Robert G Goodby writes:

>I'm not sure why Tresy is
>so willing to accept the US govt line on these attacks; surely it's not
>due to the long history of accuracy and honesty accompanying official
>explanations of  US military strikes?

My *provisional* acceptance of the "line" on the Sifa plant is based on
the relative implausibility of alternative explanations: 1) that we just
picked the plant out of the phone book for gratuitous attack or 2) that
we recklessly concluded that the plant was chemical based on bad
intelligence and thus handed bin Laden a great propaganda victory.

While we are talking about reliability of explanations for past
international incidents, it might pay to recall Israel's attack on Iraq's
nuclear reactor in 1981. The Left waxed highly indignant about this
flouting of international law and the supposed phoniness of the pretext
in that case, and guess what? It really was being used to produce
weapons-grade nuclear material. Sometimes even the most loathesome
national security apparatus really does something useful.
>Sure, the bombers of the African embassies were criminals and scumbags.
>But I hold my government to a higher standard than I expect of its
>opponents.

So do I, and I have spelled out the differences in this case elsewhere.

>These precipitous missile strikes, notable departures from past
>responses in their haste, are hard to differentiate morally. I doubt the
>embassy bombers were targeting Africans--if so, why hit US embassies?
>They simply didn't worry about a little "collateral damage", to use our
>term. Nor did the US. If their WERE chemical weapons at the Khartoum
>factory (and there seemingly weren't; see below) imagine the consequences
>for the residents of that city.

An interesting point. Perhaps we already know, in that the alleged
chemicals were there but nothing happened. Movies are always showing us
dynamite exploding from gunfire, but that's fiction. So might the
supposition that the attack would unleash nerve gas. Surely the press has
asked that question? In the meantime, why wasn't that Sudan's primary
argument--that the lack of nerve gas fallout proved there was no nerve
gas in the first place? Obviously any conclusions on this issue are
speculative at this point.
>Tresy's claim that a second plant was
>avoided to spare civilians seems to be based on post-hoc justifications
>from US policey spinners, and I see no need to take it seriously. Although
>I also wonder about the source of this claim--I haven't seen it in any of
>the news dispatches I've read.

It's in the same Observer coverage that the posted article on this list
came from. Hardly the most pro-US periodical imaginable.
>
>As far as the Afghanistan targets, it seems the US hit a real medley of
>"terrorists", including some fighting in the Kashmir. I hardly feel safer
>as a result.
Bet bin Leden's minions feel otherwise, though, don't you? Pretty feeble
indignation there, Robert. What happened to all the lofty principles
involved? Hmmm? Could it be that some reprisals aren't as bad as others?
>
>Chomsky's main point hasn't been challenged: are all the countries
>victimized by US, US-sponsored, or US-based terrorist attacks entitled to
>strike targets in the US?? If not, than clearly there is a double standard
>at work.

To repeat what I say elsewhere I would love to see CANF and Omega 7 get a
cruise missile up the ass, and I suspect you would too. It would be a
great day for Cubans and for the powerless worldwide. So my position is
consistent. Your position is that the strong shouldn't do what you
secretly wish the weak would do but can't because of their weakness.
That's not a moral position at all. That's hypocrisy.


______________________________________________________________
PGP Keys  <mailto:[log in to unmask]>