just

> supposed to sit back and be the

> targets for terrorists? Because that's what will happened if action isn't

> taken.

>

> I would like to ask the same question, but from the point of view of those

> who have been suffering for years.

 

That doesn't answer Jane's question.

 

> What were they supposed to do?

 

For the Palestinians, I'd suggest Satyagraha. Against a democracy with a

moral core, it might actually work.

 

The Iraqis are, without external help, completely stuffed. Their only

hope is a suicide attack on Hussain, and even that is slim.

 

> Presumably these terrorists commited suicide for fun?

 

The coalition theory is that the half-dozen of them did it to get into

heaven. And to hurt the great Satan's power base.

 

> utterly unacceptable to me. But for Christ's sake. how bloody stupid does

> someone have to be to think that they carried out these acts for the buzz of

> it?

 

Who's saying they did? It's amazing how often online debates degrade

into " but I didn't say that " .

 

> I'm going to stop soon before I turn into Edith, because my blood pressure

> is rising as I write this. Jack Straw said yesterday that public opinion

> was 4-1 in favour of the " war " - I'd love to know how he knows this (he

> didn't site a source) because d'you know, nobody's ever asked me what I

> want.

 

He's probably citing polls. It sounds about right.

 

> He also mentioned that there was an anti-war march yestereday, but

> that these people were " unrepresentative " .

 

> Arrogant bastard.

 

Yup. Although technically true, " unrepresentative " is much more arrogant

than " representative of 20% of the population " .

 

I'm thankful that Blair is doing most of the Foreign Office job. I can't

imagine Straw on Al-Jazeera.

>

> Peter and Jo

> - please let me know if there's another protest at a weekend and I'll be

> there if I can. The knowledge that there are people who think that America

> and Britain bombing the shit out of one of the poorest countries is a good

> idea and that they deserved it, sickens me utterly.

 

Know anyone who thinks this? I've seen them surface, but they get

shouted down fairly quickly.

 

> Cathy

>

>

> To send an email to -

>

>