Ex-Premie.Org |
Forum III Archive # 22 | |
From: Aug 14, 1998 |
To: Aug 31, 1998 |
Page: 2 Of: 5 |
Date: Sun, Aug 23, 1998 at 06:39:38 (EDT)
From: Jean-Michel Email: None To: Everyone Subject: Krishan Crown's Crazyness Message: Looking at these pictures and pondering a bit about the whole thing, one significant thing stroke me: Shri Hans was really into wearing his crown, and showing it, and prempal too ! I haven't found any indication of any guru in the Radhasoami branches wearing any of these Krishna and Ram outfits. Maybe they do it on secret events? When these outfits are commonly used all over India to decorate the Hindu temples' statues on special occasions. Then the idea comes that Shri M started to do this to fit more in the traditional Hindu tradition, different from the Radhasoami. One indication is that he claimed to have started his mission in 1930, whilst his guru was still alive. At that time, it looks that his guru's tradition was well established, and obviously Shri H never tried (probably never could) to be a part of the tradition he was originated from. He had to look for another public. That's why probably he got a lot of opposition from the traditional Hindus, because he was after their public. Which clearly constitutes a sect. Now Prempal heritates the crown and Krishan outfit. Do you remember how important that was 20 years ago? And even now in India. That's one very special and significant part in m's cult IMHO. BTW: I'll have a special photo gallery dedicated to those Krishan crowns and outfits, starring Hansji and Prempal, I have plenty of pictures, I just need a few days to put it together. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Aug 23, 1998 at 09:18:22 (EDT)
From: Jean-Michel Email: None To: Jean-Michel Subject: Krishna Crown's Crazyness Message: In the booklet published by old Indian DLM in 1970, there is a VERY LONG chapter on these fights between Hindu representatives and priests, and Shri H / DLM. I had always wonder why. The rest of the booklet could be considered quite 'inspirational' on the premie viewpoint, but that long chapter (soon online on my website) seems a bit wierd. As the booklet was clearly aimed at premies, and maybe also for some PR, the issue was definitely important at that time, and maybe still now, even though not publicly addressed in India. Understanding Satpal's position should also be interesting, he definitely doesn't seem to have problems with the Hindu religions, I would say he is officially part of the system in India, whilst Prempal is NOT. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Aug 24, 1998 at 12:31:46 (EDT)
From: Plenty of new pictures Email: None To: Jean-Michel Subject: and 1 more chapter Message: of old DLM's booklet 'Satgurudev Shri Hans Ji ...' even premieji will enjoy ! Darshan and Blessings online don't miss it! No need to thank me ... Jean-Michel Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Aug 24, 1998 at 23:12:46 (EDT)
From: G's mom Email: None To: Jean Michel Subject: now that I have seen .... Message: your photos...it was so beautiful, you know, to see Him looking into the sunset that way...the sunset that He created, you know, it's like, his lila, that we enjoy as humpble beings the sunset. It is just like..... Barf.....I am SO ASHAMED and SO EMBARRASSED that I ever fell for such a weird and bizarre cult. These pics look so strange after all these years. My god what was wrong with us???? And whats with this special flower over his lotus groin? You notice how it sort of hangs down sort of saying...look here? A sort of Michael Jackson thing...where the one white glove? And to dress your son that way...I mean I would want a truck too....take years to take care of that assault to his masculinity. A does Durga have on transitions lenses...she is so cool....and how bout the junior guru casting the spell...oh that was inspiring... Thank you thank you for posting this.... G's mom...who is glad she is semi anonymous as she is truly embarrassed by those pics. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Aug 24, 1998 at 23:20:41 (EDT)
From: G's mom Email: None To: all Subject: Guru in a bottle... Message: He wasn't a Guru, he was a Genie....same pants!!! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 25, 1998 at 06:06:49 (EDT)
From: Sir David Email: David.Studio57@btinternet.com To: Plenty of new pictures Subject: Got any recent pictures? Message: I haven't seen Maharaji since 1986. Could you put some recent pictures on your site. please? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 25, 1998 at 06:29:35 (EDT)
From: Jean-Michel Email: None To: Sir David Subject: Got any recent pictures? Yes ! Message: I'll do that asap .... Didn't you enjoy the old ones ? m is still the same, and doing pranam to an old picture is as good .... Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 25, 1998 at 10:25:01 (EDT)
From: Sir David Email: David.Studio57@btinternet.com To: Jean-Michel Subject: Got any recent pictures? Yes ! Message: Those old pictures were good. I particularly liked the one of Shri Hans pretending he was a flautist. Can any of these perfect masters actually PLAY the flute. It's a very difficult instrument to master. Mind you, if you've mastered the universe, a flute must be childsplay. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 25, 1998 at 10:35:04 (EDT)
From: Jean-Michel Email: None To: Sir David Subject: Listen to the divine Flute Message: My dear premieji, if you want to hear the Perfect Master play his flute, you have to turn INSIDE ! He doesn't need to play for your outer ear. Did you really practice meditation ever? You need a knowledge review!! Are we planning a k review during the next exes meeting? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 25, 1998 at 15:10:06 (EDT)
From: Mike Email: None To: Sir David Subject: It's not a flute, it's a.... Message: Sir: Ahhhh my friend, what you so mistakenly see as a simple flute is, in fact, his HOLY DOG-WHISTLE. By which he calls the faithful to worship his holy lotus whatever. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 25, 1998 at 17:04:37 (EDT)
From: Jean-Michel Email: None To: Mike Subject: It's not a flute: poor me ! Message: I finally understood what got me, THANK YOU! How stupide can you get, caught with a dog-whistle. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Aug 26, 1998 at 11:15:32 (EDT)
From: Mike Email: None To: Jean-Michel Subject: Don't blame youself... Message: JM: Not just 'any' dog-whistle, a DIVINE dog-whistle. It 'REALLY BLOWS!' :-) Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Aug 26, 1998 at 15:40:56 (EDT)
From: Jean-Michel Email: None To: Mike Subject: Don't blame youself... Message: My mother never told me about these, no wonder I got caught! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 25, 1998 at 20:06:01 (EDT)
From: g's mom Email: None To: Mike Subject: here boy....... Message: LOL LOL LOL Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 25, 1998 at 20:27:38 (EDT)
From: G's mom Email: None To: all Subject: Durga vs Amrita Message: Is sorta like Jackie Kennedy vs Barbara Bush???? But I really like Barbara Bush........and it sounds like Jackie and Durga have been similarly treated by their famous husbands..... Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Aug 27, 1998 at 16:53:45 (EDT)
From: Rick Email: None To: G's mom Subject: Barbara Bush Message: You like Barbara Bush? Was I just imagining it, or is Barbara Bush a stiff, plastic, uncompassionate, humorless lizard whose only claim to fame is her marriage to a murderous, corrupt politician. Sorry, I lost control. Rick Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Aug 27, 1998 at 18:01:43 (EDT)
From: g's mom Email: None To: Rick Subject: Barbara Bush Message: yeah I like her..nah nah nah.....I never got any of the negative impessions of her you have. Should I have said Jackie Kennedy v Eleanor Roosevelt? Perhaps that would not have been an affront to your political sensibilities? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Aug 28, 1998 at 18:28:38 (EDT)
From: Selene Email: None To: Rick Subject: Barbara Bush Message: During the Bush campaign a wacky friend of mine had a picture of Barbara Bush on his office door that said 'If he did this to his wife what is he going to do to the country?' Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Aug 28, 1998 at 19:41:26 (EDT)
From: Rick Email: None To: Selene Subject: Barbara Bush Message: Got a laugh out of me this time. That was my point, exactly. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Aug 28, 1998 at 22:18:23 (EDT)
From: g's mom Email: None To: selene Subject: Perfect set up... Message: for saying the same thing about Clinton! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, Aug 29, 1998 at 00:30:59 (EDT)
From: Rick Email: None To: g's mom Subject: Way different Message: The difference between Barbara Bush and Hilary Clinton is that Hilary could find someone to cheat on her husband with. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, Aug 29, 1998 at 14:14:53 (EDT)
From: g's mom Email: None To: Rick Subject: I am not comfortable Message: making fun of anyone's appearance but the Guru's and now Mickey the Pharasee's. Barbara Bush is an older woman who does not try to make herself appear younger. She is a grandma and looks like a grandma. I really respect that. She appears to me to be someone who is comfortable with her age. I could be all wrong but it is my impression. I also respected Hillary Clinton's former self who did not doll herself up to be the prototypical Southern wife....but to be Mrs. Pres she had to change her image. Now she sort of looks like the upper middle class soccer mom/corporate woman. That is fine but she has gone to great lengths to help Chelsea know that being a woman doesn't have to mean dolling yourself up to please men like Rick who might try to humiliate you on Guru forums and such. I am sure Rick that you are physically perfect in every way. I just finished reading the 'Seduction of Hillary Rodham' supposedly a right wing book but made me actually respect Hillary more. Cannot say it made me like Bill though. One quote in the book ' the difference between Hillary and Bill is deep down Hillary is a nice person' Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, Aug 29, 1998 at 15:07:54 (EDT)
From: VP Email: None To: g's mom Subject: I am not comfortable Message: I hate the way Hillary changed her image. I liked her better when she was being herself. More American's wanted the typical first lady, so Hillary, you and I were outnumbered :( Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, Aug 29, 1998 at 16:50:07 (EDT)
From: Rick Email: None To: g's mom Subject: I am not comfortable Message: I knew this would open up a can of worms. I grant you that it is typically sexist to be critical of an aging woman's looks. However I doubt that many feminists embraced Barbara Bush's image, and the reason why had nothing to do with her looks. She looks like the epitome of docility, and deference to the patriarchal white power structure. It isn't because she's old or not good looking; it's because she looks smug in her white, dispassionate comfort. It's because her lack of caring to speak out for the disenfranchised is portrayed by her cold expression. Of course, interpreting all this from a person's looks is subjective and if Barbara Bush was a lefty, I might think she looked just fine. So it isn't really her looks that bother me so much, as her politics (or lack of them). Personally, I think Hilary looks like she could kick some butt, make-up or no. She' intelligent, strong, and cares about people (enough for me to not dislike her). It's true that my looks might garner a few sneers from radicals, but that would change as soon as I talked. I'd sure be willing to forgive Barbara Bush her looks, if she ever said anything socially intelligent Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, Aug 29, 1998 at 19:40:20 (EDT)
From: g's mom Email: None To: Rick Subject: what about her looks docile? Message: I can accept she has different politics than you, but I don't see her as docile or weak at all. I am curious what is your impression of Janet Reno? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, Aug 29, 1998 at 20:33:32 (EDT)
From: Rick Email: None To: g's mom Subject: what about her looks docile? Message: Janet Reno appears stiff and rigid--like she couldn't be any more uptight if she tried (but she has a serious disease that might cause some of that). Not exactly a warm-hearted appearance either, but she's top-cop, so it isn't surprising. What is your impression? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, Aug 29, 1998 at 20:41:45 (EDT)
From: Rick Email: None To: g's mom Subject: what about her looks docile? Message: What about her looks docile? Well, she looks like she's been to a taxidermist. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, Aug 22, 1998 at 20:15:31 (EDT)
From: Sir David Email: David.Studio57@btinternet.com To: Everyone Subject: Isn't it a pity Message: I was just thinking today, I could become a premie again, except for one small thing. I've been getting some meditation together, seeing some light, hearing some pretty sounds inside and feeling peace in my breath and getting high off nectar. I've just been doing about half hour meditation, so that would make me only half a premie wouldn't it. When I feel good from meditation I really don't care about what Maharaji is doing, how many affairs he's had or if he drinks heavilly. In fact, I almost feel some compassion for the guy. So why aren't I filling my house with his pictures and aranging to see him at the next program and donating some of my vast wealth (in my dreams)? The reason is that I don't sincerely believe that Maharaji is out to spread this knowledge to all interested people. It's a pity because I think the knowledge, if modified a little, is very good. But Maharaji has just about squashed any possibility of it reaching the masses by his way. Now if Maharaji really WAS a meditation teacher, I would help him. Or if he really WAS God in human form, I'd do my utmost to help him. But does helping Maharaji (sending him money) help the cause of spreading the knowledge of the inner 'garden'? Unfortunately not. So I think that the spreading of this knowledge is down to us. Maharaji isn't doing it. Now I don't hate Maharaji and if I met him I'd thank him for bringing the knowledge of the inner garden to the attention of us people in the west. He is fixed in his Hindu religion so he wouldn't understand my desire to let people know about the knowledge without the need for a master. Maharaji thinks that the master is essential. I think that's unfortunate. He could have done so much more than generate a personality cult or spread Hinduism. The music, light and the rest of it, doesn't have a religion nor does it need a master. It's like Mother Nature within. Maharaji could have spread THAT knowledge to many people, as a mere man and equal like the rest of us. Then he would have had my love and respect, as one human appreciating another. But he took a wrong turn somewhere along the way and made it impossible for me to continue with him. He shouldn't have tried to convince us that he was the Lord. Bad mistake there back in the seventies. It's all rather a sad pity really about Maharaji. When I met him close up back in his garden in the early seventies, I liked the guy. He was just a kid then. A laugh a minute and he had my assured love and loyalty. So Maharaji, now you think you have enemies. It's all rather sad really. If you came down off your throne you'd realise that your 'enemies' are just ordinary folk who would rather you had been sincere and honest. A shame that the fifteen year old kid I met in a backgarden in Highgate had so much potential. As a youth and not as God, you could have moved mountains. If you had not put so many walls between yourself and the rest of us, you would have got unswerving help and support with your problems. Most of us who received the knowledge were damn nice people. Did you not see that? You had no need to make yourself into a god before us. Sure we wanted God but we wanted the genuine article. Thanks for trying, Maharaji, but a god who is less than God, just isn't enough. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Aug 23, 1998 at 04:36:22 (EDT)
From: bill Email: None To: Sir David Subject: Isn't it ok Message: Well Sir David, rawat(maharaji) like you said, is hindu based. He was happy in the garden for the same reason a kid I know would be, he was newly independent from mom, and he was getting whatever he wanted. He thought he had the world on a string. As soon as he landed in england he wrote letters to the pope and the queen telling them that he was here now and everything was going to be ok. The queen's people wrote back with some form style letter thanking him for his letter. The popes people were not amused I assume. After the initial thrill of the west wore off, and before you met him, some 'forum one' poster told us about how an origional group of followers intercepted a couple phone calls from him and went into shock to see what type of character he was really. They were the origional ex's of the west. They made some attempt at warning people off. He doesnt relate to your comments about god because to him he is hindu- like in that there is no self concious part of conciousness and so he answers to no one but himself and maybe the (designed by whom?) law of karma. I have spent some free time at night at the Princeton theological library and there is a truly vast amount of written blabber about the ideas about life and its supposid attributes and wants. The magazine/newsletter section runs in the thousands. The only religion unrepresented is dawkinism, the belief that unconclusive early assumptions constitute enough data to claim that god (whatever) is very, very improbable. That would fit very nicely with the vast variety of human assumptions bound on the shelves. Don't fergit Sir David, while we were daydreaming while feeling our breath, rawat was smoking pot and drinking and - his brothers wife and still cheats on his disabled wife (I would guess she is relieved), and ...well you know the rest. Better that he is bound in confusion. Any slant he gives is just his slant. Even your thought about mother nature is a slant. I perhaps believe in human nature. That is the qualities and boundries I don't see anyone getting past. Human nature is evidence and I can't articulate about that yet. I know someone VERY close to rawat. And he does not meditate. He relies on his lifelong optimism and he is riding the leading edge of the money flow and so he thinks it's all groovy. Of course if he ever decides to have a life of his own, it's back to the streets. So that's not likely. Kind of like fuzzbee morse. Can't kick the money,status fix. Reminds me of clinton followers. No matter what the guy does, it doesn't matter because of the 'mission' and he seems to care and so what if the women are like discarded condoms, that's what THEY were after, branded as sluts or worse for the rest of thier lives. And it's his personal business by the way, other 'masters' have done this stuff, don't you like your breath? Sever the impulse to romanticise the improved saviour possibility. We have done fine evolving our societies. Not well enough for the utopians, but we aren't ants or bees. I'm glad you are back posting Sir David, I was worried you were going away. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 25, 1998 at 22:40:51 (EDT)
From: Gail Email: None To: bill Subject: How is Marolyn diabled? NT Message: no text Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Aug 24, 1998 at 18:26:33 (EDT)
From: Diz Email: None To: Sir David Subject: It would take more than that Message: Dear Sir David MJ as meditation teacher. Hummm. For me to see something worthwhile in that scenario, a great deal more would need to change that 'just' his claim to be God. Some key aspects of his presentation of K and life would need to flip, for a start: - I'd want him to return to people the right to think. In fact, I'd want to see him encouraging people to analyze the origins, meanings, motivations, effects, worldview, organisational and philosophical surroundings of the experience. This is NOT the same as applying 'mind' to the actual process of meditation - I have no problem with the idea that to experience K you need to use modalities other than the intellect. The same applies to many other human activities, like listening to music, floating, and enjoying a massage or sex. You can still usefully use intellect to consider the structure of a concerto, the politics of arts funding, or who to have sex with. - I'd want the ban on communication lifted, in the interests of free thinking. I'd want to see people encouraged to discuss any and all aspects of the meditation and its presentation, face to face, on the net, over the phone, whatever. I'd want to see him encouraging hard questions, seeking out those who perceived problems. Seeing them as friends, not enemies! This encouragement to dialogue could include a healthy dose of warning not to value someone else's understanding over your own without due consideration, to counteract any tendancies for people to be overly swayed by the inevitable mini-gurus. - I'd want all talk of 'right' priorities to disappear. I'd want people left free to decide where K fitted in their life. - I'd want to feel there was an underlying ethic of respect for human relationships, families, and community (the real one, not a narrow one of meditators). - I'd want to see the organisational set-up reduced to what was necessary to teach meditation and maybe to get people together (locally) every now and then to meditate. No more multiple houses, Amaroos or premie businesses. This would allow people to hang on to their money, time and energy. I can dream on, but I very much doubt it'll ever happen... Love Diz Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Aug 24, 1998 at 20:25:39 (EDT)
