From: JNugent73@mail.com 
  
 On 18/09/2024 01:40 pm, The Todal wrote: 
 > On 18/09/2024 11:12, GB wrote: 
 >> On 17/09/2024 15:44, Roger Hayter wrote: 
 >>> On 17 Sep 2024 at 14:07:36 BST, "GB"  
 >>> wrote: 
 >>> 
 >>>> On 13/09/2024 18:39, The Todal wrote: 
 >>>> 
 >>>>> If you are against the war, join the marches. 
 >>>>> 
 >>>> 
 >>>> I'm also against what Hamas did, and the marches are ambivalent 
 >>>> about that. 
 >>> 
 >>> They're "ambivalent" about climate change and the price of petrol. I 
 >>> don't 
 >>> really understand what you're trying to say. 
 >>> 
 >> 
 >> Oh, I am sorry, but I think it's perfectly clear. 
 >> 
 > 
 > Not to me it isn't. 
 > 
 > When people marched against the Vietnam War, they as individuals will 
 > have had various thoughts in mind. The massacre of ordinary Vietnamese 
 > people. Interfering in a country that posed no threat to the USA. 
 > Perhaps for a majority, concerns that tens of thousands of young 
 > American men were being sent to the slaughter and draft-dodgers were 
 > being criminalised. 
 > 
 > But were those marches "ambivalent" about whether the Vietcong should 
 > win the war?€€ Were they "ambivalent" about whether Communism should be 
 > allowed to supplant American democracy within America?€€ Only in the 
 > minds of those who did not go on the marches and wanted America to win 
 > an important war, no matter what the cost was. 
  
 Hmmm... 
  
 It was always fairly clear that South Vietnam could not protect itself 
 against North Vietnam in the medium to long term and that North Vietnam 
 was determined to subjugate the south. Leaving the south to fight alone 
 would have resulted - as it eventually did - in a communist take-over. 
  
 Since that much WAS "perfectly clear", it's a bit rich to argue that 
 those arguing against the war weren't arguing for a communist take-over. 
 It was absolutely inevitable if South Vietnam was left to its own 
 devices. Wasn't it Kant who pointed out that one must be taken to will 
 the ends of whatever one proposes (or words to that effect)? 
  
 > People marching in support of the Palestinian victims in Gaza have one 
 > main aim in mind - that the slaughter of innocent civilians should stop, 
 > and that Israel should be put under economic and diplomatic pressure to 
 > abide by UN resolutions. 
 > 
 > If like Suella you think the marches are hate marches, or that the aim 
 > of many marchers is to support Hamas, then you are making excuses for 
 > Israel's outrageous behaviour and covering up a genocide. 
  
 ????? 
  
 How can the PP "cover up" anything? 
  
 Does he have the power to silence the media? 
  
 > That's 
 > ambivalence about whether 40,000 ordinary civilians are expendable and 
 > are a necessary sacrifice to ensure Israel's security (leaving aside 
 > arguments about whether it does ensure Israel's security or make it more 
 > insecure). 
 > It really isn't enough to say that it's all the fault of Hamas and that 
 > all wars involve the deaths of innocent people. Hand-wringing is just to 
 > salve the conscience of the hand-wringer. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)