Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S279227AbRJWDzJ>; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 23:55:09 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S279231AbRJWDy7>; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 23:54:59 -0400
Received: from io.frii.com ([216.17.128.3]:25612 "EHLO io.frii.com")
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id <S279230AbRJWDyr>;
	Mon, 22 Oct 2001 23:54:47 -0400
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 21:55:06 -0600
From: Nicholas Dronen <ndronen@frii.com>
To: Steven Walter <srwalter@yahoo.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Linux 2.2.20pre10
Message-ID: <20011022215506.A8234@frii.com>
In-Reply-To: <20011022122722.A369@top.worldcontrol.com> <E15vlmG-0003Ff-00@the-village.bc.nu> <20011022174502.B29445@hapablap.dyn.dhs.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i
In-Reply-To: <20011022174502.B29445@hapablap.dyn.dhs.org>; from srwalter@yahoo.com on Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 05:45:02PM -0500
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 05:45:02PM -0500, Steven Walter wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 09:34:28PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 01:29:14PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > >    "Until they become conscious they will never rebel, and until after
> > > >     they have rebelled they cannot become conscious."
> > > 
> > > While I've been generally saddened by Alan Cox's and others
> > > anti-America attitude,  I am somewhat surprised to find that
> > > Alan believes the US bombing of Afghanistan is justified and so
> > > is the collateral damage as they call it.
> > 
> > That quote is rather older than the US bombing of Afghanistan. You read 
> > totally inappropriate things into it. 
> 
> Certainly, it is not.  This statement applies to Afghanistan, in that
> the fact that they have not rebelled means they imply consent to
> everything their government does, and therefore are just as guilty as
> the Taliban.  Therefore, killing civilians (collateral damage) is no
> worse than killing terrorists or Taliban officials.  This is a stance I
> can easily subscribe to, not just with Afghanistan but with any people,
> nation, state, or country.

Rather, they have not rebelled *successfully*.  The country
is in civil war.  The Taliban are not regarded as a legitimate
government.  Until shortly after 9/11, only three governments
recognized the Taliban diplomatically -- the Wahhabist Saudi
Arabia, the militarist Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates.
(The standing representative of Afghanistan in the United Nations
is *not* of the Taliban.)

Finally, Afghani women have risked their lives and been beaten and
killed for their protests and activities.

	http://www.rawa.org/

I witnessed a film just this weekend of an Afghani woman being
shot to death by a member of the Taliban.  The film was taken
by a woman who herself risked her life by carrying a video camera
under her clothing.

So, infer what you will about Mr. Cox's statement, but don't
breezily justify the death of innocent civilians (Afghani or
otherwise) in part by disregarding such all-too-inconvenient
details.

Regards,

Nicholas Dronen
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/