From: Laura Email: None To: Diz Subject: It would take more than that Message: Thank you for your post. Does gmj have the maturity,the chutzpah (means guts in Yiddish) to do what you suggest? I think not. Trust. Trust has been taken away. I know the forgive and forget mentality. I don't think it applies to someone who claims to be God and then takes away your thoughts, your life, your intelligence, your curiousity, your family, your open heart and replaces it with sterility. Sterile - it's what I feel now. I was the rich, warm earth when gmj planted his seed - but in order to receive the seed i had to give up ME. Oh, oh, have to get back to work and can't finish . . Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 25, 1998 at 19:18:36 (EDT)
From: hamzen Email: None To: Laura Subject: It would take more than that Message: At the risk of sounding incredibly arrogant Laura, you CAN make it back to yourself, even if itıs a new self, just follow any interests even if itıs just in odd moments however small, youıll piece a new you together. Sterility = shock? Although I managed to avoid the most damaging possibilities of being brainwashed Iıve still taken years to come to terms with a loss of hope. Trust in anything or anybody is an illusion as far as I can see. You donıt need it to build a life and learn to communicate again. As for gm changing, heıs been programmed since before he was out of nappies, that would take more than chutzpah, that would be a miracle. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Aug 26, 1998 at 06:58:36 (EDT)
From: Diz Email: None To: Laura Subject: It would take more than that Message: Dear Laura I have some idea of how hurt you feel. I'd like to offer some hope, from my experience. Which isn't to deny what you're feeling... Once I also felt sterile, so lost to myself I couldn't even cry. It's taken years but I've got myself back, I feel alive and amazingly happy. I think hamzen is right, it helps to start with the little sparks of feeling, and follow them. Try doing things you think you might like - something might click. As to trust: personally, I think some people can be trusted, but once you've lost trust in such a major way, after putting all your eggs in one basket, it takes time to understand who might be trustworthy and who might not be. I guess there's always risk, which is one reason to have more than one person in your life as well as independent interests. And it's hard to take that risk when you feel so beat up already. I think you have friends here...maybe you could trust them - us - as people with whom you can be yourself at least. I'm sorry if this sounds trite. It's another attempt at a virtual hug. Which you may or may not find useful.. Best wishes, Diz Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 25, 1998 at 07:10:54 (EDT)
From: Passing thru Email: None To: Diz Subject: All done Message: Dear Diz, Who have you been listening to? There is no ban on communcation, people have always been free to practice Knowledge as little or as much as they like, relationships are fine and you can keep your money. Its about a feeling inside you. PT Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 25, 1998 at 15:15:47 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Passing thru Subject: Wiggle words Message: There is no ban on communcation, people have always been free to practice Knowledge as little or as much as they like, relationships are fine and you can keep your money. Its about a feeling inside you. There's another phrase I abhor -- 'it's about'. I first noticed it back in the eighties when some of my theatre friends got involved in est and est spin-off groups and spouting the lingo. What a way to detour a discussion! All you have to do is say 'it's about x' or 'it's about y' and you've handily scuttled whatever other issues people might discussing, let alone wondering about. Look, PT, it's about a lot of things. And you're a fucking liar if you claim that premies aren't pressured one way or another to give their money to that fat, greasy grub. And as for relationships -- tell me, how many do you think Maharaji destroyed -- again by blatant criticism and pressure -- in the seventies? 5 maybe? 500? 5,000? More? How many familes split up because of his power-mad coralling in the ashrams? A couple? Yeah, right! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Aug 26, 1998 at 17:39:06 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: Jim Subject: Wiggle words Message: There's another phrase I abhor -- 'it's about'. I first noticed it back in the eighties when some of my theatre friends got involved in est and est spin-off groups and spouting the lingo. What a way to detour a discussion! All you have to do is say 'it's about x' or 'it's about y' and you've handily scuttled whatever other issues people might discussing,let alone wondering about. Man, is this ever true, and until you mentioned it, I never realized how much that's used to obfuscate. In addition to 'it's about' I also hear 'it's ALL about.' It's so insidious, because premies use it to spout the Maharaji line that 'it's about an internal experience' as if there aren't millions of ramifications from Mahraji's cult. As for discouraging discussion, I can say that I have never seen any other group that was so opposed to open discussion as premies. Especially if it involved any doubts whatsoever, questioned ANYTHING about Maharaji or his motives, or questioned someone else's so-called 'experience.' In the past, 'chit chat' was also frowned upon and perhaps that's not true anymore. Now maybe premies can discuss the weather, computers, or the latest movie, and not feel guilty, but as to certain verboten topics that question M or the cult, forget it!!! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 25, 1998 at 19:04:58 (EDT)
From: hamzen Email: None To: Passing thru Subject: All done Message: PT- come off it, you might be detached enough to stay in the moment and only pick out his comments when they move you, I did it that way myself for years but it isn't true for a lot of people and don't give me any of that it was all in the past. This is especially the case for those not experiencing much but guilt. I still go to videos occasionally, I speak to premies, both strong & weak, I have three friends who are still involved who I talk to pretty frequently including one who only went through the knowledge process two months ago. Why no group satsangs anymore, gm, why do people introducing videos have programmed notes, gm. How else would he be able to do what he does, money from premies. Premies do feel responsible, it's not all out of gratitude. A lot of people who are still around go back through the years. Their attitudes were conditioned way back. You might not pay, but if you're not, you're living it off the sweat of other premies. Why does he still say how long you should meditate? Why would he be harping on about gm pushing & pulling the breath, holy name or no.3 if you prefer. One of the things my mate who just got knowledge is having difficulty with is the guru background. Why would he be so shocked when I gave him the background history, guru as god, krishna outfit, the perfect master who is only (yeah right) a master of perfection. Have your feeling inside but don't con yourself that everything's rosy in the garden. The one thing I would agree with you about is relationships. But for a long time that wasn't the case. Haven't you read all the stuff on the site from the people in the ashrams. Even those hippies like myself who stayed outside then, went through some guilt, 'I'm having a good time with knowledge, I wouldn't have it without gm, surely he is involved in the process, maybe I should do what he says and move into the ashram'. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 25, 1998 at 19:11:04 (EDT)
From: hamzen Email: None To: Diz Subject: It would take more than that Message: Diz why dream on, you know it won't happen, either set it up yourself or float it as a real idea and see what support you get for it. A democratic meditation based group would be truly a challenge to gmev. It would certainly get my support in the limited time I have to spare. It might even get me off the net a bit and save me some money! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Aug 24, 1998 at 18:44:06 (EDT)
From: eb Email: None To: Sir, hamzen, Jim, bb Subject: Various Message: Sir David, I got a big hit just now, reading your post. I remembered why I was attracted to Maharaji and his devotees. I, too, experience inner light, sound, and peace associated with my breath. (I'm not totally convinced that nectar isn't post nasal drip, but I remember a time when I thought it ambrosia). It's taken a long time for me to separate my experience in meditation from Maharaji which was important because my relationship with him was extremely neurotic, and I was extremely addicted. hamzen, My friend worked long hours when she lived at the residence. She told me she used to sneak off and hide in closets to meditate formally. Apparently meditation and service don't mix. Jim, I was touched by AnnMarie telling you to open your heart. It sounded so sweet and sincere, didn't it? I'm serious, it felt warm and loving. On another topic, isn't there a classification in the DSM IV for people who become irrational when paragraphs are omitted? bb, el presidente, Confidentially, I call him Precious, and he calls me Bambi. You made me laugh. I do enjoy checking in here. This is my favorite website. With love, eb Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Aug 24, 1998 at 19:08:23 (EDT)
From: Selene Email: None To: eb Subject: DSM IV - off topic Message: DSM IV eb what is that? I was in the bookstore today (looking for 'Prozac Highway' which no one has), and the book bearing that title was all over the psych section. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Aug 24, 1998 at 20:17:44 (EDT)
From: Bobby Email: None To: Selene Subject: DSM IV - off topic Message: The psychiatric bible - outlines diagnoses and defines sanity according to American Psychiatric Association. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Aug 24, 1998 at 21:14:29 (EDT)
From: Selena Email: None To: Bobby Subject: DSM IV - off topic Message: Yikes. Good thing I didn't look at it. I would have self-diagnosed myself with half the contents. Thanks Bobby. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Aug 24, 1998 at 23:22:14 (EDT)
From: eb Email: None To: Selena Subject: DSM IV - off topic Message: Hi Selena, Yes, don't read it. I saw myself in every diagnosis! eb Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Aug 24, 1998 at 22:13:47 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: eb Subject: Various Message: Jim, I was touched by AnnMarie telling you to open your heart. It sounded so sweet and sincere, didn't it? I'm serious, it felt warm and loving. On another topic, isn't there a classification in the DSM IV for people who become irrational when paragraphs are omitted? First,last, no. Second, first, it sounded like a very, very garden-variety fucked up, new-age mind. In other words, no mind at all. If, like me, you've spent eight fucking years in a cult and now are righteously enjoying being pissed off at the hilarious waste of time and trust, you don't enjoy some little idiot who hasn't even tasted the magic sauce yet telling you that your complaints are grounded in pain. Sweet? Yes, I guess, like the vilest cotton candy perhaps. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 25, 1998 at 00:23:11 (EDT)
From: eb Email: None To: Jim Subject: Cotton candy Message: Dear Jim, You wrote: it sounded like a very, very garden-variety fucked up, new-age mind. In other words, no mind at all. If, like me, you've spent eight fucking years in a cult and now are righteously enjoying being pissed off at the hilarious waste of time and trust, you don't enjoy some little idiot who hasn't even tasted the magic sauce yet telling you that your complaints are grounded in pain. Sweet? Yes, I guess, like the vilest cotton candy perhaps. Jim, I want you to understand that I have only recently begun to relate to your expressions of anger and frustration. When I blew up at my friend a couple of weeks ago, I was absolutely enraged! Then, my friend reacted as though my expression of anger demonstrated that I was wrong to feel the way I do. Her 'sweet' responses to my protestations were, as you say, vile. I liken this episode to your discussion with AnnaMarie. This hasn't been easy or fun for me yet; maybe I'll evolve to the point where I enjoy being pissed off about spending so much time (16-38 years old) worshipping a fraud. My current lack of short term memory tends to keep me living in the moment better than conscious meditation did. Every moment is a new experience for me, really. Makes it hard to remain angry but sure makes life interesting. Thanks for your response. BTW-off topic, what genre of music do you play? Just curious as I recently saw Bauhaus and I saw the Ramones with Pearl Jam a couple of years ago. I imagine you playing loudly and fast, sort of a combo of punk goth. Do you like Bowie? eb Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 25, 1998 at 05:53:36 (EDT)
From: Sir David Email: David.Studio57@btinternet.com To: eb Subject: Haven't you realised God yet? Message: That computes as 22 years wordhipping the Lord. Surely you must be close to God realisation by now. I was told it would take just two years to become 'fully realised'. That was back in 1972 and I do admit, I've wavered a bit since then. But 'sweet' sister, 22 years must mean you're there by now. Wow, it must be incredible. Maharaji must have taken you on his boat of devotion across the sea of maya to the far shore of his lotus feet by now. After all, that's what he said he would do isn't it. All we had to do was hang in there and let go and he would steer the ship. I admit, I jumped ship after eleven years. Or rather, the ship sank and I had to swim for it. But you must have been stuck in an air pocket when it sank, and survived. Just goes to show that I shouldn't have let my devotion slip. Because by now, I'd be fully realised like you must be. Oh well, us people of little faith... Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 25, 1998 at 17:22:08 (EDT)
From: eb Email: None To: Sir David Subject: Haven't you realised God yet? Message: Dear Sir, Please do not mistake a lengthy period of devotion for dull wit. Some are slower to awaken to the truth, and were it not for this forum, I would still be off to Long Beach every December. BTW, I realized God two weeks after I received Knowledge. No shit. The other 21 years, 50 weeks worshipping Maharaji were irrelevant. Had I lived in the ashram, I would've bailed out much sooner, IMO. Shri eb Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 25, 1998 at 17:52:25 (EDT)
From: eb Email: None To: Sir David Subject: Sir--what I meant to say... Message: was that I am really, really slow. How slow am I? Well, when my first husband told me that I was the most beautiful woman in the world, I believed him!!! duh. eb Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 25, 1998 at 20:54:38 (EDT)
From: Sir David Email: David.Studio57@btinternet.com To: eb Subject: Not as slow as me, EB Message: My dear EB. My sarcasm is not directed at you but at Maharaji. We were the sincere ones. Even after I left the whole thing back in 1983, I still thought that Maharaji was the Lord, just playing out some sort of lila. It wasn't until last year that it finally dawned on me that I'd been mistaken. Yes, I'd cherished a dream all those years thinking that although I wasn't the right kind of material to be a devotee of the Lord, Maharaji still WAS the Lord. Dams it, I even heard him say quite catagorically that he was NOT God, back in 1986. And I still went on believing that he was. And all those years afterwards when I never went to see him again, I still thought that he was the Lord, only I was the one who was unworthy, etc etc. I'm talking seriously now; when it finally hit me last year that Maharaji really WASN'T God in human form, I just could not believe it!!! I was utterly devastated. I had spent 25 years fervently believing that God had manifested in human form and I had been wrong for all that time! For a few days I nearly went over the edge. I couldn't turn to anyone because nobody would have understood what I'd been through for the last 25 years. It was a bit like that Star Trek episode where Captain Picard is stuck in a virtual reality for 25 years and lives a whole life and then only comes back to reality to find that half an hour has passed and none of that life had been real. Quite naturally, the anger I felt towards Maharaji for conning me, a sincere person, into believing he was God... well I was so angry at Maharaji for that, I could not describe it. One final thought. The devastation I went through upon realising that I'd been conned is no small thing. And there, help needs to be given to any believer who suddenly has his/her life shattered like this. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Aug 26, 1998 at 01:58:23 (EDT)
From: eb Email: None To: Sir David Subject: Devastation Message: Dearest Sir David, I am only now (after a year and a half) getting angry about being conned. I had no self esteem when I got involved with Maharaji; I could've fallen for any of the cults recruiting back in the early 70's. Because my life had little value to me, I thought I was damned lucky to be allowed to give it to the Lord of the Universe. Anyway, I had no ambitions or goals (other than to reproduce). Now that I'm starting to value my life, it pisses me off that I wasted so many years. The realization that Maharaji isn't God creeped up on me slowly over a number of years. But it wasn't until I actually read the forum archives that I was able to truly evaluate that belief which was programmed so deeply over the years of nightly satsang, recognize my folly, and stop allowing that shadow of doubt to linger. With love, eb Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Aug 26, 1998 at 08:46:33 (EDT)
From: Judith Email: None To: Sir David Subject: Not as slow as me, EB Message: Dear Sir David I feel that way about my whole life, at the moment. I keep telling myself that at least I'm fighting my way through the fog and since I can now see something which I imagine must be planet earth, things must be getting better! God, I hope so! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Aug 26, 1998 at 07:05:23 (EDT)
From: Diz Email: None To: eb Subject: Sir--what I meant to say... Message: Hey eb I've believed that kind of stuff from guys too! And I was almost as slow as you with GMJ. It's a worry. Probably there's no real hope for me. Love your sense of humour. Keep it up. Diz Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 25, 1998 at 21:30:03 (EDT)
From: Jerry Email: None To: eb Subject: No, but I found this forum Message: Some are slower to awaken to the truth, and were it not for this forum, I would still be off to Long Beach every December. Same here, eb. Although I didn't do much traveling, there's videos shown every night in the area where I live and I was just about to start another run of going regularly, meditating regularly, donating regularly hoping that this time I'll get it. This time I will become enlightened. This time... and then I stumbled upon this site and the brakes were put on. At first I thought 'Maharaji must have reached these people pretty deep for them to be in such an uproar about him', but then I realized that, yeah, he does reach you pretty deep. He speaks truths that echo deep in your soul and he does so with such conviction. But he doesn't stop at that. He makes you feel like without him you're nobody, you're helpless, nowhere. You become dependent on him and actually start to believe that without him, not only is happiness impossible, but your very existence as well. This shit gets deep into your system, but I feel in time I'll be OK. In fact, I feel OK already. I think I'm going to feel even more OK tomorrow, and the day after that... I'm feeling Ok, ya know what I mean? :) Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 25, 1998 at 14:59:43 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: eb Subject: Cotton candy Message: eb, You were in this cult longer than I and escaped more recently, relatively speaking. That's got to make a difference. Plus, we're different people. I just have no interest in giving the slightest patina of respect to someone who, at this late stage, still takes Maharaji seriously. Time's up, as far as I'm concerned. Someone like AnaMaria is particularly infuriating being that we've all eaten at Maharaji's diner for years, she hasn't even tasted his special sauce yet and still has the audacity to stand in the way between him and us. What a fucking joke! And that line about my 'pain'. Oy gevalt! I HATE FUCKING NEW AGE THINKING!!!! It's like gummy mayflies on my windshield. Tons of them. 'Maharaji's LOVE'. Funny, I thought Bill Clinton was LOVE. Or maybe that was Love. So that's how I feel. Actually, eb, our music is really sweet at times. Yes, a little goth/moody as well, but sometimes downright sweet. But then that's just me. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 25, 1998 at 17:46:45 (EDT)
