pynchon-l-digest V2 #2194

[Doug Millison]

 rj/rjackson/jbor/?:
>Half the time you argue that America/the West is guilty because they
>supported the Taliban and Osama, now you're arguing that they "have been
>pissing on" these terrorists.

That's what the US did, first they supported the Taliban and Osama, then
the US walked away from them, and pissed on them, i.e.,  took actions that
outraged them:  propping up the corrupt and cruel Saudi regime,  military
installations on what they consider holy grond, killing half a million
innocent Iraqi children and other civilians, supporting Israel's terror
against the Palestinians, etc. -- this is the bin Laden view, per his video
statements since September 11.

 rj/rjackson/jbor/?:
>The Taliban and Osama do not represent the
>majority of Afghani people.

That's a very good reason why the US shouldn't be killing civilian
Afghanis, isn't it.

 rj/rjackson/jbor/?:
>it was the Taliban who refused to negotiate.

False.  The Taliban declined to hand over bin Laden in response to Bush's
non-negotiable request.  The Taliban have offered repeatedly to negotiate,
before and since the bombing began on October 7 -- historical fact.

 rj/rjackson/jbor/?:
> The course
>of action he pursued does not correlate with someone who had "made his mind
>up" on September 11. I doubt he even knew where Afghanistan was.

Take it up with Time magazine, which ran a long and very flattering
article, based on interviews with Bush's closest advisers who reported that
Bush indeed made up his mind about military retaliation on September 11.


 rj/rjackson/jbor/?:
>I don't think anyone "decided" this at all.

Of  course somebody decides what weapons and tactics to use.  These things
don't happen by themselves, airplanes don't choose what ordnance to load
and fly by themselves to targets.  The military officers who choose the
ordnance know the targeting margin of error and make the decision to use
the weapons regardless of the civilian casualties thta inevitably result.

Doug:
>> (and not the summary execution in the field that the Bush
>> Administration is said to favor)
 rj/rjackson/jbor/?:
>Always with the innuendoes and passive voice manipulations: "is said to
>favor" ... By whom? By you, that's who.

You ought to read a bit more, my friend.  It's been widely reported the
past view days (The Atlantic magazine's online daily summary of War news
gathered references from several mainstream sources) that top Bush
Administration officials and presumably Bush himself have decided not to
take bin Laden captive if they have the opportunity but to kill him
instead.   I was surprised to learn that they're leaking this sort of thing
to the press, and can only suppose they think it raises their profile as
macho warriors.