Bob's Links and Rants

Welcome to my rants page! You can contact me by e-mail: bob@goodsells.net. Blog roll. Site feed.

Thursday, December 11, 2003

Donsense
Eli of Left I on the News cited a particular bit of Rumsfeld Donsense (a term Eli claims to have created and has actually copyrighted--I'm applying the fair use concept to my stealing of it here) reported in the Village Voice:
...to use the phrase 'targeted killing' I think is a misunderstanding of the fact that we're in a war where, obviously, the people who don't surrender, who are terrorists trying to kill innocent Iraqis and coalition forces, are people we want to stop. We would be happy to capture them, we'd be happy to have them surrender, and if they don't, we'd be happy to kill them. And that's what's going on. But the implication or the connotation of 'targeted killing' I think is unfortunate because it suggests an appetite to do that, which is not the case. The goal is to stop terrorists from killing innocent men, women, and children, Iraqis, and coalition forces. It seems like a perfectly logical thing to me.

I left Eli some comments, and I'll post them for you here:

Shorter Donsense:
"The people who don't surrender...are terrorists." The people who do surrender? Enemy combatants.

"The goal is to stop terrorists from killing innocent men, women, and children, Iraqis, and coalition forces." As far as I know, Iraqis are the only ones in this list that US forces HAVE NOT killed in Afghanistan (ask the Canadians about the coalition forces).

"It suggests an appetite to do that, which is not the case." "We'd be happy to kill them."