[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: