Quote:
|
Quote by: Milton Bradley A good question if your aim is to expose hypocracy.
However, this is exactly how all bi-partisan bickering gets started, and what does it have to do with the truth getting out?
What difference does it make that some people might have to be far removed from a given situation to make a clear, rational decision? Your goal should be to pick up on the wisdom of the statement, and not start a fight over personal opinion.
I know I really have no business coming down on you, but it was the perfect illustration of somebody missing the point to start a finger pointing competition. I hate finger pointing competitions because that is what all the major televised media has become in place of actual facts. It also seems oddly contagious to the viewers at home. :( |
All I was trying to do was to underscore the point, frequently made, that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Many Americans that condemn "terrorism" now, were staunch supporters of the IRA. No "finger pointing", no "bi-partisan bickering". It's a great advantage in the propaganda business when we are the ones that get to make all the definitions. We even go so far as to define *any* action against us as "terrorism". Example? The attack on the USS Cole. Clearly a military target, yet because we decide what makes a valid military attack, those perps are terrorists.
I'd venture to guess that Bush's policies have caused the deaths of more kids than Basayev, and I don't see much validity in the claim that this is different because the kids weren't deliberately targeted. Putting a 500 lb bomb on an apartment building because it has a sniper in it may not be deliberately targetting the civilians also living there, but it sure doesn't make much difference to the dead. Castigating Basayev and giving Bush a walk doesn't make much sense to me.