 | | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists
|
|
(...) You know what, Scott? You are absolutely right. That text IS worth the read and anyone who is wondering if the Guardian harbors fools or fellow travelers or not ought to go read it and carefully think about the bile that this author spews. (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists
|
|
(...) Wow. That's something. He's even dead wrong on details; at least two of the hijackers *did* leave suicide notes, in the form of wills. Argue all you like about the justness of the US response and whether that's consistent with our message, but (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists
|
|
(...) He is a she. The text was published the day after the notes were found. I expect it was written before (it was in the Saturday supplement - not the main paper). The response of Guardian readers to the text is here: (URL) (...) I have said (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists
|
|
(...) Hmm. It looks like it does not agree with you view, so you start throwing mud. For the record, I think that is the 1st time Arundhati Roy (a booker prize winner - so no fool) has written for the Guardian. (...) Show us where the distortion is. (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists
|
|
(...) She has written a Second piece for the Guardian. Again the text is strongly worded, but well written. Before anyone reads it, what do these nations have in common: China (1945-46, 1950-53), Korea (1950-53), Guatemala (1954, 1967-69), Indonesia (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