From: eb Email: None To: Jim Subject: Sweet Jim Message: Dear Sweet Jim, For such a non-hooey hooey guy, you sure are in touch with your feelings. Sweet, sensitive Jim. Does your sweetheart know how lucky she is? I'm jealous. Bitter sweetly, eb Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 25, 1998 at 19:30:08 (EDT)
From: hamzen Email: None To: Jim Subject: Cotton candy Message: JIM, DONıT LET NEW AGERS STEAL THE PLEASURE ZONES. I reckon Anamaria is already tasting the sauce and thinking gm is the bottle, instead of realizing itıs in and from herself . A natural biological state of being. Count to 10 Jim. Our brains have perfect fit receptor sites for DMT. The strongest psychedelic drug known to anyone and a drug I wouldnıt have the bottle to take in its synthesized state. Itıs part of our bio-chemistry. Itıs linked to serotonin release and the pineal gland. Looks like itıs implicated and activated at high levels at birth, death and near death experiences and at lower levels all the time. It triggers pure light, transcendental sounds, states of bliss, loss of the time/space dimension and sense of an ego self. Along with numerous members of the cannabinoid family and god knows what else psychotropic drugs, itıs our biological inheritance. I reckon Anamarias really young. Come on Jim, even you canıt be that old youıve forgotten what thats like, the naivete that goes with it. If people whoıve been through the mill give up on people like her and all the other sensitive lurkers, gm and his like will be in business for ever. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 25, 1998 at 13:54:33 (EDT)
From: VP Email: None To: Jim Subject: Ex-premie superiority? Message: 'some little idiot who hasn't even tasted the magic sauce yet' Jim, Is this ex-premie superiority? Think about it for a second...this is what some premies have said about my opinions on the subject of Maharaji. Anyway, I think it is a minor point. One can have programmed beliefs with K or without it. I should know. :) Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 25, 1998 at 15:06:54 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: VP Subject: We ARE superior!! Message: VP, By any measure I'd accept, ex-premies are superior to premies. One can understand the reasons people compromise themselves and get their minds all bundled up in stupid cults but, so what? A healthy tree's superior to a diseased one and premies are living with one deep infection that completely screws up their lives. Oh yeah, we're superior. Thank God! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 25, 1998 at 20:17:58 (EDT)
From: VP Email: None To: Jim Subject: We ARE superior!! Message: Sooo, following this line of reasoning, non premies are superior to ex-premies and people who have never even heard of Maharaji are at the top of the food chain? :) Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 25, 1998 at 20:24:03 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: VP Subject: We ARE superior!! Message: Sooo, following this line of reasoning, non premies are superior to ex-premies and people who have never even heard of Maharaji are at the top of the food chain? :) Maybe. I certainly think I would have been 'superior' had I never been infected. Mind you, I'm now somewhat innoculated, I hope, against further infection. No, this 'superiority' thing's a bit of a joke. Still, I do think that ex's AND non's are free of one shitty mental disease. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 25, 1998 at 20:47:36 (EDT)
From: VP Email: None To: Jim Subject: I hear that Message: I hope my kids never hear the name Guru Maharaji. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 25, 1998 at 19:23:54 (EDT)
From: hamzen Email: None To: VP Subject: Ex-premie superiority? Message: VP- makes a change if nothing else from from premie MEGA superiority, I know, you don't arrogance Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 25, 1998 at 20:16:13 (EDT)
From: VP Email: None To: hamzen Subject: hazem, I didn't quite follow.. Message: VP- makes a change if nothing else from from premie MEGA superiority, I know, you don't arrogance I'm sorry, hazem, but I didn't follow the last part of your post above. Care to elaborate? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 25, 1998 at 19:35:36 (EDT)
From: hamzen Email: None To: eb Subject: empathy Message: eb, I feel a lot of empathy for your approach from the heart, as well as your journey trying to separate gm from your internal experience. But as for your musical taste, Iıll be praying for you, how anyone can still listen to rock music is beyond me. This is the nineties, dance music rules and Iım not talking about the commercial crap. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 25, 1998 at 20:31:38 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: hamzen Subject: empathy Message: Hey Hamzen! I dig dance as much as the next person. I was a partner in the first rave in North America ('Sextasy' in L.A.). Still doesn't hold a candle to good rock. I'm not sure why rock's dying out. I just know it's fun to play, fun to hear and ... well that's about it. (Dance music's advance is scarier than Islam, don't you think?) Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 25, 1998 at 23:47:17 (EDT)
From: Jerry Email: None To: Jim Subject: empathy Message: I'm not sure why rock's dying out. Pearl Jam, Sheryl Crow, Alanis Morissette, Dave Matthews Band, Daniel Lanois, Prince, Jimmy Ray... Sorry, Jim. Rock's not dying out. Haven't you heard what Neil Young said? Rock will never die. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Aug 26, 1998 at 01:30:52 (EDT)
From: eb Email: None To: hamzen Subject: empathy Message: Dance music? Not sure I follow. I love live music. All my kids take lessons, and I play, albeit poorly. I have attended over 75 concerts in the past 5 years, all different genres. I love to utilize my chameleon ability to blend into to what's happening (if it feels good). For me the experience of attending a concert with the intention of grokking the scene is thrilling. Always new. I head-banged at Ozzfest, dressed in black for Bauhaus, and wore pearls to the Marriage of Figaro. I appreciate talented musicians and dressing for the occasions. But tell me, where can I hear this dance music. Is it the techno rhythms played at raves? (Nowadays, with my natural tendency toward dizzyness, hallucinations, and seeing trails without drugs, I'm sure I'd have a blast at a rave. Actually I've been to one or two without realizing what was happening). hamzen, name some artists, please. eb Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, Aug 22, 1998 at 16:07:41 (EDT)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: Everyone Subject: Feuds and Governments Message: I just wanted to respond briefly to a post by JW because, in spite of the fact that I don't agree with him about the justifications for the bombings in Sudan and Afghanistan, they raise an important point. I still think these attacks will just increase the legitimacy of these organizations among others in the Middle East who would ordinarily not sympathize with them. And given that the Middle East peace talks are effectively dead, and our stanglehold on Iraq continues with the sanctions, to the detriment of, and death, of hundred of thousands of Iraqi children, we may see a lot more of these desperate types of actions in the future. What we are confronted with here is a sort of resurgence of the paradigm of feudalism, which is symptomatic of a vacuum of legitimacy. While I agree with the US response, and the bombings, I am concerned that they don't really address the underlying issues. I heard Lawrence Eagleberger and others make the point that we are now involved in a war, and that we had better become accustomed to the fact that blood will almost certainly be shed. Again, I agree with this statement, but am a little bit confused about the nature of this 'war.' I don't see any offerings from our leadership that would give us any clue as to how we might differentiate a win from a loss. What are we fighting 'for' (apart from security) and how will we know when we've achieved it? In the behavior of terrorists I see an age-old story, in the notion that retaliatory responses that supersede civil order are capable of delivering justice. This is explicit in the terrorists' position, and justifies severe response from us. But, the overall objective of the birth of the common law in England was to 'quell feuds,' because the expense of this 'individualized justice' was too high. This, in the long run, has to be the objective here as well. And, the development that has the greatest potential for invoking such a rational response within the Moslem world is the end of the series of contests between the village version of Islam (which is a mixture of magical and traditional beliefs and the law and teachings of the Koran), and the 'high Islam' of the metropolitan centers. The evolution of fundamentalism in Iran is something that may go to the heart of these issues, and we ought to be supporting the development of institutions that are based on the interpretation of Islamic law. It is the tradition of surrendering sovereignty to this process of interpretation that is the essence of the rule of law. In other words we should look within the Islamic world for part of the resolution of this 'war,' and stop seeing fundamentalism as monolithic. The victory will ultimately lie in the conviction of those who win the contest within Islam to quell unproductive and costly feuds. As I read it, this is beginning to happen in Iran. The second issue, transcending the contests within Islam, is that the nation-state is both too big and too small to deliver the goods. It is too big to deal with the variety of internal and local conditions. I was amused by the response of the Taliban ambassador that now governs Afghanistan. He was making the two-fold point that there are literally hundreds of armed camps within Afghanistan that are similar to the one bombed by the US, and that the Taliban has no idea what is going on in many of them. Secondly, Afghanistan has a right to defend it's own territory and the armed camps are integral to its national sovereignty. The nation-state is not clear about what goes on within it's own borders, but lacks the capacity to protect itself by ensuring peace and order within the 'community of nations.' That dilemma is also central to the US problem. -Scott Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, Aug 22, 1998 at 21:13:22 (EDT)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Slight correction Message: and we ought to be supporting the development of institutions that are based on the interpretation of Islamic law. Sorry. That's a bit much on secod thought. But I would like to see us take a more pragmatic view of the struggle within Islam. -Scott Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Aug 24, 1998 at 13:59:09 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Feuds and Governments Message: While I agree with the US response, and the bombings, I am concerned that they don't really address the underlying issues. I agree that we are not addressing the underlying issues and that's exactly why I oppose those bombings. They are militarily meaningless, piss off a lot of countries, and give those 'terrorists' more support. It is typical of American foreign policy to look for quick fixes, and sometimes thos fixes either do nothing, except make us feel better in the meantime, or, unfortunately, they backfire in the long run. This cannot be a 'war.' We are dealing with very diverse, decentralized, far-flung groups that are not conducive to bombing attacks. In some ways, we just do what the terrorists did, bomb others in retaliation for feeling attacked, because we are powerless to do much of anything else. I think the American public is not willing to recognize the fact that the US has two, simplistic, policies in the middle east, that underly much of the hatred many feel for our country in that region. Those polices are: 'OIL' and 'ISRAEL.' I think from the perspective of many in the Middle East, they see us exploiting the natural resources of the region, in doing so, we do things like prop up, including stationing troops, a family-owned police state in Saudi Arabia, likewise in Kuwait, and we are trying to completely destroy Iraq, including allowing hundreds of thousands of children to starve and die of infections. And our policy toward Israel is seen as completely one-sided vis a vis the Palestinians, primarily because it is. We have backed the ruthless military reaction to a popular uprising in the occupied territories, for many years, including Israel's bloody invasions and occupation of Lebanon. The Palestinian issue is probabaly the strongest motivating factor causing people to support terrorist groups, because at least the US will get something that it deserves. But any situations where the US is seen throwing its weight around and killing arabs, while doing nothing to address its underlying policies, contributes to that. But, for the US, whenever anyone opposes those policies of ours, regarding OIL and ISRAEL, we label them 'terrorist' and assume they have absolutely NO legitimate gripe. And when they rise up in some way, we bomb them, just increasing the animosity that many otherwise peaceful people feel in the region. Keep in mind that those terrorist groups are NOT primarily financed by Ben Ladin. They are financed by people all over the world, who feel that the US has shit all over the people of the Middle East for many years, for it's own advantage (and Israel'). These bombings, even if they got Ben Ladin would do nothing to diminish the resolve of these groups and will likely increase it. So, without addressing the underlying issues, these bombings will likely just lead to more terrorist attacks and more bombings. When does it end? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Aug 24, 1998 at 17:14:05 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: JW Subject: Feuds and Governments Message: And our policy toward Israel is seen as completely one-sided vis a vis the Palestinians, primarily because it is. We have backed the ruthless military reaction to a popular uprising in the occupied territories, for many years, including Israel's bloody invasions and occupation of Lebanon. The Palestinian issue is probabaly the strongest motivating factor causing people to support terrorist groups, because at least the US will get something that it deserves. But any situations where the US is seen throwing its weight around and killing arabs, while doing nothing to address its underlying policies, contributes to that. Okay Joe, a couple of simple questions: 1) Do you think Israel has the right to exist? Yes or no. 2) If 'yes', how would you guarantee its security? PLEASE, no generalities. What specific measures would you employ? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Aug 24, 1998 at 17:34:12 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: Jim Subject: Feuds and Governments Message: Jim, in answer to your questions: 1. Yes 2. I don't think Israel needs security guarantees. It is quite capable of defending itself with the $3-5 billion in aid it gets from the US every single year for the past 30 years. Man for man it has the best air force in the world, and probably the best army as well. It also has nuclear weapons and the capability of sending them all over the region. I don't even mind the aid so much, and would be willing to continue it, but I think we should pressure Israel into leaving the occupied territories as a homeland for the Palestinians and removing those settlements for Arab areas. But if Israel required a security guarantee to allow a Palestinian state, then I think the US should give it to them, although right now they already have it. I mean a formal treaty that if, for example, Israel was attacked by Iraq or Iran, we would come to its aid. I have no problem with that. Specific enough? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Aug 24, 1998 at 17:35:57 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: JW Subject: Feuds and Governments Message: Yes, specific enough. But what about the Golan heights and Jerusalem? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Aug 24, 1998 at 17:48:23 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: Jim Subject: Feuds and Governments Message: Regarding Jerusalem, this is part of what the (now stalled, and probably dead) peace (Oslo) discussions were supposed to be about. Likely some kind of a division/shared administration is the most likely result, and I think Arafat would accept that, but right now the current hard line Israeli government, won't. By the way, if the peace talks don't get started soon, expect the Intifada to start up again, and I'm not sure Israel can survive as a democratic society if it has to resort to ruthless measures to put it down. Regarding Golan, once the Palestinian question is resolved, Israel and Syria would do what countries have done for centuries, engage in state-to-state negotiations about return, or not, of the territory. With no Soviet Union, Syria wouldn't want to hang out there with the only territorial dispute with Israel. After all, it got worked out with Egypt, why not Syria? Frankly, this is probably the easiest question to resolve. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Aug 24, 1998 at 19:05:27 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: JW Subject: Feuds and Governments Message: Sounds great, Joe. But tell me again, Joe, just for mop up, why is it Israel doesn't really have to worry about Islamic funtamentalism? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 25, 1998 at 13:32:53 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: Jim Subject: Feuds and Governments Message: It isn't 'Islamic Fundamentalism' that is the problem. It's groups drawn from fundamentalists who are seeking a change in political fortunes. While some die-hard groups might never accept Israel's right to exist, and might always hate the US for supporting Israel, if the Palestinians get a homeland, a separate, modern state, much of the support for those political changes would die out. The vast majority of islamic fundamnetalists are not in favor of terror, bombings or anything like that. But, the more intransigent Israel and the US are, the more frustrated the population is, and the more support the radical terrorists groups get. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 25, 1998 at 15:23:18 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: JW Subject: Sure, Joe Message: It isn't 'Islamic Fundamentalism' that is the problem. Joe, that's nonsense. Islamic fundamentalism is exactly what it is. The religion, with its bent towards fanaticsim, fatwas, militant history and cult of martrydom -- complete with feats and orgies on the other side -- is the problem. Don't even think of separating the political motivation in the region from the religious. The region's infected with a religion which, in its undiluted form, is scary as hell. It's a fucking nightmare and you know it, or you SHOULD know it. All of the good qualities of muslims, which I'm well able to appreciate (I think), are attributable to human nature and shine through in spite of their religion. