(no subject)

[Stephen E Philion]

Now you're just trying to convince us that Chomsky's argument is one of
moral equivalence. Pathetic, that has nothing to do with Chomsky's
argument.  Like I said, if more people had acted like Chomsky in the
1980's, well maybe you wouldn't have to worry about your daughter's safety
from terrorist attacks. I think your support for the CIA's role in
Afghanistan in the 1980's and your support for retaliation contribute to
the very disaster that you've been forced to react to this week.

In reality you're angry at Chomsky for not supportinng the war machine.
There are sound moral arguments  for doing that, which you cast as
unpatriotic.  I wish more people were unpatriotic when we were militarily
and financially supporting the  'forces of freedom' in Afghanistan 20
years ago...

Steve

 On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 LeoCasey at aol.com wrote:


> And one last point on the nature of the exchange here: what a grand irony
> that the very folks who injected race into the discussion, by labelling as
> racist a rejection of Chomsky's moral equivalence between an act that took
> one life, and was designed to minimize the loss of innocent human life,
> with an act that took thousands upon thousands of innocent life, and was
> designed to maximize the loss of innocent life, now complain about being
> race baited. Imagine the chutzpah of someone like me that I might actually
> respond to such a charge.
>
>
> Leo Casey
> United Federation of Teachers
> 260 Park Avenue South
> New York, New York 10010-7272
> 212-98-6869
>
> Power concedes nothing without a demand.
> It never has, and it never will.
> If there is no struggle, there is no progress.
> Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation are men who
> want crops without plowing the ground. They want rain without thunder and
> lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its waters.
> -- Frederick Douglass --
>
> .
>
>