[lit-ideas] Re: the bombing blues
- From: Eric Yost <Mr.Eric.Yost@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2005 03:10:52 -0400
In any case, it doesn't change that there's an enormous outpouring of
sympathy and outrage for one act of terror in London, and none, count
'em, none, for the years of daily terror that Iraqis have endured
because Bush fired at the wrong target for the wrong reason.
___
You express a classic "post hoc ergo prompter hoc" fallacy.
Bush started a poorly-executed and disastrously followed-up war based on
faulty intelligence, and then lied about his motives. That set the stage
for a geopolitical struggle in which innocent people's lives were
factors of little account, but where their deaths were used as important
tallies in the struggle.
However, if, for example,Iranian-financed insurgents try to murder
Ayatollah Sistani, you want to trace that to Bush. That's just plain
loony. Bush may have provided the preconditions for the geopolitical
terror game as it is now played, but the blame is with the individuals
who commit the various atrocities and on the various powers who fund and
train those who kill Egyptians, Iraqis, Americans, Japanese, Brits, etc.
By your reasoning, the man who assassinated the Archduke Ferdinand was
responsible for every life lost in World War I.
Even that aside, what makes you think there is no sympathy for the
suffering of Iraqis? There's plenty of sympathy on this list, in this
country, in Europe, and also among the US and UK soldiers who daily face
IED blasts while attempting to prop up the civil order in Iraq. Or do
you have a vested interest in only citing counterexamples?
Best,
Eric
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