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 25, 1998 at 15:59:10 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: Jim Subject: Don't Generalize Message: Bullshit, Jim. You have fallen for the stereotype of Muslims and their religion. There is a large islamic fundamentalist population in the US, for example, as well as a large non-fundamentalist group, neither of which is anti-American, obviously because they live here and have chosen to live here. They are also relatively prosperous and it's interesting how once that happens, despite being fundamentalist, the political aims change and they become rather upstanding members of the community. They are not violent terrorists, the become members of the school board. Also, as they become more prosperous and educated, they tend to become less 'fundamentalist.' So, fundamentalism becomes destructive, in the sense of being a threat to others and the world, when there is an economic/political underpinning. So, the religion does not imply, as you suggest, some kind of inherent violence, terrorism, and certainly not the targets of same. Those are political aims. It is true that the terrorist groups tend to draw on fundamentalist populations to get support, and use theist reasoning to do so, but that's true of fundamentalist christianity as well, and it's still a small minority of the muslims. It also tends to be the poorest and most disenfanchised groups, who have the least to lose. The 'cult of martyrdom,' to the extent it exists, all depends on what the martyrdom is for. If it's for defending home and country, then christianity probably has a 'cult of martyrdom' too, as does judasim, especially fundamentalist judasim. It's a matter of how it's directed. Fundamentalism of all religions is fertile ground for extremist actions that are really destructive. It isn't the inherent fault of the religion, however, it's the fault of those who use religious beliefs as a basis for recruiting for their own evil and destructive actions. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 25, 1998 at 17:52:26 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: JW Subject: Generalize when it's fair Message: Bullshit, Jim. You have fallen for the stereotype of Muslims and their religion. Yes, yes, yes. Of course I have. But tell me, where do those stereotypes come from? Are they necessarily inaccurate just because they're stereotypes? Here, let me look this up. I'm confused a bit......okay, looked it up. 'Stereotype' always connotes and unjust generalization. Alright, I don't agree with the use of the word then. 'Generalities', yes. 'Stereotypes', no. There is a large islamic fundamentalist population in the US, for example, as well as a large non-fundamentalist group, neither of which is anti-American, obviously because they live here and have chosen to live here. They are also relatively prosperous and it's interesting how once that happens, despite being fundamentalist, the political aims change and they become rather upstanding members of the community. They are not violent terrorists, the become members of the school board. Also, as they become more prosperous and educated, they tend to become less 'fundamentalist.' So, fundamentalism becomes destructive, in the sense of being a threat to others and the world, when there is an economic/political underpinning. Well what are you saying? Is it that they're fundamentalists but not dangerous or that they cease being fundamentalists? Either way, it doesn't matter. Joe, I never said that ALL Muslim fundamentalists are dangerous. Just that the religion itself -- yes, the actual religion -- is extremely oppresive and that it is in fact responsible for inciting all sorts of terrorism. Come on, man, the religion's called 'submission' for God's sake. What do you think it's really all about? Do you think it's just some ugly historical myth that Islam was spread with the sword? How many people do you think actually faced that lovely choice: 'Hmm, this guy here has just given me a choice and I've go to think fast. Do I accept Allah as the only god and Mohammed as his messenger? Or do I just let this fucker cut my head off? Hmm, that's a tough one. What SHOULD I do?'? Really, Joe, do you think that's just an ugly lie fostered by General Motors (joke)? And these so-called moderate fundamentalists, where were they when the Rushdie fatwa happened? Sorry, I listened hard and I just didn't hear nothing. Did you? Like maybe a peep here, or a peep there? Come on, man, even if they don't agree with the fanatical bloodlust they're terrified to say so publically. So, the religion does not imply, as you suggest, some kind of inherent violence, terrorism, and certainly not the targets of same. This is a religion that was born of the swrod and spread by the sword. And now I see that you're going to force me to actually study up on this bizarre package of oppression and superstition just so I can REALLY make this point. Thanks a lot! I'll trust that you'll do the same, right? Those are political aims. It is true that the terrorist groups tend to draw on fundamentalist populations to get support, and use theist reasoning to do so, but that's true of fundamentalist christianity as well, and it's still a small minority of the muslims. It also tends to be the poorest and most disenfanchised groups, who have the least to lose. Don't be absurd. Christianity stopped being an excuse for murder centuries ago. There was a time, though, when it was pretty scary too. Now it isn't, it's just lame. (And no, the Irish 'troubles' aren't fueled by Christianity at all like the Islamic foment. There you COULD make your argument that it's a political problem with religion just relevant to the extent that it tags the various interest groups: blue team, red team.) The 'cult of martyrdom,' to the extent it exists, all depends on what the martyrdom is for. If it's for defending home and country, then christianity probably has a 'cult of martyrdom' too, as does judasim, especially fundamentalist judasim. It's a matter of how it's directed. Fundamentalism of all religions is fertile ground for extremist actions that are really destructive. It isn't the inherent fault of the religion, however, it's the fault of those who use religious beliefs as a basis for recruiting for their own evil and destructive actions. Now this is where you really drift into sheer fantasy. Neither Christianity nor Judaism have anything like a cult of martyrdom. Well, you get a few crazed anti-abortionists but the important point is that the religion itself does not, in its dogma, sanctify martyrdom. Judaism definitely doesn't. You're just talking through your heat on that one. If you're just trying to be PC egalitarian, tell it to someone who hasn't had the advantage of living through the last couple of decades. That might help. This religion is dangerous, Joe. built right in are all sorts of promises of sensual pleasures ad infinitum for the lucky ones who die for Allah. What could be scarier? It's creeping spread throughout so much of Asia, Africa and Europe is frightening. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 25, 1998 at 18:28:28 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: Jim Subject: Generalize when it's fair Message: Well what are you saying? Is it that they're fundamentalists but not dangerous or that they cease being fundamentalists? I was saying both. Muslims in the US continue to be fundamentalists, but aren't dangerous and in fact become quite upstanding citizens, supporting the status quo, and some cease being fundamentalists as their socio-economic, and political views change. Either way, it doesn't matter. Joe, I never said that ALL Muslim fundamentalists are dangerous. Joe, that's nonsense. Islamic fundamentalism is exactly what it is. The religion, with its bent towards fanaticsim, fatwas, militant history and cult of martrydom -- complete with feats and orgies on the other side -- is the problem. Just that the religion itself-- yes, the actual religion -- is extremely oppresive and that it is in fact responsible for inciting all sorts of terrorism. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth, Jim. Either the religion is dangerous or it's not. I pointed out that lots of muslim fundamentalists are not dangerous. So it's not inherent. If you are suggesting that fundamentalism is ripe ground for breeding violence, well, I already said the same thing, so I agree, but I think all forms of religious fundamentalism are breeding grounds for hatred and violence. It's fundamentalism, not islam, that is the inherent problem. But, even then, terror, hatred and violence are not inherent result of fundamentalism either, it only comes when there are other grievences, like economic or social oppression, or the belief in those things, otherwise there is no way to account for why some fundmentalists might be violent, while others, like those living in western democracies, aren't. It therefore can't be inherent in the religion, or even inherent in fundamentalism. So, Jim, how do you account for non-violent Islamic fundamentalists, and can you find any example of islamic fundamentalist terrorism, that doesn't have a political objective? I mean if it's just violent inherently, who needs an economic and political motivation? Bullshit also, Jim, many fundamentalist muslims, opposed the Ayotollah's ransom on Salmon Rusdie. In fact, very few actually supported it. Some of the muslim communities in the US took out full page ads in the NYT publicly stating that. But then, I know you don't actually READ the NYT, you just think they cover what people want to hear, and nothing else. Moreover, most of the Iranians actually opposed what the Ayotollah was about, and, in fact, elected a more moderate government at the first opportunity they were given. Jim, the historical underpinnings of a LOT of religions are violent. Christianity has a violent past. Lets, see -- the inquisition, slavery, burnings at the sake, the crusades, an eye for an eye, the gruesome deaths of the martyrs, the forced 'conversion' of much of the native populations of central and south america, (or death), Barthalomew's Day Massacre of the Heugonauts, just to mention a few. And if you read the Old Testament, it is an extremely violent story, and so if you are a fundamentalist Christian you can support violence and hatred through the bible, just like salvery was justified, and the persecution of homosexuals. [By the way, Jim, Nazism was essentially a state-run (Christian)fundamentalist religion. It used all kinds of christian religious principles to justify violence and persecution, none of which were Islamic.] Jim, I was raised in a religion that taught us to 'pray for martyrdom.' And, historically, dying for your religion is very much a part of christianity. But the christian west has become quite propserous and those views tend to moderate, as they do in the upperclasses of the muslim countries as well. I just don't think you are correct that the religion is per se dangerous. I agree that fundamentalism of any religion is very dangerous, and perhaps Islam is more fertile ground for violence than other religions. Here in the states we have fundamentalist christians forming armed militia groups. That's a small minority, but then I don't think most christians in the states feel persecuted and economically exploited like many muslims do. So, they come up with various bizarre international conspiracy theories. The difference is that a large portion of the muslim world feels quite exploited by the west, and by the governments in the middle east that run like police states and wouldn't exist without US support. They are very pissed about that, and it's all shrouded in religious ferver. But without the feeling of opression, I don't think there would be much of an islamic fundamentalist terrorism going on. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 25, 1998 at 18:47:25 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: JW Subject: Where Stereotypes Come From Message: I forgot you asked me this, Jim. From what I've read, with some interest because I am a member of a minority group that is heavily stereotyped, is that stereotypes are most common when people have little or no personal contact with the people they are stereotyping. If you don't know any arabs, muslims, fundamentalists, etc., it's easier to stereotype them by the only muslims you hear about in the press, which usually are terrorists, the Ayotollah, Sadam Hussein, etc. That's where the stereotype comes from. When you actually know people who are islamic, that changes. One of the lawyers I work with is a fundamentalist muslim (he even wears a beard and his wife, who is a doctor, wears a veil when she isn't working). He is also a republican, believes in the right of Israel to exist, opposes violence of all forms, and although he opposes the US policies in the Middle East, he is very anti Hussein and supported the Gulf War. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 25, 1998 at 19:24:47 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: JW Subject: Generalize when it's fair Message: Joe, you leave me no alternative but to actually read a bit of the koran and get back to you. How about you? Are you willing to do so if you haven't already? My prediction, based on who-the-hell-knows-what, is that I'm going to find some incredibly dangerous teachings, the implementation of which we see rampant in the muslim world. I'm expecting to find explicit programming for murder and oppression the likes of which you just won't find in Christian or Jewish texts. But what IS your problem here? Do you have some sort of unshakeable faith taht all ideologies are equal somehow and that, free from ugly American pressure, no one culture or religion's any better or worse than any other? Do you really believe that? Is that why you can't see the obvious difference between Christian martyrdom, whatever that may be, and the muslim trip? Is that why you make this ridiculous argument about Nazism, as if ANYONE could seriously attribute that evil curse to Christianity? Anyway, off to skim the Koran. This should be rich. Right now I can't stop thinking about all those Algerian and Afghan women who've been murdered and maimed for letting their veils down a bit. Lovely. That goddamed General Motors, huh? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 25, 1998 at 20:10:46 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: Jim Subject: Simplistic Thinking Message: Jim, I think you are confused. You can be a muslim and not be fundamentalist. I mean by that you don't take the words of the Koran literally. Same way with Christianity. If you read the bible, it has lots of very violent stuff in it, and also lots of really stupid prohibitions that even the fundamentalists don't follow, like not eating shellfish, and the like. I think when any religion takes some ancient book literally it's a bad thing. But here's the point you miss. If you really WANT to commit violent acts, because you have a personal or group grievance you want to rectify, then you can USE a literal interpretation of the bible or the koran to justify it. A leader who wants to recruit others to commit violent or hateful acts can do the same. But the grievence comes first. You erroneously assume fundamentalism CREATES the grevience. But absent that kind of grievance, I don't believe the koran or the bible, by itself, actually incites violence, even though they say violent things, any more than televisions does. I just think you have the cause and effect backwards. You are just being incredibly simplistic in your analysis. Been able to think of a terrorist act that didn't have a political motivation Jim? I'm waiting.....thought so. I think martyrdom in the name of religion is both a christian and a muslim ideal. You say there is a difference, but I don't see one, and you haven't mentioned one. My point about Nazisim is that the tenents of just about any religion can be used to condone violence and persecution. It isn't just Islam that gets used that way. What is this nonsense about General Motors? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 25, 1998 at 23:16:23 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: JW Subject: Simplistic Thinking Message: Been able to think of a terrorist act that didn't have a political motivation Jim? I'm waiting.....thought so. Are you nuts? What about the entire spread of muslim fundamentalism in the islamic world? I guess you could call it political in the sense that the religious zealots want to hijack the political process. Talk to me, please, about the girls at busstops killed because they aren't wearing veils. Plese, Joe, tell me about the politics behind that horror show. Listen, I really want you to answer this and I in turn will answer your qeustion about General Motors: do you think that all religions are equally dangerous (or not)? If so is that equality just some happy coincidence or what? I mean, why shouldn't there be some religions that are more oppressive at their core than others? Hmm? General Motors? I was just joking about your current habit of blaming everything bad aux Chomsky. You know, big, bad, U.S. and all that. But tell me, what's with this equality stuff? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Aug 26, 1998 at 13:24:29 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: Jim Subject: Simplistic Thinking Message: What about the entire spread of muslim fundamentalism in the islamic world? I guess you could call it political in the sense that the religious zealots want to hijack the political process. Talk to me, please, about the girls at busstops killed because they aren't wearing veils. Plese, Joe, tell me about the politics behind that horror show. Apples and oranges Jim. I asked you to cite a fundamentalist terrorist act that didn't have a political objective and you still haven't done it. In cases where Islamic fundamentlists have come into political power, some have imposed their rigid religious norms in the form of laws, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia as the most blatant examples. [What 'busstop' killings are you talking about? Was that in Afghanistan under the Taliban?] But that, even though you and I might disagree with it, is NOT terrorism, it is a STATE imposing religious views on the population. The Taliban in Afghanistan is I believe what you are referring to. The Taliban is an organization steeped in violence, in fact it began in the refugee camps generated by the Afghan was against the Soviets and was entirely created for political reasons. I think that if a Christian fundamentalist group was formed and came to power in the same way, it could well be every bit as repressive and violent. Jim, what do you think would happen to women (and me) if Christian Fundamentlists came to power in the US? I know because of the constitution, the doctrine of the separation of church and state here, and the balance of powers, there would be some protections, but assume for argument's sake that those weren't there, like in many of the countries of the Middle East. Think homosexuals might be persecuted and denied equal protection? Think women would have the right to an abortion or even birth control? Do you think women would be required to be 'submissive to their husbands -- perhaps told to stay home and take care of the kids? Think we might have prayer and religious education in the public schools?' do you think that all religions are equally dangerous (or not)? If so is that equality just some happy coincidence or what? I mean, why shouldn't there be some religions that are more oppressive at their core than others? Hmm? So, Jim, are you now changing your argument to say that Islam is just relatively MORE dangerous than other religions? This is a flip-flop because before you were saying that Islam IS per se, inherently violent, while other religions are not. I have already said, and you apparently didn't read, that I concede it is possible the Islamic fundamentalism is comparatively more susceptible to be used to condone violence, but it STILL isn't inherent, and I still contend it (the violvence) doesn't exist without political/economic objectives, and it's only after the objectives exist that the religious teachings are USED to justify violence. And you STILL haven't countered that point. And you still haven't explained how so many Islamic fundamentalists live in the west and are NOT violent and are, in fact, supporters of the status quo. And you still, haven't cited a fundamentalist terrorist act that didn't have a political objective. Your point about Chomsky is absurd, but maybe you think it's funny. What 'equality stuff' are you talking about? