On May 14, 2010, at 1:38 PM, Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> On May 14, 2010, at 1:07 PM, Carrol Cox wrote:
> The 'facts' of 9/11 are irrelevant...
>
for Carrol facts are *always* irrelevant
> Yup. If you have to base your arguments against imperial war on the
> exposure of a "conspiracy," then you're making the wrong argument.
>
And exactly how can you argue against something when you completely
accept the rationale for it?
Could you say "the Spaniards blew up the Maine" and expect much
support for opposition to the Spanish-American war? Obama prates
about 9/11 as the reason--the only reason--for the Afghanistan war.
How can you say--as you do--that "Al Qaeda," sheltered by Taliban,
attacked "us"
but "we" shouldn't retaliate or prevent a future attack? If the war is
defensive, how can you call it "imperial?"
Shane Mage
The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.
Joe Stack (1956-2010)