RE: virus: "We will fight to defend the honor of our rocks!"

Sodom (
Mon, 29 Mar 1999 13:54:32 -0500

> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> []On Behalf
> Of Eric Boyd
> Sent: Friday, March 26, 1999 8:07 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: virus: "We will fight to defend the honor of our rocks!"
> Hi,
> Sodom <> writes:
> <<
> We know and knew Iraqs goals at the time. Their goals included gassing
> and killing civilians. How could we have been more open? What could we
> have done to help them while keeping them from killing the innocent?
> >>
> There *goals* do not include gassing civilians -- those are their
> methods. What do they hope to accomplish by doing that? How can we
> help them achieve that goal in a way which does not offend us (or the
> people in Iraq)?

Their "goal" was to eliminate a political and ethnic minority (I am speaking of the Kurds). It was not to reloacate, share or get along with them. Gassing may be the method, killing is the goal. Is that wording better?

> <<
> Standing idly by while others are systematically slaughtered is the
> same as committing the crime ourselves. In Rawanda we watched, In
> Bosnia we watched. No more watching - time to take offensive against
> gross violators of human rights.
> >>
> Doing nothing is certainly wrong; but I cannot see how we come out on
> top by lowering ourselves to their level. No matter how accurate our
> missiles and bombs are, we will kill innocents in an open force
> air-attack. If we are "pro-rights", we cannot win by violating them.
> Perhaps teams of very well equiped ground units could accomplish what
> the B-2 stealth bomber cannot. Another idea would be to send a
> massive education / propaganda team to the aggressor -- let's saturate
> them in our memes!

This is utterly unreasonable - I suppose we could have let Germany March across Europe and the world, and stayed out of it beecause we wouldn't want to violate any "German Soldiers" rights? That is what you are saying here, It doesnt matter to you what the pattern of behaviour is for a country - no matter how they act, responding withg the military is the wrong option? Is this reasonable and when this method has been tried, where are those countries now? In order to have this view you have such an incredibly niave view of the world as to make your opinion useless. You are not "lowering" yourself to that level buy fighting. Fighting is not a universal measuring stick. Fighting and making war are not inherintly wrong. By your argument, we dont need to go after killers with police, we should just be able to ask them to kindly come out and walk behind bars for us, maybe "Happy, Happy jail" messages will work?". Thats not the way it works IRL.

Its a great idea to to drop leaflets and all - but tadah - we've done that, lots of places and always the same response. Nothing. Our Memes dont work in every society, you cannot simply transplant them and get new people.

> <<
> I think you are overestimating the "grasp" of very young children or
> very dogmatic people. I dont think young children in general
> understand the concepts of death and suffering, and I dont think
> telling them will help. They do understand pain though - and pain is
> not necessarily a bad thing -although it can be used that way.
> >>
> Well, sometimes it is necessary to restrain and tell later. My point
> was that (1) if the child has enough "grasp" to understand that the
> pain was inflicted to keep it from a certain activity, it should also
> have enough grasp to understand less violent information.

Thats exactly what you "want" it to be like - you think children "should" be some way. It simply does not work like that in real life - the first thing anyone understands is need and pain, usually related. Its what teaches you to avoid the flames. If you have no understanding at all, putting your hand in the flame takes but one quick lessen, even for the most mindless.

Bill Roh