Re: Re: Rachel "The Human Waffle" Corrie.
> I found message #666 by Mike worth responding to. Sorry, but the
> Rachel Corrie jokes posted earlier were in poor taste; nor I did not
> find them especially funny.
Was it really Message #666? Hey, I'M THE BEAST!
I guess I'm a tasteless kinda guy. Way back around the time of the
CHALLENGER disaster I was making dead-schoolteacher jokes, not out of
disrespect to the dead, but more to needle people who were indulging what I
saw as phony tragedy-mongering. Space exploration -- riding a huge,
controlled explosion out of the atmosphere and the farthest reaches of human
life -- is a potentially lethal business, and I'm not exactly shocked or
crestfallen when astronauts die.
The Challenger, Enterprise and Apollo 1 crews were at least HEROES serving
their country and the cause of advancing human knowledge. They weren't
waging war against their own country and culture.
> I think there is a similarity between Rachel Corrie and John Walker
> Lindh: Both were young people from affluent backgrounds,
Yup. Only rich kids can afford to play at being oppressed.
idealists
> thinking they have figured out what's wrong with the World and wanting
> to fix it. Imagine how driven they were - they left the comfort of
> their homes to struggle aloung with others in troubled Third World
> countries...
...and took up arms against their own country. It's called "treason," and
is a universally punishable offense.
Maybe I should nuance that one a bit. Lindh was most definitely a traitor.
Corrie was more of a self-hating American who used the Palestinian cause to
throw public temper tantrums. Either way, both were voluntarily in bed with
some of the most fanatical and bloodthirsty terrorists on Earth....people
who would DESTROY this nation in a minute if they had the numbers and
hardware.
> I would say that being young, at least they have an excuse for such
> behavior!
Lindh was 18. Corrie was 23. They're ADULTS. I MIGHT excuse this sort of
nonsense from an adolescent, but anyone of the legal majority age who thinks
they can get away with acting like this without BIG payback, probably
shouldn't be in the gene pool.
And by the way: who financed all this gunsel globetrotting? Far as I can
tell, their rich, self-hating, guilt-ridden, gutless Liberal Puke parents
did. "What? You want to go to a Third World war zone, renounce your
American citizenship, identify with the nuttiest elements of the world's
most violent faith, join the most dangerous gangs in the place, and put
yourself front and center in any conflict there? Sure, here's a few
thousand! And don't forget to write!" I wonder if they would have so
criminally enabled their flesh-and-blood had John and Rachel, say, become
Evangelical Christians and joined the Marine Corps?
I think Mike's point of view is too harsh. Rachel would
> probably have changed her views on things if she had lived long enough.
Possibly. But don't you think acts as stupid as hers bespeak a basic lack
of common sense that might not guarantee a long lifespan? If that dozer
hadn't gotten her, I can see her seeming lack of rational judgment, personal
responsibility and notion of consequences finishing her off in some other
way.
>
> I have met people who joined organizations to help people in Africa,
> and lived there a few years. Sometimes even longer than that. They
> went over very excited and idealistic with a desire to help out
> oppressed peoples, and returned with a more realistic view of things:
> It's not as simple as they had thought.
>
There's a big difference between Peace Corps types who go to provide
much-needed humanitarian aid to these places, and trust-fund revolutionaries
who join terrorist gangs that have turned such countries into abbatoirs.
These people are nothing better than left-wing mercenaries, albeit without
the soldier of fortunes' skills, toughness or street-smarts.
Harsh? You bet. It's that kind of world, especially now.
Received on 2003-03-27 14:57:46
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: 2020-02-04 07:16:16 UTC