Morialekafa is going on a Fool's errand to Seattle and will not be back on the web until friday, the 9th. Sorry.
Suzie Creamcheese: I'm not certain you understand my position. There is (1) killing in self defense (understandable and acceptable), there is (2) killing in warfare (understandable and acceptable but only under condition 1, above. There is killing for personal or monetary gain (understandable but totally unacceptable), there is genocide (understandable but totally unacceptable under any circumstances), and then there is what I call humanicide (not understandable and completely unacceptable under any circumstances). You seem to think that humanicide is understandable if not acceptable because it is motivated by hate and the wish to destabilise. But that is exactly why I think it is more properly defined as humanicide. One could argue, for example, that attacking the White House or the Pentagon, and perhaps by extension even Wall Street, was motivated by revenge. Revenge implies that somehow you were wronged and are now seeking redress. But you cannot argue that the innocents killed in the towers were guilty of wronging the attackers. And as the unfortunates that happened to be in the towers were totally innocent of anything, and constituted nothing but a random collection of human beings (in this case from 70 different countries) this can only be interpreted as an act of humanicide. That is, killing a mass of human beings for no reason other than simply wanting to kill them. That is, in the cases of killing in self defense, warfare, personal or monetary gain, and even genocide, there is an actual target that is in some sense meaningful at least to someone. In the case of humanicide there is no meaningful target other than the willfull destruction of human beings just for the sake of it. I don't know if this makes sense to you. Somehow it does to me. In any case, I appreciate your comments and it does stimulate me for further thought on the subject.
The "Reverend" Sun Myung Moon thinks we should build a 51 mile long "peace" tunnel under the ocean to link Russia to the United States. This can obviously be dismissed as another absurd idea from the man who thinks he is somehow "god." But why, you might ask, is Neil Bush, George's younger brother, apparently on board? I guess they want to award the no bid contract to Halliburton.
A poll in DeLay's home turf indicates that he has only 36% support whereas any generic Democrat has 49%. Don't count your chickens until they hatch. And do not under any circumstances become overconfident. There is always Diebold and rampant illegalities lurking in the background.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I'm with you on 90% of this. I also agree that in consideration of the target (a random collection of humanity, as you correctly point out, drawn from many nations and many religions) then the attack on the WTC has no rationale. My point, and it may be that this is where I'm missing yours, is that the attack rather than the target can be rationalised. These guys hate and we can all (sadly) bring this into our sphere of understanding. They also want to curb your and our freedoms and, in that, they have been successful.
I guess the point I was making, rather clumsily, is that if we dismiss this as an act with no rational basis (not sure you were) then it stops you asking the fundamental question. Why do they hate America so much? I have no doubt who the bad guys are in this scenario but that question still needs to be raised.
My blog is self-indulgent, psycho-masturbation. Yours is the true power of the web log - debate. As is so often the case, the most intense debate is between those who broadly agree in the first place!
You have a number of watchers here in the UK. Please continue to challenge our rather shabby preconceptions about your country's citizens.
Post a Comment