No remorse
Here's a scathing condemnation of the callous lack of remorse shown by U.S. leaders over our errant missle attack on Pakistan last week, which left 12 women and children dead, courtesy of Derrick Z. Jackson at Common Dreams. Jackson concludes:
(Also, be sure to read David Corn's comments on this, and Mr. Bush's definition of "acceptable debate", at TomPaine.com)
The airstrike in Pakistan reaffirms how our behavior is plummeting in the direction of the evil we proclaim to fight. At home, we are appalled by drive-by shootings that take out innocent children. Abroad, the fly-by airstrike is the source of no remorse, with dead children and mothers taken very lightly.Good God! With each passing day I recognize America less and less. How much longer will we retain a government that believes its "war" excuses every sort of intolerable act imaginable?
(Also, be sure to read David Corn's comments on this, and Mr. Bush's definition of "acceptable debate", at TomPaine.com)
posted by Bob P @ 2:25 AM
4 Comments:
I have to admit that the most troubling thing about this to me is that all I've consistently read in the media is what a terrible tragedy this was because the "intended targets weren't there."
But either way, these same civilian casualties would have happened - and no one seemes to be noting that. It's only a tragedy because the "bad guys" weren't there too.
Guess it would have all been okay if it was simply collateral damage associated with the death of a "target".
How much longer will we retain a government that believes its "war" excuses every sort of intolerable act imaginable?
I'm afraid the answer is as long as we continue to believe that some children's lives are less precious than others.
Imagine this attack happening in London, or Toronto, or San Francisco. It's unthinkable.
Hasn't it been proven now that at least three al-queda leaders were amongst those killed? If it not our fault that these cowards hide amongst innocent civilians that have nothing to do with Terrorism.
Are you contending, derrick, that this fact makes those collateral deaths OK? Are you among the self-righteous apologists who believe that this is a justifiable way to "spread democracy and freedom" or "win hearts and minds"? Are you really saying that the ends justify the means - no matter who gets hurt in the process?!
And that somehow, even if we accept your premise that the al Qaeda operatives were "cowards" for living among these villagers, the U.S. has a green light to indiscriminately wield its might and slaughter those villagers as well? What a deplorable, arrogant, unethical position to take.
Let's put it another way. Several known Gambino family enforcers are discovered dining at a popular Manhattan restaurant. The intelligence, as they say in the trade, is actionable. Coincidentally, your cousin and his family are dining at that same establishment on that same evening.
In the interest of "justice and security" SWAT teams armed with shoulder mounted rockets fire on the restaurant from a removed location. Of course, they kill their intended targets. At the same time, 12 other patrons including your cousin and his family, are blown to bits as well.
I take it from your comment that you would be in agreement with this egregious action, because after all, it was carried out for "the greater good." Is this the theoretical position you really wish to defend here?
I strongly suggest you reconsider your obedient approval of the U.S. missle strike, and, forgetting for a moment the political affiliation of those behind it, and reacting instead as a sane and compassionate human being, that you see this situation for what it is. And that, sir, is yet another case of the Bush Administration brandishing a chain saw where a penknife would have sufficed.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home