Re: some U.S. observations and notes

From: Mike Lorrey (
Date: Mon Dec 17 2001 - 10:22:58 MST

Damien Broderick wrote:
> At 01:22 AM 12/14/01 EST, Spudboy100 wrote:
> >Finally, I remember responding to one of Damien Broderick's pleas for
> >American restraint (I am paraphrasing). My response was "wait until it
> >happens in Sidney, then you'll see.."
> I assume you mean Sydney. In fact, Australia *was* bombed during WW2 in
> 1942... the northern town of Darwin copped some explosives from the air.
> Hundreds were killed, hundreds more injured.
> At least one mini-submarine nosed around Sydney Harbour and Newcastle.
> I imagine that when Japanese civilians were nuked, most Aussies were
> pleased as punch. I would have felt the same, I suppose.
> The difference is that the victims' families knew that the Japanese
> government and military were responsible; there was a war on. If those
> responsible had run off to hide in China or Tibet, would those countries
> have been bombed in reprisal? Maybe.
> It's very troubling.

What is troubling is the idea that a victim would shrug things off if
the aggressor nation were sufficiently sly in its attack that nobody
could directly prove that that nation funded, sheltered, trained, and
supported the group responsible for such an attack, and that nation's
government was so directly involved that the group responsible was the
actual powerhouse behind the regieme.

Reminds me, though, of a time in the 30's, when a formerly democratic
state had been subverted by an agressive, violent, power mad group, and
used that state's resources to bomb a sleepy little hamlet known as
Guernica... the difference being that that state and regeime
acknowledged its involvement.

How does the attacker refusing to admit its guilt make it somehow less
deserving of being brought to justice? I'd say that makes it more
deserving of a fitting justice.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:27 MDT