3 ms·

I have no disagreement with you about the scale of fallout. I just have less certainty about whether it was an act of terrorism. i.e. I'm far from convinced it

I have no disagreement with you about the scale of fallout. I just have less certainty about whether it was an act of terrorism. i.e. I'm far from convinced it was an act intended to kill at that scale. Whereas with 9/11, it's almost a certainty they aimed to kill even more than they managed to. I'm still trying to work out for myself the extent to which intent matters when it comes to condemning an act, which is why I struggle to think of your statement as a fact.

Jtsummers 10y ago
From the perspective of the Sudanese, and the families of the immediate victims, I suspect they'd call it either terrorism or an act of war.
icebraining 10y ago
Chomsky's position to the question of intention, cited in the letters above, as given me pause for thought (considering that the attack was openly acknowledged as a retaliation for the earlier attacks on US embassies[1]): And of course they knew that there would be major casualties. They are not imbeciles, but rather adopt a stance that is arguably even more immoral than purposeful killing, which at least recognizes the human status of the victims, not just killing ants while walking down the street, who cares? (...) It is inconceivable that in that brief interim period evidence was found that it was a chemical weapons factory, and properly evaluated to justify a bombing. And of course no evidence was ever found. Plainly, if there had been evidence, the bombing would not have (just by accident) taken place immediately after the Embassy bombings (along with bombings in Afghanistan at the same time, also clearly retaliation). There’s no rational way to explain this except by assuming that he intentionally bombed what was known to be Sudan’s major pharmaceutical plant, and of course he and his advisers knew that under severe sanctions, this poor African country could not replenish them (...) [1] http://edition.cnn.com/US/9808/20/clinton.02/ http://edition.cnn.com/US/9808/20/clinton.02/

Jtsummers 10y ago

From the perspective of the Sudanese, and the families of the immediate victims, I suspect they'd call it either terrorism or an act of war.

icebraining 10y ago

Chomsky's position to the question of intention, cited in the letters above, as given me pause for thought (considering that the attack was openly acknowledged as a retaliation for the earlier attacks on US embassies[1]): And of course they knew that there would be major casualties. They are not imbeciles, but rather adopt a stance that is arguably even more immoral than purposeful killing, which at least recognizes the human status of the victims, not just killing ants while walking down the street, who cares? (...) It is inconceivable that in that brief interim period evidence was found that it was a chemical weapons factory, and properly evaluated to justify a bombing. And of course no evidence was ever found. Plainly, if there had been evidence, the bombing would not have (just by accident) taken place immediately after the Embassy bombings (along with bombings in Afghanistan at the same time, also clearly retaliation). There’s no rational way to explain this except by assuming that he intentionally bombed what was known to be Sudan’s major pharmaceutical plant, and of course he and his advisers knew that under severe sanctions, this poor African country could not replenish them (...) [1] http://edition.cnn.com/US/9808/20/clinton.02/ http://edition.cnn.com/US/9808/20/clinton.02/