The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
>Another sane, reliable source of information then ... I would say not less reliable than Amnesty International's dissemination of the lies regarding the incubators, nor worse than Middle East Watch's claims that the "allied" bombing campaign of 1991 was "in many if not most respects... consistent with [its] stated intent to take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian casualties." Is it the contention that because Vialls condemns Israel's terrorism, we should consider his views less "sane" than those of Greenpeace which in 1991 praised the US-led coalition for making a "real effort to get their unfortunate calling over as quickly as possible," and "paving the way for positive new standards for humanitarian and military conduct." ?? Just some questions, lest we let our personal views and biases become restricting of our abilities to view issues from all perspectives.. Best HZ __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss To contact the list manager, email firstname.lastname@example.org All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk