dlo@drutx.UUCP (OlsonDL) (08/02/85)
There has been a logic(?) on the net, as well as other places, that goes something like this. TWA 847 was hijacked. In its history, the US did some dirty deals to some members of the third world. The hijack was because the third world is lashing out in the only way it can. Even the hijackers themselves said that this was to show the oppressed how to strike back. Therefore, if the attacks are to stop, the US must become more understanding of the problems that the third world has with it. Sound right? As I see it, this is no different (other than scale) than the following line of thinking: A woman, Jane Lunchpail, was attacked. In her history, JL did some dirty deals to some members of the male gender. The attack was because men are lashing out in the only way they can. Even the attacker himself said that this was to show men how to strike back. Therefore, if the attacks are to stop, JL must become more understanding of the problems that men have with her. Even though the histories of both may be totally accurate, the twisted logic of both scenarios make exactly as much (non)sense. These opinions belong to anyone who wants to claim them. David Olson ..!ihnp4!drutx!dlo "To laugh at men of sense is the privilege of fools". -- Jean de la Bruyere
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (08/08/85)
In article <43@drutx.UUCP> dlo@drutx.UUCP (OlsonDL) writes: >As I see it, this is no different (other than scale) than the following line >of thinking: A woman, Jane Lunchpail, was attacked. In her history, JL did >some dirty deals to some members of the male gender. I know you're going to call me a fool Dave (no credit for originality will be given :-), but Jane Lunchpail sounds like a jerk who deserved what she got. -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "I was going to say something really profound, but I forgot what it was." -Rev. Wang Zeep