Eric Takabayashi wrote:
> Kevin Gowen wrote:
> 
> 
>>Eric Takabayashi wrote:
>>
>>>Ernest Schaal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>The author in question was not Japanese and was writing in English.
>>>>>>Therefore, the use of the word "incident" instead of "rape" is telling.
>>>>>
>>>>>And what of the use of the words massacre and rape? What should that atrocity
>>>>>be called instead?
>>>>
>>>>Eric, I don't know if I understand what you are asking. If you are asking if
>>>>the words massacre and rape are valid descriptions of what happened I would
>>>>say yes. The problem with "incident" is that it serves as an euphemism.
>>>
>>>Then why do we not use these same titles for the actions other forces during their
>>>recent military campaigns or wars, for example, to describe what has happened in
>>>parts of Africa, or in the Balkans? Why do we not say the "Darfur Massacre" or the
>>>"Rape of Bosnia"?
>>
>>Enlightened liberalism does not think much about "those people".
> 
> 
> Then there appears to be a different set of standards. My next question was going to be
> how much avoidable death or suffering, heaven forbid any of it was intentional or
> systematic, must occur before most Americans can recognize any American actions as
> atrocities worthy of being called "the Rape of" or "Massacre".

Well, My Lai immediately springs to mind, but it seems to me that
America has a knee-jerk tendancy to blame itself. We caused 9/11,
haven't you heard?

The American media were far more offended by panties placed over a
terrorist's head than they were by terrorists' cutting off of an
American head.

- Kevin

- Kevin