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Aug 26, 1998 at 18:13:39 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: JW Subject: Simplistic Thinking Message: Joe, I guess you could characterize any radical muslim attack as 'political' if the assailants' agenda is to implement or sustain an oppressive islamic regime. So what? The busstop killings -- and maimings -- I mentioned were in either Algeria or Afghanistan. Sure, they're politcally motivated. But what possible significance does that have unless you can pin the act on some outside agency? In this case, my understanding is that we've just got some ugly religious fundamentalism rearing its head. Religious motivation, religious actors, religious objective. You concede that Islam MAY lend itself more to violence. You're right, I didn't read that before. Major consession on your part, I'd say, being that you WERE arguing otherwise yesterday, i.e. that fundamtenalism of any sort is oppressive. Tell me, why would you even concede this much. What is it about Islam that makes it so? And wouldn't you say, then, that Islam is by nature a more dangerous concoction? On its own, in a cool, dark spot, out of the reach of children, it won't hurt anyone. Mixed with other ingredients, however, such as broad social dissatisfaction, ignorance, charismatic despotism, it's extremely volatile -- more so than other faiths even though they, too, can be toxic in the wrong circumstances. Why is Islam worse? Could it have anything to do with the various suras I posted under 'Simplistic Thinking'? Sure it does. So, Jim, are you now changing your argument to say that Islam is just relatively MORE dangerous than other religions? This is a flip-flop because before you were saying that Islam IS per se, inherently violent, while other religions are not. Either you misunderstand or I misstated my position. I never meant to let Christianity off the hook as a potentially dangerous thought system. I was only speaking relatively, I thought, in saying that Islam has built-in fangs and venom MUCH worse than Christianity's and FAR worse than Judaism's. If you disagree, please find me any Christian or Jewish counterpart for this likes of: '[2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.' or: '[2.193] And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.' or: '[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.' or: '[3.151] We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they set up with Allah that for which He has sent down no authority, and their abode is the fire, and evil is the abode of the unjust.' These and many more orders to kill unbelievers, idolaters, what-have-you, are unique to Islam, aren't they? So why not call a spade a spade. This is one fucking scary religion should anyone ever take it seriously. Joe, I have to laugh at your question about how society would develop if Christian fundamentalists ever came to power. The bible just doesn't give the kind of deadly encouragement the Koran does to go after infidels. Sure, some crazy Christian even now can murder people by blowing up an abortion clinic, but his only justification comes from a very twisted and stretched illogical extrapolation of biblical edicts. Your average muslim terrorist, on the other hand, has clear and specific directions to attack built right into his 'holy' book. Again, I'd have to say that the reasons more muslims don't take up the sword is that they've begun the process of disassociating from their faith. But that's all to THEIR credit and the credit of human nature. The religion they're sloly slipping away from is still what it is -- deadly for us infidels. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Aug 26, 1998 at 19:55:21 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: Jim Subject: Simplistic Thinking Message: I guess you could characterize any radical muslim attack as 'political' if the assailants' agenda is to implement or sustain an oppressive islamic regime. So what? The busstop killings -- and maimings -- I mentioned were in either Algeria or Afghanistan. I think I've already discussed the Afghan situation, so I suggest you read that. In regard to Algeria, the violence there has been entirely political. The fundamentalist islamics won the election, but the military government disavowed it and has vicously put down the fundamentalist insurgency that resulted. Most people agree that most of the Algerians supporting the insurgence are NOT fundamentalists, they just opppose the government and ally with the only organized opposition. This is completely a political insurgency. I said it was 'possible' that the traditions and writings of Islam might make it EASIER for a politically motivated group to USE those writings to incite violence. I said it was possible. It might be, I don't know. It might be because the Koran is OLDER than the new testament, and hence came from more violent times. Again, Jim, the religion is based on a LOT more than ONE BOOK. So, now you are arguing that ALL religions are violent, and that Islam is just comparatively MORE violent. Backpeddling I would say. Moreover, you still haven't proven it. To do that, you would have to quote the scriptures of all religions, now wouldn't you? But, the bottom line is you still don't have any cause and effect proof and I would argue that the teachings of Christianity have been USED to condone violence as well. Maybe less often in the wealthier countries, but if you go back in history, I would argue it was used EVERY BIT as much as it was in Islam. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Aug 26, 1998 at 21:46:41 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: JW Subject: Simplistic Thinking Message: I said it was 'possible' that the traditions and writings of Islam might make it EASIER for a politically motivated group to USE those writings to incite violence. I said it was possible. It might be, I don't know. It might be because the Koran is OLDER than the new testament, and hence came from more violent times. Again, Jim, the religion is based on a LOT more than ONE BOOK. Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit! The religion's based on the Koran. Everything else is secondary. If the Koran incites violence against the infidels, there it is. Anyone can try to soft peddle those instructions, ignore them, twist them around, dress them up, euphemize and rationalize. But it won't help. As long as any muslim can read this book, they can see for themselves what their great 'prophet' had to say about things. So, now you are arguing that ALL religions are violent, and that Islam is just comparatively MORE violent. NO! Not all, but Islam more than others. My point was and still is that Islam is inherently dangerous. When you brought up Christianity and Judaism, I argued that they're not dangerous in the same way in that they don't, on their face, say shit like this: [8.65] O Prophet! urge the believers to war; if there are twenty patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a hundred of you they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they are a people who do not understand [9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. Or do they? Please, as I said in my other post in this same argument, I'm ready to learn what I don't know. My impression has always been that, on its face, Christianity's all about turning the other cheek and shit like that. Backpeddling I would say. Moreover, you still haven't proven it. To do that, you would have to quote the scriptures of all religions, now wouldn't you? But, the bottom line is you still don't have any cause and effect proof and I would argue that the teachings of Christianity have been USED to condone violence as well. Maybe less often in the wealthier countries, but if you go back in history, I would argue it was used EVERY BIT as much as it was in Islam. But how could that be? It can't. Christians have been ruthless, cuthroat and unconscionably murderous to each other, and have tried to justify themselves in the name of religion. Agreed. The difference, though, is that the religion itself doesn't support them in that. 'Good christians' turn the other cheek, etc. 'Good muslims' take up the sword against idolaters. Call me simplistic but remember Joe, these religions are simple enough mental patterns in the first instance. That's how they spread so easily. I'm just calling it like it is, I think. So how about it? How about some part of either christian or jewish scripture that matches the muslim stuff I've kindly found for you? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Aug 27, 1998 at 01:24:39 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: Jim Subject: Simplistic Thinking Message: The religion's based on the Koran. Everything else is secondary. Jim, it's based on someone's INTERPRETATION of the Koran. And it 's taken in context with other traditions. If the Koran incites violence against the infidels, there it is. Lovely, Jim. But you still haven't even shown ONE example of a terrorist act that was based on an attempt to just commit violence agains 'infidels' just because the religion said to do it. Not one. Your original argument is that terrorism is caused by the muslim relgion. But still no proof, other than quotes from the Koran, and that doesn't prove that any such terrorist act occurred. Christians have been ruthless, cuthroat and unconscionably murderous to each other, and have tried to justify themselves in the name of religion. Agreed. The difference, though, is that the religion itself doesn't support them in that. ' Bullshit, Jim, note all the historical incidents I quoted below. Again it isn't the literal satement, it's how it's interpreted. Jim, you are switiching the issue here by asking that I show that Christianity or Judasim is equally violent. I think I noted a lot of violence in christianity over the years that were incredibly bloody and awful, but that's not the point. YOU made the original satement, still unsupported, that the muslim religion ACTUALLY, in the real world, causes terrorism, and you haven't been able to show that, not even one example. You have the burden of proof here, kiddo, don't try and weasel out of it. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Aug 27, 1998 at 11:30:35 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: JW Subject: It's obvious Message: Joe, Who cares if there's always some political motive behind islamic terrorism? The point is, the religion justifies the violence so easily it is, I say, inherently dangerous. Like guns. You could say they don't hurt anyone unless used carelessly or maliciously, thee's always that human factor. So what? They're still inherently dangerous just BECAUSE they're so prone to deadly abuse. You must have seen that Israeli documentary, 'The making of a Suicide Bomber', (or something like that). These guys were ready to slaughter mass numbers of regular civilians, including women and children and their brainwashing was fed straight from the pages of their one and only holy text. There's no getting away from it, that book's dangerous. The only time it ISN'T lethal is if it's read and supposedly 'followed' by some sophisticated minds who are able to rationalize away Mohammed's otherewise clear instructions. And what's wrong with you, arguing that I'm somehow weasling out referring to Judaism and Christianity? We've both been discussing Islam in the context of all religions, haven't we? You've brought them up every bit as much as I have. You've also claimed that they're just as bloody as Islam. So I ask you to prove it, that's all. Of course they're not but that's not my problem. It's yours. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Aug 27, 1998 at 13:23:37 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: Jim Subject: It's obvious Message: First, Jim, please respond to my 'responding to drivel' post down below. It answers several of your points in this post. Who cares if there's always some political motive behind islamic terrorism? The point is, the religion justifies the violence so easily it is, I say, inherently dangerous. Like guns. Your first sentence is an internal contradiction. The political motives mean everything because if you have to have a political grevience in order for violence to occur the violence IS NOT INHERENT in Islam. Period. Guns are NOT inherently dangerous, someone has to use them, and they usually use them for a reason that has nothing to do with the gun itself. I have already said the ALL fundamentalist religions can be used to justify and encourage violence and terrorism. Not just Islam. As I have pointed out, Christianity has been used that way too. But, again, absent a political grevience, it doesn't happen, so the violence isn't inherent, as personified by my islamic, fundamentalist co-worker, and the muslims who aren't members of the poor, lower classes in the Middle East, and even most of those muslims as well. These guys were ready to slaughter mass numbers of regular civilians, including women and children and their brainwashing was fed straight from the pages of their one and only holy text. There's no getting away from it, that book's dangerous First of all, you still haven't responded to the distinction I made between the BOOK and the RELIGION. So, now you say the BOOK is dangerous, as opposed to the Religion, because people use it to brainwash people to be violent for a political cause. That's different from your original point, and I don't disagree with it. As I have said repeatedly, WHEN there is a political grevience, then and only then, the fundamentalist scriptures can be USED to incite (some, few) people to fight for the political cause, shrouded in a religious context. That means the violence ISN'T inherent and only contributes to violence when it's interpreted by people for their own, political ends. That means the violence ISN'T inherent and you lose the argument. Moreover, such violent, brainwashed people, exist in tiny, miniscule, numbers compared to the hundreds of millions of muslims in the world. Perhaps in about the same numbers as the IRA, Christian militia groups, and people who kill doctors and bomb abortion clinics, all of whom also use the bible or other christian religious beliefs, to condone and incite the violence they commit. I never said any one religion was 'just as bloody' as the other. I just objected to your weaseling out of having to prove your point by asking proof that christianity was bloody. Well, I provided a lot of that and you haven't responded to it. Moreover, my point isn't about other religions. It's that islam isn't INHERENTLY violent, and, dare I say it again, the best you can suggest, and I agree with THAT, is that the tenents of Islam are used to incite people to pursue political objectives. And I have said that Christian fundamentalism is used that way, too. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Aug 27, 1998 at 17:13:34 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: JW Subject: It's obvious Message: Joe, You and I aren't ever going to resolve this. Partly because you're getting too emotional. In your post above, 'Bullshit, Jim', you said: I agree with this, too. I really think it is JIM who has got a fatwa going. His desire to demonize all muslims as violent terrorists is taking on more religious furvor all the time. And that's just about the stupidest thing I've ever heard you say. No, it IS the stupidest thing I've ever heard you say, bar none. But maybe things will cool off a bit if we work with the analogy I proposed because therein, I think, lies the problem. See, I disagree with you about guns. I think it's fair to say that they ARE inherently dangerous. Used unjudiciously or recklessly, they're deadly. Subject to common, easily forseeable accident, they're deadly. That, to me, makes them inherently dangerous. Similarly, any religion whose one and only scripture includes repeated mandates to kill 'idolaters' and 'disbelievers' is inherently dangerous. There are just too many ways those teachings can be abused with deadly consequences. And the diffculity with a religion such as Islam, Joe, is that it's not based on negotiable principles or dictums. Mohammed either did or did not receive those 'inspired' passages. They're not erasable or subject to review. That's why I say that a muslim who disassociates himself too far from this received 'wisdom' must be considered a 'bad' muslim. That is, unless once were to think that Islam is whatever current moslems want it to be. You know, if there are a few sections of the teachings that offend, just cut them out. Have a vote. Yeah, that's it, have a vote. Sorry, Joe, it doesn't owrk that way. Go ahead, ask your muslim co-worker about those verses. See how easily HE dismisses them and still calls himself a faithful muslim. Come on, you understand they can't do that! Better to just ignore those verses that incite murder and warfare. But I say THAT necessarily makes them 'bad' muslims. Can't you understand this? Look, if Maharaji, Glory be his Name, had died in '74 and premies kept on going, what would you say to their modifying the dogma to relieve Maharaji of his divinity, exclusive divinity at that? Wouldn't you say that they were just going where Maharaji never authorized and thus were 'bad' premies? I would. To me that's very straightforward. Same thing here. Mohammed was the last prophet. He never authorized any subsequent ayotollah or cleric to change his teaching, did he? Of course not. So what entitles anyone today to call themself a muslim and pick and choose which part of the teaches they want to accept and which to ignore? Nothing as far as I'm concerned. Can't you understand what I'm saying? This is so simple. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Aug 27, 1998 at 17:57:31 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: Jim Subject: It's obvious Message: God, Jim. You sure can dish out sarcasm, but maybe you can't take it. Lighten up. The fatwa comment was a joke. I DO think you are arguing this point with a lot of emotional furvor, and ignoring a lot of logic. Since you usually are logical, but aren't in this case, I got a little sarcastic about it. You of all people, given the way you can make fun of what people say on this forum, should not be offended by that. Please don't be: I DON'T, literally, think you are on a fatwa, and I don't for a minute think you believe I think that either. Jim, I think guns are dangerous too. I am in favor of strong gun control. But it's a PREVENTATIVE reason, not an inherent one. There are also all different kinds of guns, some are MORE potentially dangerous than others. It's just too simplistic to say ALL GUNS are dangerous and it is just PLAIN WRONG to say GUNS CAUSE violence. They don't. In that much I agree with the NRA, although I disagree with them on just about everything else. So, to use the gun analogy, it's wrong to say guns CAUSE violence, because LOTS of people have guns, and the vast majority don't engage in violence. CORRECT? People have ANOTHER reason for engaging in violence, and then can USE a gun to do it. With Islam, or any other religion, it can be USED to galvanize terrorism towards a political aim, but it's the political aim that is the CAUSE, not the religion. Obviously, LOTS of people follow the religion and aren't violent. And lots of people commit violence and aren't religious. Mohammed either did or did not receive those 'inspired' passages. They're not erasable or subject to review. This is where I think you are wrong. Interpretation happens whenever anyone reads those passages and they do it from their life experiences. Either that or the religion has evolved such that the 'Bad' religion is now the accepted one I think that has happened with christianity as well. Also, according to my co-worker, there are lots of CONTRADICTORY passages and dictates in the Koran that speak AGAINST violence, and your selective, quoting of the violent parts isn't the whole story. People who don't have a motivation to be violent, rely on those as well. In addition, he says the religion is MORE than the Koran. It's also based on other traditions, community and faith. As I said, that's really true with Catholicism as well. And who are YOU to say a muslim can't interpret the Koran? I know you say this, but apparently millions of muslims are not following your dictates, Jim, you better do something about that. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Aug 27, 1998 at 18:06:50 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: JW Subject: And Also, Jim Message: Jim, I want you to know that I don't LIKE Islam, nor most other religions either. I think, frankly, that fundamentalist Islam does shitty things to women and children, for example, within a society and it has other rigid requirements that aren't good for people. I just don't think it's true that a good muslim is a violent muslim, as you suggest. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Aug 27, 1998 at 18:20:49 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: JW Subject: It's obvious Message: Don't worry about the joke. No big deal. But let's talk about this: Jim, I think guns are dangerous too. I am in favor of strong gun control. But it's a PREVENTATIVE reason, not an inherent one. There are also all different kinds of guns, some are MORE potentially dangerous than others. It's just too simplistic to say ALL GUNS are dangerous and it is just PLAIN WRONG to say GUNS CAUSE violence. They don't. In that much I agree with the NRA, although I disagree with them on just about everything else. So, to use the gun analogy, it's wrong to say guns CAUSE violence, because LOTS of people have guns, and the vast majority don't engage in violence. CORRECT? People have ANOTHER reason for engaging in violence, and then can USE a gun to do it. Joe, this is one area where you Americans really fail to persuade me and just about anyone else I know or have ever spoken to outside your borders. What does it mean to call something dangerous? Is it that the act or substance always causes harm? I think not. Tigers are dangerous but that's not to say that everyone who walks into a tiger's cage or stumbles across one's path in nature is doomed. It's just that the very presence of a tiger means that, in a large percentage of cases, the tiger will indeed hurt someone without various defensive measures in place (like a gun! oh no, talk about circular arguments). What constitutes 'large', in this case, turns on the gravity of the harm. Accidents can happen with anything but when they happen with guns, the accidents are often deadly. Also, people can overreact emotionally to situations in all sorts of ways, but when they overreact with a gun in hand, watch out. There's so little margin for error and such disastrous consequences on the downside that, yes, guns are, by nature (i.e. 'inherently') dangerous. Hey, here's one for you. Maharaji's dangerous. Not that every person that comes in contact with him is going to fall into his cult but there are so many insidious ways that that can happen, I'd have to say, yes he's dangerous. Without the proper innoculation and a copy of the Guru Papers in one's back pocket, even smart, otherwise sophisticated people can fall for his ancient superstition. Heaven's Gate, on the other hand, .... oh I don't know! Look, the way I see it is that there is just too much of a recipe for fanatical bloodlust in the Koran. No one can excise it and, while your colleague might feel immune to some of Mohammed's more chilling provocations, he must admit, as must anyone, that as long as that stuff is there and readable as the word of the prophet, we've got a problem. And who are YOU to say a muslim can't interpret the Koran? I know you say this, but apparently millions of muslims are not following your dictates, Jim, you better do something about that. Hey, do you think I'm worried about whether most of the world's religions are falling to pieces in terms, integrity-wise, in light of science? Give me a break! I mean the pope's admitted the fact of evolution. Good for him, bad for catholicism. Big fucking deal. Yes, they ARE all bad muslims if they're not willing to follow their prophet. What will I 'do' about it? Laugh, I guess. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Aug 27, 1998 at 18:58:46 (EDT)
