On 18 Jan 2006 at 16:50, Denys Beauchemin wrote:

> Well, as usual you recall wrong.  The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was
> to support a puppet communist regime.  

One diplomatic excuse is much like another, the USSR invaded to 
support a regime, the USA to topple one.  Both are cover stories for 
implementing foreign policies operating under a misconceived belief 
that violence will lead to a durable peace in the absence of other 
accommodations.

> Osama bin Laden was never under the tutelage of the USA.  He denied
> getting any support from the US 

So how is it that he operated recruiting centres in Detroit and NYC 
during the 1980s?  Osama is now a reputable source?  Certainly, he 
could have no reason to deny a past connection with the great satan 
now, could he?

> There were seven dead and four wounded. A US Navy (not USAF) F-14
> bombed the building where three men who had been observed planting a
> bomb had entered.  .

AP, Reuters, WP, and ABC have variously reported the number of deaths 
 from a low of six to a high of fourteen.  Iraqbodycount.com reports 
a minimum of 8 and a maximum of 12 deaths for this incident.  A 
relative of the the victims who serves in the Iraqi security forces 
reported that twelve of his family members had been killed.  US 
military authorities were unable to confirm that they had direct 
intelligence that anyone had actually entered entered the house or 
were present when the bombs struck or even that a bomb had been 
planted. What they had was evidence of suspicious activity that 
conformed with the profile of people planning to plant a bomb.  
Hardly the sort of evidence that warrants taking the life of a ten 
year old child.  The US did confirm that no post-strike ground survey 
was undertaken or planned.  

> I seriously doubt that a Maverick missile was used for this attack; it
> was probably a GBU-32 JDAM, which is a GPS guided bomb as they are
> exceedingly accurate. 

Your fascination and familiarity with military hardware is duly 
noted.

>  ... and the US military is trying very hard to minimize civilian casualties. 

I suggest then that they refrain from using aerial bombing as a 
method of establishing civil order.  What is next, poison gas?

> The rest of your message makes no sense; I would never let terrorists
> enter my house after they planted a bomb.

This statement presumes that at 10:30 p.m. you are awake and aware 
that three men have entered your home, that you are in possession of 
the knowledge that they had in fact planted a bomb and that you 
possess the means to enforce your will against three presumably armed 
intruders.   However,  even granting this astonishing set of 
circumstances; what if you are not there, armed and ready to defend  
against all comers, and armed men forcibly enter your home against 
the wishes of your family?  Would you agree then that an airstrike 
against all of the inhabitants is a suitable and measured response?  
What if they left before the bomb truck arrived.  Would bombing still 
be acceptable?  

I have often found myself subject to the exigencies of life and few 
were the occasions where my will had any influence on events.  You 
are indeed fortunate to be able to control the fates to such a degree 
and to anticipate with such certainty the outcome.

The home that was bombed was attacked on suspicion and not on certain 
knowledge. A large number of civilians, apparently all women and 
children, were either killed outright or severely, perhaps mortally, 
wounded. Several neighbours were seriously injured in nearby homes, 
these people had no evident involvement with anything even mildly 
suspicious, they just lived next store to a target.  There are no 
reports that any adult males were listed among the casualties, which 
is more than passing strange if any were actually in the house at the 
time of the attack. If none were present at the time of the attack 
then this was just an act of malevolent violence without any 
discernible legal or military objective.  If any were then it still 
displays an appalling indifference for the lives of innocents caught 
up in events not of their making.

The United States of America has accepted the legal responsibilities 
of an occupying power under the Geneva Conventions which means that 
this sort of willful and reckless mayhem is far, far over the line of 
criminal responsibility.  

> I did not hear a thing from you condemning the suicide bomber that killed
> 30 people on January 3 in a funeral procession in Muqdadiya, Iraq.

As I tell my children, that others do wrong is no justification for 
ones own impropriety.  But, since you raised the issue, just how many 
suicide bombers attacked funerals in Iraq in 2002?, 2001? 2000? 	In 
fact, how many suicide attacks of all forms took place in Iraq 
between 1993 and 2003? 

Yes, Saddam Hussien was an evil man who killed tens of thousands of 
Iraqis in his thirty years in power. GWB has only managed to kill 
about 31,000 since 2003, but he still has another two years to catch 
up.  

-- 

***     e-mail is NOT a secure channel     ***
James B. Byrne                mailto:ByrneJB.<token>@Harte-Lyne.ca
Harte & Lyne Limited          http://www.harte-lyne.ca
9 Brockley Drive              vox: +1 905 561 1241
Hamilton, Ontario             fax: +1 905 561 0757
Canada  L8E 3CE               delivery <token> = hal

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *