[kj] o/t son of Thatcher

peter.west410 peter.west410 at ntlworld.com
Fri Aug 27 18:14:37 EDT 2004


----- Original Message -----
From: "Amy Moseley Rupp" <amyr at jump.net>
To: <gathering at misera.net>
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 10:50 PM
Subject: Re: [kj] o/t son of Thatcher


> >     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.

*Ok you name one instance where a British soldier has amputated a childs
limb in a revenge attack.That is what I said and I stand by it*



> 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).
>
*The seller is guilty because the buyer was not in control of themselves as
they were drunk,The merchant is allowed to sell alcholol when the client is
sober.
   If I went and bought a bottle of whisky  and drunk it all,went out and
got in trouble.Is the seller guilty then*



> 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.

*If you are calling  all Africans irresponsable.We dont tolerate racism
here.*
>
> 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.
>
*They are adults they can make there own minds up,Is it possible to NOT
misuse a gun?*

> 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?

*I cant comment untill you give me some examples.If you buy something thats
harmful,I ask you "why did you buy it"
   You seem to want your government too think for you.*


> _______________________________________________
> Gathering mailing list
> Gathering at misera.net
> http://four.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/gathering



More information about the Gathering mailing list