Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | The philosophy, work & influences of Noam Chomsky |
Date: | Thu, 27 Aug 1998 22:10:34 -0400 |
Content-Type: | TEXT/PLAIN |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Aug 1998, Tresy Kilbourne wrote:
> F. Leon Wilson writes:
>
> >For your information . . .
> >
> Tresy Kilbourne wrote:
> I am well aware of the news article. Even if it were conclusive of
> anything--it isn't--it doesn't get you off the hook.
>
> Skepticism about whether the plant produced nerve gas is fine; I don't
> want military actions to be justified on the attacker's say-so
> alone--but skepticism implies that the attacks would be justified if the
> facts are as alleged.
F. Leon Wilson writes:
This is your logic/argument. Did I say anything about "skepticism?"
Who did? -- Your logic.
There has been NO evidence to suggest that the plant produced nerve gas.
> Tresy Kilbourne wrote:
> After all, if one's argument is that the unilateral
> use of force in reprisal for a terrorist attack is never justified, then
> it doesn't matter what the facts are.
F. Leon Wilson writes:
If a terrorist act is a criminal act, then why use military force (which
kills civilians) against a criminal element?
> Tresy Kilbourne wrote:
> So why try to prettify them? The Left should say,
F. Leon Wilson writes:
What do you mean by the "Left?"
> Tresy Kilbourne wrote:
> "it doesn't matter if the Shifa plant was making nerve
> gas that would be deployed in the near future against civilian
> populations, or if the Taliban were training thousands of suicide bombers
> in Afghanistan to carry out further attacks against people like you and
> me; the only legitimate recourse for the US is taking the matter to the
> UN and watching it get jawboned to death for years while the VX goes
> operational."
F. Leon Wilson writes:
What is the U.S. doing to create these conditions?
You need to provide details befire making such general statements.
> Tresy Kilbourne wrote:
> Then you would be making a truly principled argument.
F. Leon Wilson writes:
You mean an argument with facts?
> Tresy Kilbourne wrote:
> Of course, many sane people would find your principles completely
> unpersuasive.
>
> That the Left doesn't make this argument I think further reinforces its
> image among ordinary people as a bunch of armchair moralizers who aren't
> willing to own up to the consequences of their own moralizing.
F. Leon Wilson writes:
What?
> Tresy Kilbourne wrote:
> Thought exercise: if it is shown that the plant DID produce or contribute
> to the production of nerve gas, would your opinion of the strikes change?
> If not, then why introduce an irrelevant issue?
F. Leon Wilson writes:
You need to see the big picture.
What is the U.S. doing to provoke such actions?
|
|
|