Moral equivalence
Saree Makdisi, professor of English, is a shining example of the disgusting moral desolation of the apologists, writing in the LA Times that terrorism is A-OK.
Makdisi writes "suicide bombing is merely a tactic used by those who lack other means of delivering explosives". Futhermore, that we are indifferent to civilian casualties and that "'collateral damage' is the inevitable result of choosing to go to war".
Um, no. Suicide bombing is a tactic employed by terrorists that care nothing for the military value of the target, but are only concerned with spreading as much innocent suffering as possible. Also, collateral damage is the inevitable result of putting military targets immediately next to civilian populations for the express purpose of using civilians as human shields.
Makdisi furthers his calumny by mocking our use of uniforms in battle, calling them "smart uniforms and shiny weapons". Apparently, the whole purpose of us distinguishing our military from our civilians to protect them means nothing. He would rather have battles where anyone could be the enemy in order to maximize random bloodshed.
His final stupidity is just too much, claiming that "Iraq was first invaded in 1991, not 2003". It's clear that history is not his area of expertise. Indeed, children probably have a better understanding that
1) Iraq invaded Kuwait and killed Americans in the process
2) We liberated Kuwait at their request
3) We did not invade Iraq
He also blames the Western sanctions against Iraq following Iraq's defeat as the cause of the deaths of a million Iraqis, nevermind that it was Saddam that took the profits from UNSCAM and bought palaces with it, instead of feeding his population.
How in the world is this guy a professor?
posted by Craptacular @ 8:13 PM
1 comments
1 Comments:
Perhaps you ought to hone your knowledge of history. In a sense, Iraq was invaded back in 1991. Iraq was arbitrarily divided by the west in the earlier part of the previous century. Using militaristic and unification logic, Saddam was just taking back what was historically part of Iraq. What if Saddam divided the u.s. between north and south? Firstly, you wouldn't think that he had a right to do so. Secondly, you would think that it was your right to reunify the two parts of what you consider a 'whole'.
Finally, the professor's points are very sharp indeed. He talks about what is right and wrong whereas you talk about what is right and wrong after taking the double-standards encouraged by 'patriotism' as the supreme virtue.
Post a Comment
<< Home