[kj] o/t son of Thatcher

[Amy Moseley Rupp]

>     Those kind of things would nt happen in England,I don't believe anybody
> in England is capable of amputating a childs limb in the name of revenge,And
> as a nation we would nt use systematic rape as a weapon(Which is happening
> in Africa NOW)

Speaking of a colonist's attitude....

the assertion that the UK or the US would not use cruel tactics in war
is a bit naive, as in the past and present it's been done.  Perhaps it's
"hidden away" in foreign nations, but it's done in the name of the citizens
of our two countries.

I'll cite an example where the merchant IS responsible for damages, and
that's with the sale of alcohol to those already drunk or those underaged.
Those latter two categories of people are deemed by law to be untrusted
with alcohol, and if a merchant sells alcohol to those people, s/he IS
held liable IF there is damage done by the buyer (eg drunken driving
car crash).

If both our countries recognise that the sale of *alcohol* to an
irresponsible party is a *potential* for harm, and have made such
sales illegal, then it's not a far reach to say that even greater
weapons should not be sold to those whom we suspect will not use
them responsibly.

I am sure Mark Thatcher can arrive at the same conclusion; even if
the sale was legal, he is morally responsible for providing weapons
to people he *knew* were at great risk for misusing them.  It's the
"how can you sleep at night?" revulsion and backlash that you see,
and that's perhaps stronger than doing something illegal.

In the US our government routinely lets 'white collar' criminals
off completely or with a light sentence.  It is at the point that
only a mass outcry of rage from the citizenry over these sorts of
acts can possibly force wrongdoers into responsibility.  If our
government will not protect us from corporate and individuals who
sell harmful products or steal money from investors, who will?  Do
we have to return to the days of lynching?