[plug] [OT+link] Us and them.

[Leon Brooks]

On Friday 27 December 2002 10:57 am, sscott at iinet.net.au wrote:
> Not at all! You forget one important distinction - us and them.

No. Us and them are no different in principle. If you'd been raised in a 
Taliban household, you'd hate the USA just as passionately as they.

>> This is not war, despite the war on terrorism tag.  It's revenge.
>> Yes, the events on 11/9/2001 were terrible, but the fix is even more
>> terrible.

> I disagree. It is a war. Maybe not in the classic sense (we wont be
> fighting on the beaches) but it is a war. Just because the US and UK have
> become so good at war that we are shielded from much of it, doesnt mean it
> isnt a war. Hell, the conflict in Afghanistan stopped being front page
> news after a few weeks,but there were guys on the ground shooting other
> guys on the ground. Looked like a war to me.

Agree. But you didn't answer Russell's second point: `the events on 11/9/2001 
were terrible, but the fix is even more terrible'. I would phrase it 
differently:

  * the `war on terrorism' will prove ineffective; and

  * the number of innocent deaths resulting from the war has probably
    already topped those from the towers; and

  * the war will incite (justify) more `retaliation' of the 11Sep sort
    from others; and

  * more children die slowly EVERY SINGLE DAY from diarrhoea than died
    suddenly in the towers, how many billions are being spent to
    prevent those deaths?

>> BTW, I don't believe you'd feel the same way if you or your family
>> were wrongly accused.

> Thats the point - my family wouldnt be wrongly accused.

On what do you base this assertion?

> We are on the 'good side'.

Only if you cognitive-dissonance away the bad aspects of your chosen side, and 
even then it still won't protect you and your family. A heck of a lot of 
friendly-fire type social damage happens around conflicts.

If you define `the good side' as the winning side, how do you guarantee that 
your side will always win? Particularly, how do you guarantee that (for 
example) if Indonesia came over all militant-islamic and invaded Australia 
while the USA was busy with Iraq and invaded Australia, you and your family 
would never be mistakenly rounded up as collaborators and never be captured 
by the invaders?

> BTW, I don't believe you'd feel the same way if you or your family were
> directly threatened by extremists with guns and explosives.

So... you would directly threatent the families of others - most of whom are 
innocent bystanders despite the hype they're immersed in (which is different 
to the hype we're immersed in) - using guns and explosives in order to 
eliminate the threat of your own family being directly threatened?

What a world to live in! Sorry, we had to massacre you in case you massacred 
us. Yay.

Cheers; Leon