> From: Marvin Long, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Mon, 24 Sep 2001, The Fool wrote:
>
> > The eithipians starve because they are poor and have bad famines /
> > climate conditions. Iraqies starve because they will not overthrow
the
> > dictators who build huge palaces and live in luxury. They could eat
if
> > they overthew the government, but they wont. The Taliban arrests
U.N.
> > aid workers trying to feed the populous.
>
> Isn't this blaming the victims? What's the difference between this
> assertion--it's the people's fault for not rising up en masse against
> soldiers' guns and in spite of a dictator's web of of ubiquitous
The Eithiopians are not victims, they are poor, and need help. The
Iraqis Get assistance, but It never reaches the people because of the
Iraqi government. The Afgans were getting U.N. assistance. The U.S. has
never placed sanctions on Food. I didn't mean for it to be taken as
blaming the victims. Depends on the amount a propaganda a person is
subjected to. The victims blame the U.S. for why they starve, but the
U.S. is not the real reason why they starve.
> domestic informants and spies--and the assertion that Sept. 11 is
somehow
> the fault of the citizens of the US for not pressuring their government
to
> get out of Middle Eastern affairs?
U.S. actions may have contributed to the reasons for the attack, but were
not a primary causitive factor in the attacks. Attacks like these would
probably have occured if the U.S. had done nothing in the mid-east.
> Innocent Iraqis and Afghans are not "choosing" to starve. They are
> "choosing" as best they can not to be shot & have their families shot
in
> cold blood for daring to protest.
You can do nothing and starve. You can rise up and, perhaps, free
yourself. It's like a choice between multiple evils. None of the
options are good.
