I had hoped that you were still sufficiently analytic, despite US TV exposure to tell the difference between facts and opinion. I am no longer so certain. The facts are available. What you have provided is your opinion of the facts.
As an example, the most accurate Afghan death toll I am aware of (to December 2001) is visible at http://www.democracynow.org/thndtrmb.doc originally posted to
"US Definitely Avenged: but on whom", Hermit, 2002-04-08 (http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=7;action=display;threadid=11541;start=30). That stated that deaths were in excess of 3,700. You have given us your unreferenced opinion that these figures are inaccurate.
In the original article I quoted three extracts. Perhaps worth repeating.
These quotes from the title page may be taken as representative:
[*]When U.S warplanes strafed [with AC-130 gunships] the farming village of Chowkar-Karez, 25 miles north of Kandahar on October 22-23rd,killing at least 93 civilians, a Pentagon official said, "the people there are dead because we wanted them dead." The reason? They sympathized with the Taliban. When asked about the Chowkar incident, Rumsfeld replied, "I cannot deal with that particular village."
[*]A U.S officer aboard the US aircraft carrier, Carl Vinson, described the use of 2'000 lb cluster bombs dropped by B-52 bombers: "A 2'000 lb. bomb, no matter where you drop it, is a significant emotional event for anyone within a square mile."
[*]Mantra of the U.S mainstream corporate media : "the report cannot be independently verified"
[*]"..shameful dependence on and uncritical acceptance of Pentagon handouts instead of substantial, critical coverage of the ground situation in Afghanistan. The US corporate media seems to be muting any talk of civilian casualties first by framing any such news with "Taliban claims thatů." And then happily putting the matter to rest with Pentagon spokesmanů" " [Joel Lee, Hyderabad, Znet Inter Active]
That is fact.
As another, wHat is a fact is that you asserted various things about Iraq's intentions to dominate the World. When asked you pointed to your "six points" which proved nothing of the sort. It is your opinion that the six points supported the inference that this was the case.
Finally, it is aso a fact that we are rushing toward the singularity. And if my surmises are correct, if we do not develop a less aggressive, competitive and more appropriate ethical system, it is likely that humanity will not survive that event. Speaking for myself, I think that would be a pity. It seems to me that your arguments and the actions of the US are in direct conflict with this end-goal. Winston Churchill once said, "The Americans will always do the right thing... after they've exhausted all the alternatives." My estimate is that there is little time for experiment or trying the many alternatives available. Choosing to gamble with your future is all very well, but I would suggest that your arguments are gambling with the future of all mankind. And the dice are already in the cup. And loaded against us. Is this sensible?
---- This message was posted by Hermit to the Virus 2002 board on Church of Virus BBS. <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=display;threadid=25860>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:17 MDT