From: Mike Email: None To: Jim Subject: Hey hey hey hey hey Message: Jim: Slighty astride your subject, but here goes: -Using that analogy, CARS are 'inherently' dangerous. More people are killed by drunk drivers that by guns in this country every single year. Why aren't we doing background checks on potential car buyers and preventing drunks from EVER owning a vehicle, again? Vehicle ownership and car travel are NOT protected in any way by the constitution. That's why driving a car is referred to as a 'priviledge' instead of a right (in the US, anyway). I hear NO ONE crying for a ban on cars, why? - There are MANY things that are potentially dangerous in the hands of the wrong person. Yes, I agree that guns are inherently dangerous and were intended to be. But that doesn't warrant their banning, just because a few assholes use them incorrectly. Compared to the total number of gun owners and guns, an amazing small percentage are EVER used in the commission of a crime (less than one-one hundredth of a percent (pretty small number, wouldn't you say?) I apply this argument across the board to anything that's dangerous. For example: Why does ANYONE NEED to fly a private plane. When they crash, lots of people can die (if they hit a house, for example). Since private planes are unneeded (we have commercial airlines), then ALL private planes should be banned. The same applies to cars: No private drivers, no drunk driving accidents (accidents, my ass!). EVERYONE will use a commercial conveyance operated by a professional that has to have his/her urine checked every day. - No, I don't agree that because an item is 'inherently' dangerous, that it should be banned. In the wrong hands, a baseball bat is inherently dangerous. YES, we had an incident in this town recently where a group of gang-bangers ran a car off the road and beat the individuals inside to DEATH with a baseball bat. Removing guns will NOT stop crime. I really don't think it will even shrink it. There is SOMETHNG else wrong, here. I just refuse to blame a problem on an inanimate object. It's the 'animates' that have the problem. Crime is an act, not an object. An object cannot commit a crime. (uh oh, I've done it now...you're a lawyer...oops...he he he). - So there.... how do you like my paragraphing, now????? :-) Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Aug 27, 1998 at 19:26:58 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Mike Subject: Oh you Americans.... Message: Mike, Sure cars are dangerous. But their benefit so far outweighs their risk they're worth keeping around. (Before we go any further, mind you, I never said we should 'ban' Islam. I just said it was a particularly dangerous religion.) Bats AREN'T dangerous, really. That is, there's no risk whatsoever that a bat's going to discharge accidentally or that someone is going to jut pull their little, bitty, teenie finger, in a heated moment and instantly kill someone. No, you have to go over to your guns section if you want to get something that does that. You poor Americans are completely blind on this issue. There is absolutely no reason in the world for handguns to be legal for the general population. They do indeed make life a LOT more dangerous and the murder rate throughout the states is proof of that. Look, I'm a criminal lawyer. I represent lots of people who, for whatever reason, attack, beat up and rob people. You can't tell me that easy access to guns wouldn't have lead to a LOT more murders in many of these cases. Of course it would have. Personally, that's one of the reasons why, much as I love so much about the place, I don't imagine I'll ever live in the states again. Get away from the guns and they do indeed start to look like what they really are -- frightening as hell. I think the right to bear arms is the most tragic aspect of the American tradition. I have no idea how long you guys will adhere to that antiquated concept but I just say 'too bad, too bad'. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Aug 27, 1998 at 20:15:24 (EDT)
From: Mike Email: None To: Jim Subject: Oh you Americans.... Message: Jim: I don't disagree that a gun makes it easier to commit crimes (of passion, or otherwise). But I think the issue is the people themselves. Where does this lack of respect for life come from? Getting rid of guns won't fix it and 'where there's a will, there's a way.' Crimes of passion are committed here with knives just as often (if not more so) as they are with guns; with the same grisly results. - It's the 'attitude' that needs fixing. Your country, for whatever reason, doesn't seem to harbor the number of people with violent criminal intent as we do down here (on a per capita basis). I said, 'seems' since I don't have any hard evidence on that statistic. That brings up the other side of the story: Many of the 'legally owned and operated' guns in this country are kept by folks who want a method of self-defense. Most of them (the incredibly vast majority) are NEVER used for any other purpose than target practice. Target shooting is, in and of itself, a VERY popular sport here. Handguns are a particular discipline within that group (which is quite large, by the way). - Like I said, when someone buys a gun here there is a 99.99% chance that it will NEVER be used in the commission of any crime, EVER! That leaves the one-one hundredth of a percent that we were talking about. That's a pretty strong statistic, to me. I can' think of anything concerning 'safety' that has a better statistic. BTW, that statistic comes from the FBI. They are the one's tasked with keeping track of those kinds of statistics down here. It is obviously a statistic that Handgun Control, Inc doesn't like seeing published. Where they get theirs, no one seems to know because they aren't even asking for the statistics from the FBI (the people charged with keeping crime statistics). - Quite frankly, other than when I went fishing up in the Yukon (chased by a grizzly...NOT funny!), I've never felt the need for a weapon of ANY sort while spending time in Canada. The people there have a different 'attitude.' I don't think it's the presence of guns that causes the attitude down here and I don't think the absence of guns in Canada has anything to do with the attitude in Canada. It's something else and as long as we waste our time trying to do something as contentious as 'banning guns,' we'll NEVER figure it out. But THAT is kind of typical of this country, too. Treat the symptom (gun abuse) instead of curing the disease (criminal intent). - As always, IMHO :-) Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Aug 27, 1998 at 20:26:39 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Mike Subject: Oh you Americans.... Message: But I think the issue is the people themselves. Where does this lack of respect for life come from? Getting rid of guns won't fix it and 'where there's a will, there's a way.' Crimes of passion are committed here with knives just as often (if not more so) as they are with guns; with the same grisly results. Mike, Knives, bats and wrenches just don't kill like guns do. It's NOT true that they're just as deadly or that 'where there's a will, there's a way'. That's just part of the American programming that 'informs' the gun control debate there. My simple experience is that I've represented many and been involved with even more defendants who acted in great hatred, desperation, intoxication or simple callous disregard for others who I'm completely convinced that, if they'd had a gun, they'd have killed or wounded much worse than they did given limited weapons. No, the best argument against gun control in the states is one I've never heard uttered but I'll give it to you, my ex-premie friend: it's a much more noble thing to be killed outright and done away with than to suffer the pain and possible disfigurement of a knife scar for the rest of one's life. All or nothing! That's the ticket. :) Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Aug 27, 1998 at 20:34:54 (EDT)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: Jim Subject: Oh you Canadians... Message: Jim: You poor Americans are completely blind on this issue. There is absolutely no reason in the world for handguns to be legal for the general population. They do indeed make life a LOT more dangerous and the murder rate throughout the states is proof of that. Look, the hero of Canada's westward expansion was the Mountie, a policeman. The hero of America's westward expansion was the gunfighter (sometimes a policeman, but usually not). Actually the root cause of the violence rate in the US is lack of deference toward authority. The presence of guns, and of violence, are consequences. So is freedom of thought and creativity. You won't change the mix without changing the values. It's a double-edged sword. My concern is that people know the sword cuts both ways, so they can make an informed choice. -Scott Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Aug 28, 1998 at 00:40:28 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: ipso facto? Message: The presence of guns, and of violence, are consequences. So is freedom of thought and creativity. You won't change the mix without changing the values. Funny, Scott, I always thought obesity was a necessary compliment to American guns and violence. Now you say it's freedom of thought and creativity. Look, I don't think we need to understand the root cause of American violence to deal with the question of how the plethora of guns affects the mix. We can all kill. Chairs are kind of hard to kill with. Bats are a little easier and knives are downright slick. Still, you have to get right in there and aim right and all that. But guns! Why, it's almost as if they were designed to shoot those little lead things right into people! Holy cow! They're like little, portable killing machines. You get slugged or knifed, if you're unlucky you die. You get shot, if you're lucky, you live. No, the second amendment (it IS the second, isn't it?) is one idea who's time has come and gone. And say you're right, say without guns we wouldn't have had Rick's clever darshan story, well that's just something we'd have to live without, I guess. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Aug 28, 1998 at 01:34:41 (EDT)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: Jim Subject: It's not about guns. Message: Jim: I don't give a damn about the guns. Canadians and Americans were both told to convert to the metric system. You did, we didn't. That result was predictable. That sort of thing has happened many many times. I haven't owned a gun, or rifle, since high school. But someone has to tell all those free thinkers that they can't have them. And someone has to punish those who decide they want them. Deference to that authority might also have unintended consequences, and staunch unwillingness to defer might come to unravel the deference these out-of-many-one individuals are willing to pay now, on the basis of a founding set of principles. The point about 'the mix' is that if it is not 'the people' who decide to put those restraints upon themselves then the laws, and the authority that enforces them, won't be regarded as legitimate enough to rule. The issue is not guns. I'm being very careful about my words here. You're a counter-revolutionary. That's almost an infidel. I think Americans are ready to visit this issue, but one's expectations ought to be subdued. If you don't understand the ideology behind the resistance you will get nowhere. -Scott Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Aug 28, 1998 at 08:20:01 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: It is if it is Message: Scott, It's about whatever you want to talk about. In this case, you're discussing WHY Americans have guns. I wasn't discussing 'why' so much as the effect of that fact. Two separate but related issues, no? In any event, I find it strange that so many Americans can't accept the obvious social cost they pay for that decision. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Aug 27, 1998 at 10:24:54 (EDT)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: JW Subject: Correction? Message: Joe: It might be because the Koran is OLDER than the new testament, and hence came from more violent times. That would really surprise me, since the Koran refers specifically to Jesus. -Scott Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Aug 27, 1998 at 13:34:27 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Correction? Message: Over how many hundreds or thousands of years was the Koran written? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Aug 27, 1998 at 18:47:19 (EDT)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: JW Subject: Correction? Message: Joe: Over how many hundreds or thousands of years was the Koran written? The Koran is more akin to the Book of Mormon than to the Christian New Testament or the Jewish scriptures. According to Islamic belief, the Koran was revealed by God to the Prophet Muhammad in separate revelations during the Prophet's life at Mecca and Medina. Muhammad lived between 570 and 632 AD. The canonical text was established A.H. 30 (A.D. 651-52) under the caliph Uthman. -Scott Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Aug 27, 1998 at 10:07:53 (EDT)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: JW Subject: You said the secret word Message: Joe: Jim, what do you think would happen to women (and me) if Christian Fundamentlists came to power in the US? That's an easy one. Within a period of thirty years there would be a viable socialist party in the US and the dominant political/social structure would be Social Democratic. We would also have a 'single payer' health care system. What I can't figure out is why the Christian Fundamentalists are so reluctant to see this. Again, I suggest you read 'Continental Divide.' Ever heard of the 'law of unintended consequences?' -Scott Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Aug 27, 1998 at 13:41:36 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: You said the secret word Message: That might be a nice result, Scott, but the 30 years in the meantime would be hell. But since the word 'socialist' is an anathema to the US public, I'd be surprised if that happened. Why wouldn't we just swing back to centrist, politics as usual, and why would people who oppose christian fundamentalism in government, automatically support a single payer health plan? I don't get the cause and effect there. Moreover, I think it's just as reasonable to assume that opposition to christian fundamentalism could come from corporate business interests, who like conservative economic policies of the replublican party, but don't like the christian right's positions on social issues. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Aug 27, 1998 at 15:34:27 (EDT)
From: Mike Email: None To: JW Subject: You said the secret word Message: JW: Fortunately, I think the concept of a christian fundamentalist government (e.g. they are in the majority) is purely academic. I 'could' picture a few of them getting into office, but never the majority. They are just too far out there. At the risk of making myself very unpopular, I am a republican (big surprise, right?) and I don't like the fundamentalists, at all (that may actually be a surprise). I don't like the fact that some of the party leadership panders to their desires, nor do I like the party being associated with them. They don't get into political discussions, they get into religious arguments and THAT is a BIG difference. The parties are supposed to be based upon differing political philosophies, not differing religious viewpoints. I most strongly believe in the separation of church and state. I think JFK was a good example of a person that could and did make the distinction, too. At the time of his election, I know that alot of people were concerned that they would be electing a puppet of the pope, since he was such a STRONG roman catholic. Obviously, this didn't happen nor do I think that either party would nominate someone who couldn't 'handle' the need for separation of church and state. I don't really believe that a 'loose cannon' christian fundamentalist would be able to make the sweeping changes that would affect you personally (at least I would hope not). Even if that person were elected president (yuck), his power would be limited by the congress and supreme court, if not the PEOPLE. BTW, I have a large number of republican friends, some of whom are/were very powerful in the party, that agree with my sentiments concerning the christian fundamentalists. They just haven't figured out what to do about them, yet. They (fundamentalists) are good at getting the voters out, but is that worth it? (Many are beginning to think it is not) BUT, all bets are off when you are talking about a country that doesn't have the protections that the constitution provides. Church and state, in those coutries, can be inextricably linked and it's NEVER a good thing. I think, in this regard, that Jim's original point that 'religion is bad' applies when you are talking about a theocracy. Depending on your viewpoint, it may not be bad for a 'person' to have a religion, but it is VERY bad for a government to have one. Your own point concerning Christian Fundamentalists makes this obvious. (IMHO) Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Aug 27, 1998 at 19:17:39 (EDT)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: JW Subject: You said the secret word Message: Joe: But since the word 'socialist' is an anathema to the US public, I'd be surprised if that happened. Why wouldn't we just swing back to centrist, politics as usual, and why would people who oppose christian fundamentalism in government, automatically support a single payer health plan? I don't get the cause and effect there. It is a complicated but fascinating argument that I will allow you to uncover for yourself. Socialism is anathema to Americans, but if there were a closer connection between church and state that would not be the case. It is not that the fundamentalists' opponents would warm up to socialism, but that the church/state association would change the way people view government, i.e. they would come to regard it with greater deference. Again, read 'Continental Divide.' You'll find it interesting, I guarantee. -Scott Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 25, 1998 at 20:25:12 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: Jim Subject: By the Way Jim Message: Jim, go read the Koran if you want to, but it's really irrelevent. You have not in any way established that by reading the Koran, or the Bible, one is incited into commiting violence. So, you can quote all kinds of awful stuff if you want, but witout some shread of evidence that people actually act on what those ancient books say, in the absence of other political and economic objectives, it's pretty meaningless. No 'proximate cause' as they say. By the way, still waiting for you to cite an Islamic fundamentalist terrorist act that didn't have a political objective, but was done just because the religion said to do it. HMMM. Also waiting for you to explain why Islamic fundamentalists in the west, including the lawyer I work with, aren't out commiting violent acts because their religion tells them to do it. