?

Log in

current entries friends' entries archives about me Previous Previous Next Next
The first casualty of war is grammar. - cellophane
the story of an invisible girl
renniekins
renniekins
The first casualty of war is grammar.
Saying "We will destroy terrorism" is about as meaningful as saying: "We shall annihilate mockery."
...
Nobody seems to have told the President that the horrors of September were perpetrated with little more than a couple of dozen box-cutters.
...
And what is meant by: "We mustn't give in to the terrorists"? We gave in to them the moment the first bombs fell on Afghanistan.
(excepts from a great article by Terry Jones...found link from guingel)
read 2 comments | talk to me!
Comments
guingel From: guingel Date: April 5th, 2002 11:29 am (UTC) (Link)
glad you liked it :)
cannibal From: cannibal Date: April 8th, 2002 10:55 am (UTC) (Link)
I utterly agree with Terry Jones, and am rather sad about it. It's difficult or impossible to accomplish anything real in Bush's position, so he set out to wage a PR war to make himself look effective. The majority of Americans, myself included, wanted him to bomb something... but talking to a Russki friend I learned that they'd already bombed every target in Afghanistan pretty much into the dark ages, and it hadn't done any good. The good thing about Afghanistan is that you're not going to actually do much damage bombing there. The bad thing is that it's a huge kettle of worms, the Russki Vietnam. Of course, if I had been in Bush's position I would've reacted in the heat of passion (always a bad thing to do) and made sure nobody could go on a pilgramage to Mecca until the radioactivity died down in a couple hundred years. That actually would have hurt the people responsible, and is the only comparable symbol to the WTC for islamic fundies (most of the Taliban are actually from Saudi, where Mecca is, which is a sort-of ally of ours that treats their people just as horribly as Afghanistan). Good thing I'm not the President. He could have given them a month's warning, allowing all the sane people to get out... but that's another kettle of worms, and actually lowering himself to their level much more than he actually did.

Is it stupid to want the President to do something that actually has a real effect, rather than what's good for PR value? He could've given all the money and materiel we're using to Israel, said, "hey, we've got a problem, solve it", and probably have been about 900% more effective, just at a guess, but that would have been admitting that we're against the terrorists and pro-Israel. Can't actually take a solid stand, that's politics!
read 2 comments | talk to me!