=
×

Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
Register
U-Know! Forum »
"innocents" and silly high-horses
Log In to post a reply
51 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
Vybik Jon
Vybik Jon
7718 posts

Re: "innocents" and silly high-horses
Jun 25, 2004, 13:17
Your words and my words.

"Bush is a punk & his regime is ridiculously currupt, and American politics on the whole are bullshit,"

Can't argue with that.

"but I have to comment on all the "don't harm the innocents in Iraq/Afghanistan" posts. many many innocents were killed, injured & horrified on 9/11 2001, supposedly because of their government and it's sins."

Based on your subsequent postings, I'm assuming that you don't wish harm on innocents in Iraq/Aghanistan any more than anyone else here. As Popel Vooje has said elsewhere, the harm to innocents in the USA on the 9th September 2001 is no less of an offence. I don't think the people who post to this list have ever tried to claim otherwise.

I do believe revenge has played a major role in the USA's motivations for attacking Afghanistan and Iraq. It's not a useful frame of mind to be in when planning offensive strategy. I further believe that the harm to innocents in Afghanistan and Iraq would have been reduced without revenge as a factor.

Rightly or wrongly, there is a view the actions of nations such as the USA in military conflicts should be visibly different (somehow "better") than that of it's opponents. That such a difference has not been obvious in the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts does encourage an anti-USA view.

"every country is, to greater or lesser degrees, represented by it's government --- a complicated issue which we can all discuss later, if you please."

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but is this the argument that the population gets the government it wants/deserves? If so, then it is a huge issue and your greater or lesser degree suggestion is valid. It's application to Afghanistan or Iraq offers a fascinating debate.

"if "Afghanistan" can house terrorists guilty of such heinous crimes against innocent people whose only fault was going to work, their citizens should have either rebelled or left the country."

Someone elsewhere in this thread pointed out that rebelling against the government in Afghnistan (or Iraq) was a massively risky option. Thousands of people did leave both countries and continue to do so. For some, neither option was available keeping quiet was the only other choice left.

"look: aggression is fascist, I breathed a "thank bog" when Reagan died, and America on the whole is a bully, but the religious fanaticism of the Mid-East will never be solved by liberal lovy-dovy. they only believe in killing anyone not like them."

I am assuming that the accusation of "killing anyone not like them" is a reference to religious fanatics in the Middle East rather than just anyone in the Middle East. Quite true.

Such an attitude can be found in our past with reigious fanatics from Europe and the USA - for example the Inquisitions, the Crusades and the Witch Trials. I am not suggesting that these movements were defeated by lovey-dovey liberalism, but neither were they defeated by overwhelming force of arms.
In reply to:
"innocents" and silly high-horses (Pierre_Glendinning)		 Replies:
at long last love (Pierre_Glendinning)
Topic Outline:
U-Know! Forum Index