pynchon-l-digest V2 #2195

[Doug Millison]

Terrance:
>Doug, are you saying this is Osama's view or yours?

Sober up and read the post, I wrote:  "this is the bin Laden view, per his
video
statements since September 11".  Need a translation?

 rj/rjackson/jbor/?:
>As I said, Doug, you're the one with the identity crisis.

Which of your email identities were you using when you said that?


 rj/rjackson/jbor/?:
>Yes indeed. Which is why Afghani civilians aren't being targetted by the US.

But they're being killed in the hundreds all the same. I doubt it makes the
families and friends of lost loved ones feel any better to know that the
U.S. didn't target those specific individuals on purpose, it was just a
mistake.

rj/rjackson/jbor/?:
They chose not to bomb innocent Afghanis.

Not exactly.  When they decide to go ahead and use weapons with a margin of
targeting error, in areas occupied by civilians, they are choosing to
accept the results if they hit civilians.  The DoD has in place a public
relations strategy to deal with this eventuality, they know it's going to
happen and they have people on staff plus a new PR agency they pay to
explain the killings away.  I do not believe that the US and UK forces are
targeting civilians from the get-go, but they are willing to accept the
inevitable civilian casualties-- a fine distinction that makes virtually no
difference to the babies, old folks, women, and other innocent civilians
who are killed and wounded by our weapons.  I ask again, what's the
difference between what the September 11 terrorists did and what our
leaders are doing when they are to accept civilian casualties to achieve
their strategic and tactical ends?


rj/rjackson/jbor/?:
>I'm surprised you endorse it.

And I'm surprised to hear you endorse the killing of innocent civilians to
achieve ambiguous military ends.
Oh, you mean you don't endorse the killing of innocent civilians, perhaps
I've twisted your words out of context?
Consider it an object lesson to remind you of the way you rewrite other
people's posts.  I repeated some of the points bin Laden made in his video,
attributed them to bin Laden, I didn't "endorse" them.
War-hawks have always been  quick to accuse their critics of taking the
enemy's side -- it's what they do when they find they can't justify their
stupid (using the wrong map coordinates and bombing civilians by mistake,
or forgetting to cross the Red Cross compound off the target list -- the
explanation the DoD offered over night for the second bombing of the Red
Cross compound in Kabul), greedy (continuing to use faulty systems because
of ties to weapons systems makers), or malicious tactics (choosing to
accept civilian casualties if that's necessary to achieve their ends).





Doug Millison - Writer/Editor/Web Editorial Consultant
millison at online-journalist.com
www.Online-Journalist.com