You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #76: I think it's premature to be confident this was not intentional [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
ultraist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-08-05 05:46 PM
Response to Original message
76. I think it's premature to be confident this was not intentional
Edited on Tue Mar-08-05 05:47 PM by ultraist
A few observations:

I don’t know his age, his rank, where he is from, where he trained. I am confident, however, that he did not join the military to shoot journalists and Italian secret service agents. The fact that this happened speaks to the fear that this soldier must endure because his Commander in Chief has dropped him into a meat grinder with a very large gun.

"He did not join the military to shoot Italian SS agents."

The soldier's original motive for joining the military proves it wasn't intentional? ummm...I believe soldiers of his rank merely take orders. Furthermore, I don't think anyone assumes this was an arbitrary action of one soldier.

This soldier was fated to shoot Calipari man from the moment Bush and his people chose to invade Iraq come hell or high water. He was fated to shoot Calipari since Bush and his people began their campaign of lies about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, al Qaeda connections, and about the threat to the world posed by that country. He was fated to shoot Calipari since the decision was made to raze Fallujah to the ground, an action which motivated Sgrena to go there and report on it, an action that placed Calipari inexorably into the path of that bullet.

He was "fated" to shoot Calipari due to the "Bush's campaign of lies?" How does that disprove that he was not ordered to do so? If Bush's war is based on a "campaign of lies" it's seem reasonable to consider that this incident was yet another dishonest and corrupt move. I find that paragraph very vague and overly emotive.

Sorry, but I don't see any compelling evidence in this essay to convince me to give the corrupt Bush administration the benefit of the doubt at this point.

I'm withholding judgment on this until more facts are revealed. But, I tend to distrust Bush and work out from there rather than operate from the premise that it's unlikely the Bush admin would do such a thing. I simply cannot dismiss the possibility that it was intentional by chalking it up to "fate" or the 'motive the soldier had for joining the military.'

I'm not a writer, but as a reader, I did not find this particular essay convincing. I do enjoy your work though, Wil!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC