F. Leon Wilson asks:

> Whom do Chomskyites believe?  And:  Why?

Tresy Kilbourne snipes:

    >>  Robert G Goodby writes:
    >> I'm not sure why Tresy is so willing to accept the US govt line

  > ... 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

Or:  3) that US intimidation of Africans takes an African target to
terrorize, so,
yeah, gratuitous AND bad intelligence.
I don't believe Kilbourne believing pap.  Why?  Because I can think of
a plausible explanation that's not his or theirs (ours).
Besides upbriding Africans, the Sudan target targetted Saddam -- doubly
endowed.  Moreover, I believe it had or could soon have produced whatever
binary weapon component is alleged, if it wasn't, instant.  As, I believe, are
others, also.  Still, and just:  The attack was more wrong than right.

I do believe myself.  Why?  Events fit my understanding, and vice versa.

  > 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 ...

We're talking about the unreliability of bygone explanations.  Israeli-centric
statements are among the most unreliable.  Illegal international adventurism,
martial sorties and forays, defines indignity.

  > Sometimes even the most loathesome
  > national security apparatus really does something useful.

No, loathesome is an end itself.  If it's your poison, have your "useful."
Drink deep.

    >> But I hold my government to a higher standard ...

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

Falsely spoken, and I don't know the reference.  Spell out again
what standard you elect that is "higher" than belligerence and brutality,
omnidirected.  So far, quite clearly, your letters say:  Hate:  you vote for it.

    >> If their WERE chemical weapons at the Khartoum
    >> factory ... imagine the consequences

   > An interesting point.

A macabre specter.

    > Perhaps we already know, in that the alleged
    > chemicals were there but nothing happened.
    > ... conclusions on this issue are speculative at this point.

Probably it was known non-productive, but potentiating.
Speculation done right is right.


     >> ... the Afghanistan targets, it seems the US hit a real medley ...

   > Bet bin Leden's minions feel otherwise, though, don't you?

Details as distractions.  The US directed an illegal invasion of Afghan
sovereignty.  The US is the lesser for it.

   > 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?

Here the bullyboot's bared.  It's the rightist reflex to go goony and defiant
when phony good and debate are outed.

Few might know this, and otherwise resist rejecting it prima facie:
Kilbourne's selected words and grammatical construct choices are
unselfconsciously and absent-mindedly modelled after Rush Limbaugh's.
"Hmmm?  Could it be ...?"  It could.  It is.

But refreshing to find vocabulary and spelling in one place anymore.

   > To repeat what I say elsewhere I would love to see ... a
   > cruise missile up the ass, and I suspect you would too.

More rightist snowjob over knowjob.  Eat glass and call your radio programmer.

No, we "would too" not.  Yes, of course you suspect it:  you (rightists)
completely project it.

Realize there is life beyond bombs.  Melt them into plowshares.
The world is round.  It's not yours to own.  Own yourself and it's yours.

   > It would be a great day for Cubans and for the powerless worldwide.
   > So my position is consistent.

Indulging meek transcends power.  Your prattle is constant.

   > Your position is that the strong shouldn't do what you
   > secretly wish the weak would do but can't ...

There you go again.  That's not our position.  And people are not
"secretly wishing" anything; those words glimpse of your own interior.
Get a grip.  Everything is okay.  The war is over.  Settle down.
Peace works.  Chill.  You don't get more land.  You don't get to --
better yet, you don't want to -- take what you like without earning it.
Pay yourself some credit, you've earned it.  There's no threat to you,
threaten not.


Tresy Kilbourne derides:

   > Dan Koenig writes:

     >> Tresy, terrorism as in ... ? ? ?

   > [blah blah blah]
   > You forgot our genocide against the Native population. So what?

It hasn't been forgotten.  That's so what.

    > Does that deprive us ...?

Yes.

    > I don't care about the US government; I care about ordinary people
like myself ...

Truth be told.  Which clause is the "higher standard," (from above)?

    > The general stupidity of responses such as the above to my ...
    > ... opinion convinces me that there is no prospect ...
    > The Chomsky list can now return to its former state of torpor.

Again:  Good spelling; valuable vocabulary, vapidly spent.
You're a jerk, as in:  Pavlovian reflex, uh, reflux.

Was torpor, continues torpor.  You got that right.


Tresy Kilbourne pipes up:

   > jf noonan writes:

     >> Such faith ....

   > Such credulousness in the claims of thugs who would happily blow yoru
   > head off  ...

Pipe down.