> Zak McGregor wrote:
>
> >Sorry Doug, but I really thought we could have had much better from
> you
> >than your unconscienable stance of supporting this barbarism
>
> I do not fucking support this barbarism. Do you think adjectives like
> "brutal," "stupid," and "indiscriminate" indicate support?
Nope, but this suggests that you're only against it because it isn't quite precise enough. Oh, and because the USofA made most of the weaponry. Did I get it wrong then? Perhaps you could expand on what exactly you *did* have in mind?
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 19:12:45 -0400 To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> Subject: Re: Anti-War Movements Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
>The current attack on Afghanistan is not unilateral but
>multilateral: the USA, the UK, Russia, Pakistan, Iran, Japan, etc.
>What, then, is your reason not to support it?
Because it's indiscriminate and brutal. Massive bombing isn't what I had in mind. And the weaponry is almost all American.