From: Samantha Atkins <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> It would be a very weak reading of what I wrote to say I
> condoned WTC. I don't and never did. But
Ah, the obligatory "But" that must without exception follow any hint that the
WTC horror was less than a nice thing.
>I also don't condone the pretense that WTC came out of a vaccuum
If it wasn't a quantum vacuum fluctuation then yes something caused it.
Perhaps in 50 years we'll have enough historical perspective to know
what it was, perhaps in 50 years I will care what it was. I don't now.
>or the notion that we can just by using enough force eradicate all
>anger and despair in the mideast and thus make ourselves safe.
You disapprove of the method, military force, but think the goal of
eliminating anger and despair in the mideast is a proper way to make
us safe. I approve of the method but think such a goal is totally impractical.
Nobody knows how to make an entire civilization happy, if we did we'd use
it on ourselves; my goal is much more modest and we do know how to put
a bullet in the brain of those trying to kill us.
> Perhaps people should bother to understand what I have written
> before they fly into a rage.
The problem is I understand better than you what you have written.
John K Clark email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:21 MDT