From: David Hobby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 00:42:47 -0400
Gautam Mukunda wrote: ... > > A lot of it probably has to do with collapse of an > ideology. September 11th was the deathknell of the > modern American left. It simply had no meaningful > response to the attack other than to suggest - either > openly or by implication - that the United States had > brought the attack upon itself.
Well, it did do a lot to cause the attack. And not by harmlessly distributing Britney Spears videos, either. Some of being targeted was because America was "walking point" for the West in general. But the US has done a lot of selfish things to make other countries mad at it over the years. Like it or not, if your policies make some people angry enough to kill themselves to show their displeasure, you need to rethink your policies. But this is not a very popular thing to say, and the Left does have some political sense.
How about killing innocents? Should we therefore assume from your statement that you agree with the leftist belief that the mass slaughter of innocent civilians is an appropriate and justifiable response when someone gets "angry" for political reasons? To put it another way, do you believe that on 9/11, civilian New Yorkers deserved to die because they happened to be Americans?
I notice that you haven't responded to my post about body counts. I'd really appreciate an answer to the above questions, even if you're not going to respond to that one.
Bill Maher's infamous statement "...the terrorists were not cowards..." has been applauded by the left: In my not-so-humble opinion, they most certainly were. Honorable, brave men would have attacked military targets and not civilians who couldn't fight back.
I would like for the US to really be a champion of
human rights THROUGHOUT the world, not just when and where
it was politically convenient. We could rehabilitate our
reputation, and earn broad respect by doing this--
consistently and courageously doing good for a change.
But this is an abstract and long-term agenda, and
many Americans simply do not care about the rest of the
world enough to support it.
Why should everything be our responsibility? We play 'world policeman' often enough that it gets tiresome after a while. I notice that you're not condemning the eastern and western European countries who fail to take on that role. Why not? Why do we always have to altruistically risk American lives because, often, much of the rest of the world can't be bothered?
Jon
Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