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 25, 1998 at 22:23:16 (EDT)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: JW Subject: A prediction Message: Joe: I think I can predict what will happen if Jim reads the Koran, and posts a thesis about the religion based on that study. Someone will post a rebuttal to the effect that Jim hasn't intrepreted the Koran appropriately. Then Jim will rebut the rebuttal, and so on, and so on. Transpose this process to the culture of Islam, with a similarly predictable result. The point is that with enough iterations the civil dialogue over 'meaning' replaces the uncivil conflict. Interpretation has become more 'legitimate' than conflict. That eventually leads to a system of law based on the interpretation of texts: in short, a system of precedents. -Scott Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 25, 1998 at 23:24:25 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: JW Subject: You will lose this argument Message: Jim, go read the Koran if you want to, but it's really irrelevent. You have not in any way established that by reading the Koran, or the Bible, one is incited into commiting violence. So, you can quote all kinds of awful stuff if you want, but witout some shread of evidence that people actually act on what those ancient books say, in the absence of other political and economic objectives, it's pretty meaningless. No 'proximate cause' as they say. Joe, I just wanted to warn you, you WILL lose this argument. You WILL concede that Islam is a dangerous force in many respects and, in that way, qualitiatively different than, say, Judaism. Yeah, that's right, fuck Christianity, let's talk judaism and islam. I think at the end of the day that you will be appalled by some of the religious tenents of islam in a way that Judaism just won't touch you. First, though, I WILL read some of the Koran. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Aug 26, 1998 at 11:25:28 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Jim Subject: On my way to the Koran Message: I stumbled upon this: 'In order to understand the threat of Islamic Fundamentalism, we should get some idea of what is Islam and who are the Arabs. I will quote from various books to substantiate whatever I say. Islam has divided the world into two. On one hand is the darkness of Islam which is the territory of beast or the territory of Islam; and on the other hand is the dark and hard, the territory of the sword. 'Hard' in Arabic is a sword. The territory of the sword is the territory that has to be conquered by the sword. All those who are not Moslems are called demnies, 'sub-human'. And here is a long quote, but a very important one, of the teaching of Koran from a book by Brigadier Malic of Pakistan with a foreword by the late Seruk Harck who was the President of Pakistan. The book was published in Pakistan by Eugene Alis Limited and here is what it says. The teaching of the Koran: 1) Islam is the only right religion on earth. All other religions are wrong. non-Moslems are on the path of error (Not too bad). 2) It is the prime religious duty of very Moslem to convert all non-Moslems to Islam. The effort has to be continuous and non-stop. This continuous and non-stop effort is variously called 'the Road of Heaven', 'Moslems struggle for Peace and Justice', 'Jihad', etc. All these are names regarding the conversion of non-Islams including jihad - the holy war. Now there are three stages of bringing peace and justice to this world. Now you will learn how to bring peace and justice. 1) Advise or induce non-Moslems to get converted to Islam; or at least to work for under Islam. 2) Creating psychological demoralization and confusion in the minds of non-Moslems (this is the other peaceful way); and 3) Military attack on non-Moslems. Three ways. You try to convince them; it doesn't work. Start to confuse them; demoralize them by various means. And if these do not help, military attack. Stage 2, is a most important one to be held on a large scale. This is the demoralization stage. In dealing with communities which are not likely to be converted to Islam on a mass scale at one go; it is preparatory for military attack if such attacks become necessary. If this psychological attack is made in an intelligent and planned manner, the war may be one even without a military attack. In other words, create what they are doing in Israel: demoralization, confusion, attacks; maybe the war will be won before they have to launch a final attack. In any case, even if a military attack becomes essential, the very ground for military success would have been prepared through such preparatory psychological attacks. These psychological attacks, and I am quoting the whole thing because it has a reference to the United States, includes terrorism and treachery, laying ambushes for non-Moslems when they are in sleep or play (Very fair war!?). At least suspecting an attack, when the Moslems attack creates terror in the hearts of non-Moslems. Rob, burn, slaughter on a mass scale so as to teach the survivors what awaits them if they do not surrender to Islam. I will not continue. The message is clear, unequivocal and indisputable. Here is what John LaFain, a British writer, says: 'Islamic Law does not recognize the possibility of peace with the unbelievers and the infidels' (the infidels are the Christians and the Jews). And so says the Koran, and I quote from the Koran, 'Those who follow him (Mohammed) are ruthless to the unbelievers.' The emphasis is on the word 'ruthless'. In all fairness, I must admit that there was a time from the tenth to the fifteenth centuries in Spain when we knew another kind of Islam; a benevolent Islam, an enlightened Islam; an Islam that had a brighter face. At that time even the Islamic Kalid used Christian ambassadors in his administration. He used Jews ministers in his administration. But then something happened. The Moslem world was defeated by the Christian world and since then the Moslem world is apprehensive. The Moslem world is at lost. The Moslem world decided to embark on a terrorist way to conquer again the world. Here is what an Arab writer, Dr. Sonia Hamade: 'Modern Arab society is ruthless, stern and pitiless, worships strength, and has no compassion for weakness.' Dr. Hamade was a teacher in a university in Florida. I sent her a letter and I received the letter back. I sent the letter to the publisher and I said the letter came back. No one knows where Dr. Hamade is now. Your guess is as good as mine. If we want to crystallize perhaps in one word the difference between Christianity, and for that matter the Jewish religion, and Islam we can do it, as I said, in one word. What typifies the Christian religion is love. What typifies the Islamic religion is power. Power - viscous power - because there is no power which is not viscous. To give you an example, in twenty-five years, between 1948 and 1973, over eighty revolts took place in the Middle East in Arab countries. Over eighty revolts within a framework of twenty-five years. How many revolts do you know of in Europe in twenty-five years? Zero. How many revolts do you know of in the United States in twenty-five years? Or in Canada? Over eighty of them in the Middle East, and thirty of them succeeded. Twenty-two major leaders, presidents and prime ministers were killed in the course of these revolts. Twenty-two prime ministers and presidents in twenty-five years. How many were killed in Europe? The Prime Minister of Sweden who was very approachable and was willing to accommodate the PLO he was killed. The world of Islam is a world of fantasy, and I want again to quote because it is extremely important for us to understand eventually what transpires now with Islamic Fundamentalism. Here is what it says what is the epitome of luxury: once they die they will recline on jeweled coaches, face to face, and there shall wait on them immortal youth with bowls of urs and a cup of purest wine. With fruits of their own choice and flesh of love, and there shall be the dark-eyed kurees, chasted as the hidden pearls, a garden for their deeds. There they shall hear no idle talk or sinful speech. This is what they aspire to, to have the maiden serve them, etc. in heaven. Contrary to what we have in the Christian religion in Matthew 6:9,10 where it says: 'After this manner therefore pray ye, 'Our Father which art in heaven, hallowed be Thy Name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven.'' The reward will be here on His coming.' What do you think? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Aug 26, 1998 at 14:31:12 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: Jim Subject: Responding to Drivel Message: Jim, if you quote something like this, it would help if you would say who wrote it. It's full of subjective opinion, and it appears to have been written, dare I say, by a Judaic Fundamentalist, with extemely pro-Israel leanings. So, that point number one. Moreover it is pretty internally inconsistent and very intellectually dishonest. The teaching of the Koran: 1)Islam is the only right religion on earth. All other religions are wrong. non-Moslems are on the path of error (Not too bad). 2) It is the prime religious duty of very Moslem to convert all non-Moslems to Islam. So, this is also Roman Catholic doctrine, and certainly the doctrine of many Christian Protestant fundamentalists. So Jim, tell me, if it is inherent Islamic doctrine that Muslims attack non-muslims through war, including the US, why aren't all the countries of the middle east militarily attacking the US and Europe? Why has Egypt entered into a peace treaty with Israel? Why is Saudi Arabia, one of the strictest Islamic-fundamentalist states, such a staunch ally of the US and, tacitly at least, agrees Israel has the right to exist and doesn't attack Israel? Why does Saudi Arabia allow the US to station troops in its country? Same question re Jordan? Why are not American Islamic Fundamentalists out propogating among American Christians, including trying to 'psychologically confuse' them and, perhaps, killing them during 'sleep' or 'play' like at baseball games and when they are playing frisbee? Get real. But the answer, at least to some extent, is included in this very one-sided article, when the author says: In all fairness, I must admit that there was a time from the tenth to the fifteenth centuries in Spain when we knew another kind of Islam; a benevolent Islam, an enlightened Islam; an Islam that had a brighter face. At that time even the Islamic Kalid used Christian ambassadors in his administration. He used Jews ministers in his administration. But then something happened. The Moslem world was defeated by the Christian world and since then the Moslem world is apprehensive. The Moslem world is at lost. The Moslem world decided to embark on a terrorist way to conquer again the world. So, the violence isn't inherent in Islam, and the current 'terrorist' violence has essentially a political cause, the feeling of having been defeated by the Christian west. I would add, that the muslim world, after being defeated, was also colonized, ruled, had its valuable resources (oil) exploited in a way that didn't benefit the vast majority of muslimes, and after these countries were given 'independence' the US, British, French, Dutch, German, Russian and other governments, manipulated and propped up governments that were not supported by the populations of those countries, in order to keep the oil flowing to the west. Even setting aside the animosity created in the region by the Palestinian issue, this has, politically, made these populations feel angry and powerless, and when that happens, terrorism and 'revolution' often result. But this last part of this article is just TOO stupid to be believed: What typifies the Christian religion is love. What typifies the Islamic religion is power. Power - viscous power - because there is no power which is not viscous. To give you an example, in twenty-five years, between 1948 and 1973, over eighty revolts took place in the Middle East in Arab countries. How many revolts do you know of in Europe in twenty-five years? Zero. How many revolts do you know of in the United States in twenty-five years? So, the arabs have revolutions because their religion is vicious, while Christians don't have them because their religion is based on love. Give me a fucking break. Between 1948 and 1973, most of the 'christian' countries in Europe and North America had stable democracies which wouldn't be conducive to revolution, while the middle east was in a transition from colonialism with puppet governments often set up by the west, completely conducive to revolution. But this is what REALLY gets to me, and shows how intellectually dishonest the whole diatribe you quoted is. The author only compares the number of revolutions to Europe and North America and conveniently leaves out one area of the christian world: LATIN AMERICA!!!!!! Jim, guess how many revolutions there were between 1948 and 1973 in christian, catholic Latin America? I can't tell you the exact number, but I am absolutely positive it was more than 80 in that area of the world alone, despite the fact that it's a christian area of the world based on 'LOVE.' Geez. What crap. Jim, how can you even read this drivel, let alone re-print it. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Aug 26, 1998 at 17:34:13 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: JW Subject: Responding to Drivel Message: So, this is also Roman Catholic doctrine, and certainly the doctrine of many Christian Protestant fundamentalists. So Jim, tell me, if it is inherent Islamic doctrine that Muslims attack non-muslims through war, including the US, why aren't all the countries of the middle east militarily attacking the US and Europe? Why has Egypt entered into a peace treaty with Israel? Why is Saudi Arabia, one of the strictest Islamic-fundamentalist states, such a staunch ally of the US and, tacitly at least, agrees Israel has the right to exist and doesn't attack Israel? Why does Saudi Arabia allow the US to station troops in its country? Same question re Jordan? Why are not American Islamic Fundamentalists out propogating among American Christians, including trying to 'psychologically confuse' them and, perhaps, killing them during 'sleep' or 'play' like at baseball games and when they are playing frisbee? Get real. Joe, the piece was from a speech by an Israeli general. I didn't cite him at first because I wanted your substantive reply, not the anticipated ad hominem attack. And now I have it and now I understand further how your thinking is a bit off on this subject. Your comment above reflects the problem. You seem to think that if, as I say, Islam itself is a dangerous religion, all of its adherents would themselves be dangerous. That's nonsense. The fact is simply that few muslims comply with the edicts of terror contained in their faith. The social costs are too high. I guess, from a muslim perspective, they're just not good muslims. See, you can't change the fact that, unlike Christianity or Judaism, Islam does indeed advocate violence against 'infidels'. This is from a Christian site: 'The 'brotherhood of Islam' is a reality, as preached by Muhammad in his 'farewell pilgrimage' to Mecca, 'Know ye that every Muslim is a brother to every other Muslin, and that you are now one brotherhood'... it is a fact that every Muslim helps the other Muslim, his neighbor friend, or even a Muslim country... - But it is also a sad fact that the Koran preaches some kind of 'prejudice': 'Believers, do not make friends with any but your own people', says Sura 3:118; 'Muhammad is God's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another', says Sura 48:29... and honestly, both statements of the Koran look to me like some kind of prejudice against the ones who are not Muslims!... - The Koran mentions dozens of times the 'people of the Book', meaning the Jews and the Christians, mostly in a pejorative way, warning against their bad influence and life, forbidding their friendship, calling the Jews 'like a donkey laden with books', and saying about the Christians, 'unbelievers are those who declare: 'God is the Messiah, the son of Mary' (Suras 3:60-74, 5:56, 62:5, 5:16). - The Koran and the life of Muhammad, indeed encourage 'Holy War' ( a 'jihad'). - The Koran, encourages it by offering Paradise to the one who dies for Allah, plus the good care of his family by God while he is in Paradise (Sura 3:169)... anyone who dies in holy war is a 'martyr' assured of heaven... ... The main reason for the Holy War is 'idolatry', and indeed, 'an error in religion' is worst than a cancer in the heart, it can ruin your only life on earth, and can bring yo to eternal Hell... this is how the Koran says: 'Idolatry is more grievous than bloodshed... fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme' (Sura 2:91-93). ... In the previous verse says 'do not attack them first, God does not like aggressors'... but Jews and Christians are 'idolaters'... so, fight against them until idolatry is no more!... and Hindus and Buddhist are 'idolaters'... ... The Koran talks about 'tolerance of religion', and the use of force only when attacked, or for social justice... but since 'idolatry' is the main offense, it is a good reason to attack Jews, Christians, Hindus... and, in fact, Islam has been in history the 'religion of the sword', spread by the sword and upheld by the sword. ... The definition of a 'right war' is that 'must either be defensive or to right a wrong'.' And here are some suras (I guess that's what they're called)I found browsing through the Koran itself: [5.51] O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people. [5.82] Certainly you will find the most violent of people in enmity for those who believe (to be) the Jews and those who are polytheists, and you will certainly find the nearest in friendship to those who believe (to be) those who say: We are Christians; this is because there are priests and monks among them and because they do not behave proudly. [9.30] And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away! [4.160] Wherefore for the iniquity of those who are Jews did We disallow to them the good things which had been made lawful for them and for their hindering many (people) from Allah's way. 2.39] And (as to) those who disbelieve in and reject My communications, they are the inmates of the fire, in it they shall abide. 2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers. [2.192] But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. [2.193] And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors. 17.58] And there is not a town but We will destroy it before the day of resurrection or chastise it with a severe chastisement; this is written in the Divine ordinance. 8.17] So you did not slay them, but it was Allah Who slew them, and you did not smite when you smote (the enemy), but it was Allah Who smote, and that He might confer upon the believers a good gift from Himself; surely Allah is Hearing, Knowing. [8.18] This, and that Allah is the weakener of the struggle of the unbelievers 8.39] And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do. [8.65] O Prophet! urge the believers to war; if there are twenty patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a hundred of you they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they are a people who do not understand 9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. [9.6] And if one of the idolaters seek protection from you, grant him protection till he hears the word of Allah, then make him attain his place of safety; this is because they are a people who do not know. 9.73] O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination. 3.151] We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they set up with Allah that for which He has sent down no authority, and their abode is the fire, and evil is the abode of the unjust. [3.152] And certainly Allah made good to you His promise when you slew them by His permission, until when you became weak-hearted and disputed about the affair and disobeyed after He had shown you that which you loved; of you were some who desired this world and of you were some who desired the hereafter; then He turned you away from them that He might try you; and He has certainly pardoned you, and Allah is Gracious to the believers. [21.11] And how many a town which was iniquitous did We demolish, and We raised up after it another people! [21.12] So when they felt Our punishment, lo! they began to fly [21.13] Do not fly (now) and come back to what you were made to lead easy lives in and to your dwellings, haply you will be questioned. [21.14] They said: O woe to us! surely we were unjust. [21.15] And this ceased not to be their cry till We made them cut [21.77] And We helped him against the people who rejected Our communications; surely they were an evil people, so We drowned them all. 25.37] And the people of Nuh, when they rejected the apostles, We drowned them, and made them a sign for men, and We have prepared a painful punishment for the unjust; 61.4] Surely Allah loves those who fight in His way in ranks as if they were a firm and compact wall. 10.13] And certainly We did destroy generations before you when they were unjust, and their apostles had come to them with clear arguments, and they would not believe; thus do We recompense the guilty people. