-Caveat Lector- <A HREF="">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>

http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

--- Begin Message ---
-Caveat Lector-

Mr Bush goes for the kill

Online commentary:  There is a "moral case" for taking out Saddam.  But
what about everybody else?

Terry Jones Sunday March 9, 2003

Mr.  Bush is right, Saddam Hussein is a nasty man and nobody I know has the
least objection to Mr.  Bush killing him.  It's just the way he proposes
doing it that worries me.  Dropping 3000 bombs in 48 hours on Baghdad is
going to kill a lot of other people who, as far as I am aware, are not
nasty at all.

That's the bit of the 'moral' argument I don't follow.  It's a bit like the
police saying they know a murderer comes from the south of England so they
are going to execute everybody in Epsom.

Then again why does Mr.  Bush need to drop 3000 bombs on Saddam Hussein?  I
would have thought one would have been enough to take him out, if he knows
where Saddam is.  And if he doesn't know where he is, what on earth is the
moral justification for dropping any bombs at all?  Doesn't Mr.  Bush
realise they are dangerous things and tend to kill people when they land?

Or does Mr Bush simply enjoy the idea of taking out a lot of Iraqis?  I
appreciate Mr.  Bush's argument that because Saddam Hussein has refused to
take any notice of the UN, Mr.  Bush should teach him a lesson by dropping
a lot of bombs on him.  But now he's telling us that if the UN won't give
him permission to do it, he's jolly well going to drop a lot of bombs on
Saddam anyway.  In which case won't Mr.  Bush be guilty of the same thing
he's accusing Saddam Hussein of?  Apparently not because, according to the
President's advisers, if the United Nations won't give him permission to
drop a lot of bombs on Saddam Hussein, it will have ceased to be a
Responsible World Organization and therefore he doesn't need to take any
notice of it.

But doesn't the same thing go for Saddam Hussein?  If the United Nations
ceases to be a Responsible World Organization how can the fact that Saddam
Hussein has refused to take any notice of it be something so evil that it
justifies dropping bombs on the poor people living under his heel?

And that's another thing - everyone seems to be very certain that dropping
a lot of bombs on Baghdad will get rid of Saddam Hussein.  But will it?  -
any more than devastating Afghanistan (and killing maybe 20,000 people) got
rid of Al-Qaeda?  A recent UN report reckons that if and when the US starts
bombing as many as 100,000 Iraqis will die.

I can't really believe that the President of the United States gets his
rocks off by having people killed.  That's more like Saddam Hussein.

And yet it worries me that Mr.  Bush says that one of the reasons he wants
to kill a lot of Iraqis is because Saddam Hussein has also been killing
them.  Is there some sort of rivalry here?

Back in 1988 Saddam killed several thousand at once, in the town of
Halabjah.  Since then he's been carrying on the good work, but on a
piecemeal basis.  In fact, for all I know, since his 1988 spree, he may not
have killed any more of his own citizens than George W.  Bush did as
Governor of Texas.  When Mr.  Bush became Governor in 1995, the average
number of executions per year was 7.6.  Mr.  Bush succeeded in quadrupling
this to a magnificent 31.6 per year.  He must have had the terrible chore
of personally signing over 150 death warrants while he was Governor.  I
suppose the advantage of killing Iraqis is that you don't have to sign a
piece of paper for every one of them.  Just one quick scribble and - bingo!
You can kill a hundred thousand and no questions asked!  What's more,
nobody is going to quibble about some of them being mentally retarded or
juveniles, which is what happened to George W.  Bush when he was Governor
of Texas.

I'm not saying that George W.  Bush shouldn't be allowed to kill as many
people as he wants.  After all he is the unelected leader of the most
powerful country on earth, so if he can't do anything he likes, who can?

And, in the years to come, we can confidently look forward to a lot more
killing all over the world - certainly a lot more than ever Saddam Hussein
managed in his own country.

� Terry Jones writes regularly for The Observer.  To all those readers who
have written in to ask if this Terry Jones had anything to do with Monty
Python, the answer is yes.




_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail


Please let us stay on topic and be civil.
To unsubscribe please go to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cia-drugs
-Home Page- www.cia-drugs.org
OM

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
 <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>

http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
 <A HREF="http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

--- End Message ---

Reply via email to