On Thu, 27 Aug 1998, Tresy Kilbourne wrote:

> Are you suggesting that there were legitimate *non-civilian* targets of
> the embassy bombings?

        There's no such implication in what I wrote.  All the bombings in
        question (Kenya, Tanzania, Sudan, and Afghanistan) are crimes.
        Some of those crimes we are responsible for.

> ... the facile equivocation of bombing an embassy with taking out a
> nerve gas facility

        You seem quite sure about the nerve gas.  Others aren't.  E.g.,
        from today's Financial Times --

        Blair 'hasty' in backing Sudan strike
        By Robert Peston, Political Editor

        The UK Foreign Office is increasingly concerned that the US last
        week bombed an innocent target when destroying a pharmaceutical
        factory in Sudan. Senior officials believe Tony Blair, prime
        minister, was too hasty in backing President Bill Clinton's strike
        on the plant in Khartoum. ... A Foreign Office official said Mr
        Blair's support for the US was "knee-jerk and a bit obtuse". He
        said the UK had not obtained any independent evidence that the
        factory had a military purpose or was linked to the international
        terrorist, Osama bin Laden.

> I also notice that no one on the Left seems to want to discuss the
> Afghan strikes. Why is that? Would you be striking moral poses if the
> reprisals had only included the Aghan bases?

        It seems that the US familiarity with the Afghan site stems from
        the fact that it was built by the CIA as a training ground for
        terrorists (such as bin Laden).  In the US view, there's nothing
        wrong with terrorism -- it's just a matter of direction.  On the
        contrary, there is something wrong with it, and the US shouldn't
        employ it.

> Your definition of "deliberate" drains the term of nearly all meaning.
> No one not wholly intoxicated by his own piousness would equate
> *targeting* 200+ civilians in a bombing, with unavoidable civilian
> casualties (10, I think, at last count) in the pursuit of saving vastly
> more numerous civilian lives down the road.

        It's obvious that the embassies were the targets.  All the bombers
        in question (American and otherwise) show a similar (criminal)
        attitude toward bystanders.  And surely the US actions are more
        likely to promote further attacks rather than "saving vastly more
        numerous civilian lives down the road."  The US has shown itself
        not particularly worried about the number of casualties so long as
        the world recognizes (in G. Bush's words) "What we say goes."

> And Poland was sponsoring terrorist bombings of Nazi Germany? And
> Germany attacked only those sites occupied by the (nonexistent)
> terrorists? Do you really want to continue making such foolish
> analogies?

        When the Nazis invaded Poland, they announced that they were
        "finally shooting back."  That seems to be the justification of
        choice of violent and lawless states.  It's the claim of the
        playground bully ("He hit me first!")  In the present case, the US
        claim makes a mockery of Article 51 of the UN Charter.  It's
        obvious that the bombings of Afghanistan and Sudan are violations
        of international law.

> If genocide was our goal, why didn't we carpet bomb Khartoum? Stick to
> the original question, or I'll simply conclude that you have nothing
> intelligent to say.

        The US has found that terrorism, judiciously applied, is usually
        sufficient -- especially under an umbrella of constant threat.
        Consider Nicaragua.

> If this kind of silly argument is what I am in store for, I'm not going
> to bother replying further.

        That's good of you.

        --C. G. Estabrook