On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 02:35:46 +0900, Eric Takabayashi
<etakajp@yahoo.co.jp> brought down from the Mount tablets inscribed:

>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

There is no such thing as "avoidable death". There is only "delayable
death".





--

Michael Cash

"I am sorry, Mr. Cash, but we are unable to accept your rap sheet in lieu of
a high school transcript."

                                Dr. Howard Sprague
                                Dean of Admissions
                                Mount Pilot College