From: David Coyle
You said:
> Are you saying bin Laden is innocent?
> I've never heard anybody say that before, at least nobody sane or
reliable. "
I say that the world has seen no evidence, (you
know, court of law evidence?)
that bin Laden had squat to do with 9/11. He
doesn't like American foreign policy
and doesn't care for American culture and seems
to be something of a rallying point
for anti-American feeling. I say that this does
not add up to a death sentence.
First, you have to take into account that bin Laden, like Hitler, isn't
just a dude.
He's Number One on the "must die now" list. That makes a big difference.
Two, the bastard confessed.
I don't speak whatever language he uses, but some Americans do, and
if they heard
him say something other than a confession on those tapes, they would
speak up.
Look Bart, figure it this way: If you think it's
fine for a private US citizen to pot off
at someone they think is the font of all evil,
where do you draw the line?
Would it be just fine for a Guatamalan to blow
away a Yank with nutty right wing views?
Is assassinating abortion clinic workers a fun
evening's entertainment?
Again, this is very different from any other example you can think of.
Maybe you Canadians see 9-11 differently than we do, but the WTC attack
was
the most spectacular mass murder in history and we take that shit very
seriously.
If you do that
and then brag about it, you deserve anything that happens to you.
You said:
> Are you saying bin Laden and "a suspected terrorist" are the same
thing?
> That doesn't make sense.
> I see a difference between "due process" for bin Laden and all other
people.
> If the entire planet agrees bin Laden did it, I say we smoke him.
> He certainly doesn't have the protection of our Constitution. "
Yup! Definitely, I'm saying the man is suspected
of being instrumental in the atrocities of 9/11.
So are Bush and the Mossad. Clear that the Bush
government doesn't give a flying fuck about bin Laden.
And if bin Laden really was the evil mastermind,
don't you think it might be useful to investigate and find out
just how he contrived to have entire US air force
sit around counting their fingers and toes for a couple of hours.
1. bin Laden is more than "a suspect." He claimed credit
for the attacks.
2. I think Bush knew something was coming, but surely he didn't know
it would be this big.
(If it turns out he did, I predict the Secret Service
will be unable to protect him from the public.)
3. I have no power to force an investigation, and yes, I'd like some
answers to why our Air Force
sat there like frozen statues when we were under
attack.
You said:
> Let me throw a question back at you - If your only two choices were
to murder
> Hitler or do nothing and watch 6 million Jews die, what would you
decide?
> Me?
> I'd decide that those 5,999,999 lives were worth it.
> Get back to me on that question, would you? "
With all due respect, and you are due a lot, this is a jerk-off red-herring question.
You can disrepect the question if you want, but you seem afraid to answer
it.
The question was designed to force you to admit there are times when
killing
someone would save many additional lives.
Example: If I'm on a commercial airliner and Hadji tries to take
over the plane,
I'm going to do everything I can to kill him and he's not getting a
hearing or a trial.
If you were travelling through Europe in the twenties
and thirties you would have
found hundreds upon hundreds who were potentially
the source of racialist evil.
Again you recommend assassination on the basis
of suspicion, and I cannot make this out.
I grant you that, in my haste I didn't say "If you knew then what you
knew now about Hitler,"
but I wished you had make that leap. The only way you could KNOW he
was going to murder
6M people would be with a time machine, but the question still stands.
If you belong to some
dove club where killing is wrong even if it will save 6M lives, then
I suggest you're not qualified
to be in this little debate we're having.
My way = 1 dead, your way = 6M dead.
You can't stand on some moral absolute that "killing is wrong."
Geez, I hate to have you in my foxhole during a war.
You said:
> I'm assuming your last paragraph was typed in frustration or after
you had consumed many
> liters of pure alcohol. You seem to be suggesting the US has never
made a positive contribution
> to the planet. That is a wild, wild, wild, wild statement by
someone without a memory.
> I see you're from Canada.
> I suggest to you that if the US was merely "a large, uninhabited
nature preserve,"
> that e-mail you wrote would've been written in German."
(Sigh!) The "wild, wild, wild, wild statement
" is yours. The contributions made by
American society are manifest; literature or
the sciences - wonderful!
Now, I put the question again: How would
the rest of the world not be better off without this lethal,
lunatic, rampaging child that thinks it its right
to strip countries of their riches and murder at will?
You may not care for this picture, but that is
how the world sees your country.
Whoa!
You didn't say "The Bush administration," you
said "the United States."
We agree that Bush is a monster, a mobster and
a disaster, but I answered the question that was asked.
You said "$10
donation if you can come up with even one way in which the world would
not be
better off if the US were not one large,
uninhabited nature preserve."
Your current freedom is directly due to the brave
men who stormed Normany Beach in 1944.
The pity of it all is that I am quite certain
that at bottom you and I are agreed on what is right and what
is important. It may well be that I am
blinded by my prejudices (and possible immoderate consumption
of alcohol, though not tequila). I wish that
you might see that murder of people we detest is not a viable
way of conducting foreign affairs.
I think the math (and the common sense) is on my side.
My way = 1 dead, your way = 6M dead.
As for your last crappola about "written in German",
now this is lame!
You are so skeptical about so much and yet you
see the US as the great saviour?
I'm dumbfounded.
Did you just say Canada would've beaten Hitler without America's help?
Do all Canadians think that way?
I think you might benefit from clicking on Project
60
And besides:
Gefaellt das Dir nicht auf deutsch zu sprechen?
Waer' Dir das allzu
peinlich Goetheu. Schiller zu lesen? Ach was,
saudumm ist das was Du schreibst.
Oh yeah?
Es war ein gutes Glücksspiel, zum Sie anzunehmen sprach NICHT
Deutsches,
aber ein Spieler verliert manchmal.
(He said: "Surprised I speak German? You must
be embarrassed by your mistake."
To which I replied: "It was a good gamble to assume you did NOT
speak German,
but sometimes a gambler loses."
You wrote:
> ...I think you owe me $10.
"Owe", now that is a word!
Translated into English I would guess that it
is a declaration of victory.
I stick with my assertion that the US saving the world from Hitler proves
that is has more value
than "a large, uninhabited nature preserve."
You are wonderful, you deserve support, I would
be proud to be a contributer; and as your support
grows you must take a more universal point of
view. But in my bones you were misled and mistaken.
$10 on the way for the pleasure of being able
to write to someone who takes the issues seriously
(I think you do, maybe, perhaps,...).
Oh well, that's enough for "fifteen minutes",
back to gin and tonic; don't give an inch!
--
dc
I enjoyed the exchange.