> From the New York Times today. I find it interesting how
"self-defense" is
> brought in as a justification for unilateral bombing...in the
absence of
> any actual attack. The mere imagination of a threat suffices.
There's no
> actual ethics involved here...just the logic of what one can get
away with.
>
> Joanna Bujes
=======
Aggressors have always loved the pre-emptive self defense linguistic
maneuver. It's their attempt to engage in self deception as much as
anything else. How many men of state [and others] want to admit they
enjoy aggression and telling others to engage in the same?
Ian