Selective Memory

[The Great Quail]

>>From: "barbara100 at jps.net" <barbara100 at jps.net>
>>
>>I'm not sure exactly how many died in the WTC attack, but I heard 
>>it reported yesterday on the radio that the numbers of civilian 
>>casualties in Afghanistan have now surpassed the number in the WTC 
>>attack.  I guess that makes it an official 'eye for an eye.'

Barbara, this is the kind of statement that tends to undermine your 
position, because it points to, more or less, a lack of context as 
well as reason. No one thinks that we have launched a bombing 
campaign against Afghani civilians, no one things the terrible 
casualties are the result of an "official" eye for an eye policy. You 
know very well that the war is an attempt to break down and destroy 
the al-Qaeda terrorist network, in hopes that they will be unable to 
plan, fund, and carry out more attacks in their escalating campaign 
against the United States and its civilian population. There is no 
reason at all you can't maintain an anti-War stance and yet refrain 
from this sort of unreasonable evasion of simple fact, this emotional 
reductionism, where you flatten facts into some brutal equation that 
you contend is the entire basis of foreign policy. If you are going 
to protest the war, at least make an effort to place your argument 
within some sphere of reason! I hate to "lecture" you, and I suppose 
I am, but really, it only makes your "side" look foolish, as foolish 
as any hawkish redneck who says "bomb them all."

--Quail