On Selective Pacifism & other Oddities

[Abe]

At 06:01 PM 11/29/01 -0500, Joe R. Golowka wrote:
>  Where were you on September 11?
<<and the below article by the Guardian.  The Bush administration is just
using it to push through what they were going to do anyway.  9-11 could
well have been a pre-emptive strike against the looming invasion.  The US
is the aggressor, having attacked numerous other countries.  By the UN
charter 9-11 is justified as self-defense due to US Imperialism.>>

According to this article, the US threatened Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The article implies that it was bin Laden and his al Qaeda organization
that committed the September 11th plane bombings.
However, you offer evidence that the passengers weren't on the plan and
question whether an al Qaeda related group did it at all.

This is a classic case of justified war on both sides. One nation wants
something done. It tries to get its way through normal diplomatic channels.
The other nation doesn't comply and, in fact, feels threatened. So, the
threatened nations attacks the other, as a pre-emptive strike. The
threatening nation now has a reason to carry out its plans.

Thanks for pointing that out: the US was attacked by an enemy that thought
that the best thing to do in response to a threat was to pre-emptively
attack the non-combatants in the threatening (not acting) agent's country.
Sounds like  something that the U.N. would not approve at all. What do you
suppose the U.N. thinks when a country allows agents within its country to
use terrorism as a purported  act of "self-defense"?

_____________________________________________
Free email with personality! Over 200 domains!
http://www.MyOwnEmail.com