> [Original Message] > From: Eric Yost <Mr.Eric.Yost@xxxxxxxxx> > To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: 7/9/2005 3:10:34 AM > Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: the bombing blues > > 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. > A.A. I said nothing like the above. My point was that there is little, usually no, mention in the non-blog media of the extreme daily terrorism going on in Iraq. When it is discussed by pundits, it's defended as either necessary for the march to freedom, or as being not caused by Americans, etc. There are rationalizations, explanations, justifications, but no sympathy or empathy. Not only is no one bringing Bush to task for setting the stage for global mayhem, he is overtly defended by people in red states (Marlena's post, among other sources) as having done the right thing to bring the war "over there". There is no coverage in the media of Iraqi misery. Since the media is driven by what sells, the conclusion is that Americans and others don't want to hear it. In the meantime, one incident in London draws extraordinary attention. I would argue too that terrorists do what they do in large part to get attention. The media has been historically very accommodating of them in that regard. Regarding attempts to murder Sistani, shit happens with or without Bush. But, Bush is responsible for turning a smoldering campfire into an out of control conflagration. He did it intentionally and willfully and without a thought to consequences. We call it Pandora's Box because Pandora was responsible for opening it against warnings not to. This is Bush's war for which he is directly, 100% responsible. BTW, if the insurgency could place an ad in the NYT, it might read something like "Looking to learn terrorism? Come to Iraq! We offer hands on training, certification, practice in all aspects of terrorism. Real live experience in bomb making, infiltration and everything a terrorist needs to know for use in your application. No need to call or write folks, just walk on in, you'll find us very accommodating. Remember, you'll walk in disaffected ... you'll walk out, a Terrorist." Is it not disingenuous to hold insurgents responsible for their actions while letting off Bush and his administration off the hook for their actions? > By your reasoning, the man who assassinated the Archduke Ferdinand was > responsible for every life lost in World War I. > A.A. Not at all. WWI was a powder keg waiting for a match, a bunch of belligerent nations itching to rumble. The invasion of Iraq was done against worldwide protests, by barely scraping together a "coalition"; against the advice of the very army that was to do the invading. My reasoning is more like blaming King George for his arrogance and obtuseness in dealing with the American colonies. The 13 American colonies were a bunch of ill equipped, untrained rag tag insurgents who against all odds stood up to and defeated the best trained, most powerful army in the world of arguably the most powerful nation in the world. > 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? > > A.A. For starters, there is virtually no mention of it on television. If anything, there was a film in the making supposedly shot by Iraqis themselves that was to show that things are good there. I don't know what happened to that film. Plus all the hype and back patting about the war being "over there", as if "over there" is some unpopulated virtual place. Do you see sympathy in that? When the report came out that there were 100,000 civilian casualties since the invasion, some groups maintained that it was anti-American propaganda. Now it turns out that Bush & Co. may even be downplaying American casualties. If there are displays of sympathy or empathy, they are meager and/or closely held. Certainly nothing like what London received. Andy Amago > Best, > Eric > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, > digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html