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Aug 26, 1998 at 19:31:55 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: Jim Subject: Responding to Drivel Message: Joe, the piece was from a speech by an Israeli general. That sounds about right. By the way, I guess you didn't get around to addressing his (or her) intellectual dishonesty, did you? And since the general WAS intellectually dishonest, how can you believe ANYTHING he says? Seems to me I have heard you make this very argument when it comes to our former guru. The fact is simply that few muslims comply with the edicts of terror contained in their faith. The social costs are too high. I guess, from a muslim perspective, they're just not good muslims. God Jim, listen to yourself. Now you're saying that the non-violent muslims are just lousy muslims. Like maybe they would REALLY LIKE to be good muslims and be visciously violent, but for some reason they are just not religious enough and can't follow the true religion. I have not, for a long time, heard anything that ridiculous. Jim, even fundamentalists 'interpret' the koran and the bible. And if their social and political situation is such that they are invested in the greater society and the status quo, they tend to interpret it in a way that is NOT violent, just like christians do with the bible. Like the bible condones slavery, for example, but even fundamentalists don't interpret it that way anymore. You still completely ignore the other element, despite me saying it over and over. The common denominator in islamic fundamentalist terrorism, is a political or economic grievance, and THEN, and ONLY then, might an interpretation of the Koran be USED to justify violent action on the greviance. You continue to argue an INHERENT violence in islam that you just can't prove. It makes no sense. I mean really, Jim. There would have to be at least A FEW GOOD (i.e. VIOLENT) muslims in the US, right? I mean why is it that ALL the GOOD muslims just happen to be in the middle east, when millions live elsewhere, including Europe and North America, and INCLUDING fundamentalist islamics? Why does it just so happen that in the US, the fundamentalist islamics are all NON-VIOLENT. Could it be because their political and economic condition is very different than the vast majority of muslims in the middle east? Just maybe? Do you any any other, even remotely feasible, reason, other than your really dumb 'they-re-just-bad-muslims' argument? Have you heard any other reputable scholar, historian, or religious leader even suggest that? Is this like your Chomsky argument re the NYT, that you are the only person in the world who argues that point? Now, as for those quotes, Jim. They amount to zippo if you can't demonstrate a cause and effect with violent acts. By the way, if you think Islam is anti-semetic, check out the history of the Catholic church, it would pale by comparison. The jews were regularly murdered, blamed for pestulence and worse by the church, as condoned by the bible because the jews were christ-killers. For a more recent example, check out the actions, and inactions, of the Catholic church in Europe in response to the Holacaust, including the protection of war criminals after the war. It is a very shameful history. Again, Jim, even 'fundamentalists' interpret the koran and the bible. SOMEBODY interprets it. So, despite your quotes, the vast majority of muslims do not kill christians and jews, and it isn't because they are lousy muslims. It's because these quotes are countered by OTHER, perhaps contradictory quotes in the Koran and the Bible, that command people NOT to kill, and the religion is based on a WHOLE LOT MORE that ONE BOOK. Again, Jim a religion is MORE than a BOOK. It's based on many other traditions handed down for generations. Just because the Koran says something, that is also countered by years of tradition and cultural mores that are every bit as much a part of the religion. The same is true of Catholicism. Actually, my experience with Catholicism is that it relies VERY LITTLE on the Bible at all, and relies almost entirely on tradition, that changes, albeit slowly, over the years. I think the same is true of Islam. What was once perhaps a violent religion in a very violent time, is now longer that way. Jim, again you're thinking is AWFULLY simplistic, and it internally doesn't make sense. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Aug 26, 1998 at 21:28:32 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: JW Subject: Responding to Drivel Message: It's unfortunate that we hve these two parallel sub-threads happening as we're both repeating ourselves. Well I'll throw the same criticism at you you've thrown at me: you sound like a premie. This, in particular: Now, as for those quotes, Jim. They amount to zippo if you can't demonstrate a cause and effect with violent acts. If you don't think the Koran's commandments to attack 'infidels' until they either submit or are no longer is a subtsantial -- if not lone -- cause to Islamic terrorism, I can't take you seriously. Sorry, I draw the line there. You're just typing in the face of common sense. We've all heard countless diatribes against the great Satan of the west broadcast by radical muslims. Even if they're only exploiting the Koran for their own political aspirations and cynically don't believe their own stated, religious justifications for terror, my point is there, that their religion supports this kind of extremism. It's an extreme religion after all. By the way, if you think Islam is anti-semetic, check out the history of the Catholic church, it would pale by comparison. The jews were regularly murdered, blamed for pestulence and worse by the church, as condoned by the bible because the jews were christ-killers. For a more recent example, check out the actions, and inactions, of the Catholic church in Europe in response to the Holacaust, including the protection of war criminals after the war. It is a very shameful history. We all know about christian persecution of jews but this is something new. Would you please point out where the bible condones anti-semitism on account of jews' having killed christ? I must have missed that part during one of my many readings of the good book. As for muslims that don't support their radical brethren, yes, I'd say, they're 'bad' muslims. According to the rules, of course they are. How else can you call it? That there's a radical version of Islam for those who prefer but a more, pluralistic one for others? Yeah, right! No, Joe, it's not like that. What you have is an ancient mental structure, inherently dangerous to any who even say 'boo' against it, and a whole lot of people who grew up in that tradition who are indeed compromising their faith in order to get along nicely in western society. Okay, so some muslims don't support the Rushdie fatwa. Ask them, though, if they think the idea of 'fatwa' is itself antique and ridiculous. You know, ask the guy in your office if he takes the very notion of 'holy war' seriously or not. Ask him, while you're at it, about all those sections of the Koran where Mohammed talks about killing the infidels. Ask him if Mohammed was a little 'off' that day. Or maybe, you could suggest, Mohammed's since been over-ruled by subsequent clerics. Yeah, that's the ticket. Here's what I predict. If you actually get this guy or any other modern muslim talking about this stuff, they're going to get awfully uncomfortable at a cetain point. Go through the koran with them, verse by verse, and ask them how much they accept their own prophet on all these points. As you can imagine, it's going to get interesting. So, you ask, assuming that your friend or any other westernized, unradical muslim, doesn't condone or accept alot of the harsher stuff in the koran, does that mean they're 'bad' muslims? YES!!. Yes, they're bad muslims but good people no doubt. I'd say the same about any religion of course. If you're not playing it square, you're not playing it fair. There's only so far you can stray from the main man's shit before you're just playing outside the ballpark. That's how I see it and, apparently, that's how a lot of muslims worldwide see it as well. So what's the big difference with Christianity and Judaism? Well Christianity's a proselytizing religion that does NOT advocate murdering the infidels. Sure, a lot of christians have pretended it does at various times, or have acted as if it did but that's just human nature going 'beyond the call of duty'. The authoritative religious text has no such edict. Again, if I'm wrong, please show me where. I love to learn. And as for Judaism, forget it! It's NOT a proselytizing religion and certainly has no such kill-the-infidels commandment. You can piss off a religious jew by defaming his faith and he might even kill you for it. What he won't be able to do, though, is point to the religious instruction he gets directly from his prophet(s) that tell him to do that. Big diff, no? You want proof of an inherent violence in Islam. Well what's wrong, can't you read? I posted a bunch. That's Islam at its core and it ain't 'Be Here Now'. Any religion that suggests killing those that criticise or laugh at it is dangerous as far as I'm concerned. Regardless of what kind of other exigencies compel people to take the command seriously. It's always there, hovering, menacing. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Aug 27, 1998 at 01:10:19 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: Jim Subject: Responding to Drivel Message: If you don't think the Koran's commandments to attack 'infidels' until they either submit or are no longer is a subtsantial -- if not lone -- cause to Islamic terrorism, I can't take you seriously. Sorry, I draw the line there. You're just typing in the face of common sense. Jim, when is the last time you heard of muslims attacking people because they are 'infidels' and won't accept islam? This century? You see, Jim, you are making the accusation here, you've got the burden of proof. You still haven't shown a terrorist act that wasn't politically motivated. You also haven't shown me examples of muslims attacking christians because they refuse to accept islam. You have made no cause and effect link between the Koran and actual terrorist acts. Moreoever, you haven't addressed the fact that there are mitigating teachings of the same religion, based on tradition and interpretation. At most, political greviences can use Islamic statements cloak the cause in a religious principle. Other religions do the same thing, including christian fundamentalism. But in either case, if you don't have the political greivance, you don't have terrorism. You lose. We all know about christian persecution of jews but this is something new. Would you please point out where the bible condones anti-semitism on account of jews' having killed christ? As I said Jim, it's a mater of INTERPRETATION. The church interpreted the bible story of the killing of Christ as reason for persecuting the Jews. You see, they had a POLITICAL reason to attack the Jews, they were scapegoats for their problems, and it was economic too, they wanted to confiscate their resources. As I said before, the bible explicitly condones slavery, and that was used to condone slavery for awhile, but it it no longer INTERPRETED that way. The Koran is also interpreted. That's how my co-worker can be a fundamentalist muslim and NOT be violent. Christianity's a proselytizing religion that does NOT advocate murdering the infidels. Tell that to the thousands of South and Central American Indians who were murdered because they wouldn't convert, as well as the thousands who did convert on threat of death. Tell that also to the 'heretics' who were killed in the inquisition, also to the 'witches' who were hunted down, forced to confess and then killed. Tell that to the 'infidels' those christian soldiers killed in the crusades. If I get a chance I will talk to my co-worker about the questions you asked. I have talked to him about the Salman Rusdie issue. He said the bounty was a decree by the leader of Iran, and most muslims thought it was bizarre and extreme. They did not see it as some kind of religious directive and it was not binding on anyone. Most muslims did NOTsupport it and many publicly said so. I think he will say you have to take the religion as a whole and not just quote verses from the Koran and call it a violent relgion. There are lots of other traditions, and contradictory verses IN the Koran that condemn violence, he HAS told me this much. As for muslims that don't support their radical brethren, yes, I'd say, they're 'bad' muslims. According to the rules, of course they are You say this, but they wouldn't say so. And what RULES, Jim, you've just quoted the Koran, but have no proof those things are actual rules. Nor that they aren't contradicted by other verses and traditions. And, oh yeah, you still haven't provided one shread of proof that they actually CAUSE violence. So, you ask, assuming that your friend or any other westernized, unradical muslim, doesn't condone or accept alot of the harsher stuff in the koran, does that mean they're 'bad' muslims? YES!!. Yes, they're bad muslims but good people no doubt. Jim, your quoting the Koran and saying all muslims must do those things to be 'good muslims' is as absurd as quoting the bible and then saying all christians should be slave owners because the bible condones slavery, and if they don't they are just BAD christians. Absurd. Come on , Jim if a christian doesn't think homosexuals should be killed, or that adulterers, and those who curse their parent should be killed, all of which is stated in the bible, are they 'bad christians?' Why do you subject Islam to a different test? Jim, you sound downright nutty. And as for Judaism, forget it! It's NOT a proselytizing religion and certainly has no such kill-the-infidels commandment. Well, I am so glad to hear it. But then theres that circumcision thing, that makes me a little leary that it might be a truly sadistic religion. Ouch. You want proof of an inherent violence in Islam. Well what's wrong, can't you read? I posted a bunch. What proof Jim? You just quoted the Koran.. That isn't proof of anything except what the Koran says. What you have failed to prove is that there is a cause and effect relationship between the muslim religion and terrorism. That the muslim religion CAUSES terrorism. That you haven't even shown ONE example of, and you would think if you were making such extreme allegations, and because islam is so pervasive in the world, you should be able to come up with one. So, Jim, you lose. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Aug 27, 1998 at 10:43:10 (EDT)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: JW Subject: Let's get this straight. Message: Joe: You see, Jim, you are making the accusation here, you've got the burden of proof. You still haven't shown a terrorist act that wasn't politically motivated. Will you stop this for heaven's sake? Lots of terrorist acts are neither religiously nor politically motivated. They are simply acts of personal super-selfishness clothed in political or religious trappings. Believing that all anti-social acts have an underlying political motivation is part of Marxist doctrine. Now, there is a belief system on a holy crusade... -Scott Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Aug 27, 1998 at 17:38:15 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Let's get this straight. Message: Will you stop this for heaven's sake? Lots of terrorist acts are neither religiously nor politically motivated. Huh??? Thanks for stating something so glaringly obvious, Scott. But what on earth does that have to do with what Jim and I are talking about? Jim's point is that terrorists acts ARE, inherently, religiously motivated. I said it's not inherently so. Thanks for pointing out that there are OTHER terrorist acts that AREN'T lots religiously motivated, either. It's true, but irrelevent. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Aug 27, 1998 at 20:16:20 (EDT)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: JW Subject: Irrelevant? Message: Joe: Jim's point is that terrorists acts ARE, inherently, religiously motivated. I said it's not inherently so. Thanks for pointing out that there are OTHER terrorist acts that AREN'T lots religiously motivated, either. It's true, but irrelevent. I'm just stating a more general version of your thesis. How is that not relevant? Your argument with Jim was weakened by the contention that all terrorist acts committed in the name of religion have political motives, or objectives. That is simply not true (which I believe Jim pointed out). So far he hasn't provided an example of the falsity of that contention, because there is a link between a fanatical belief and the desire to establish a social order based on that religious conviction. But that desire is not political in the commonly understood Marxian sense of the term. In other words, that desire is not regarded as political by political ideologues. This is important because the basis of your argument is that religious violence inherently has a political objective, and therefore religious motivations are not inherently dangerous. In other words, it is the political motivations that are exploiting the religious convictions, in all cases involving non-sanctioned violence (terrorism). This is what I think is implied in your arguments. I'm not sure you would agree with a statement as bald as this, but assuming that this is implied in your argument it is simply not true. Moreover, it is an ideological position rather than a logical argument. The ideological underpinnings are Marxist, which has to believe that all social acts are ultimately either politically motivated or a result of 'false consciousness', and religion is inherently false consciousness, by definition. This is both logically inconsistent and counterfactual of course. So, the only salvation of your argument is that people commit acts of terrorism in the name of religion that have neither a religious nor a political motivation. In that case Islam is not inherently violent, it is merely on opportunity to justify violence. Jim is also arguing that Islam provides a better opportunity to justify violence than most other world religions. You're on your own about that one. Personally, I think he's right. -Scott Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Aug 27, 1998 at 01:56:31 (EDT)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: JW Subject: People of the book. Message: J and J: Sorry to get into this, but my Muslim friend explained to me that the term 'people of the book' also refers to Muslims. That all three religions are religions 'of the book.' My friend is quite devout, so I don't think he was being superficial. The pejorative would refer to those in any of the three religions who were only, or exclusively engrossed in the book. Thus, when used in this way it is often in the mouths of the non-urbanized population. It is true that Islam is, and has been, a warrior culture. Even Max Weber goes into some length about the different emphasis placed on predestination in Calvinism and Islam, and concludes that in the former it operates to create a 'worldly asceticism' that results in economic success, while the impact in Islam is to seek the 'production of a sign' in battle. The logic is this. One would normally think a belief in predestination would result in fatalism, but in Calvinism it is the opposite. To Weber, the need to produce a sign of one's elect status in the next world, and the awful uncertainty of that status, provoked the Calvinists to expend every effort at perfecting an ethical life, and production of worldly wealth. In Islam, ironically, predestination had the opposite effect. ----begin quote '[In Islam] The ruling conception was that predestination determined, not the fate of the individual in the world beyond, but rather the uncommon events of this world, and above all such questions as whether or not the warrior for the faith would fall in battle. The religious fate of the individual in the next world was held..., to be adequately secured by the individual's belief in Allah and the prophets, so that no demonstration of salvation in the conduct of life is needed.... In Puritanism, predestination definitely did affect the fate of the individual in the world beyond, and therefore his assurance of salvation was determined primarily by his maintenance of ethical integrity in affairs of everyday life.... It is significant that the Puritan belief in predestination was regarded by authorities everywhere as dangerous to the state..., because it made Puritans skeptical of the legitimacy of all secular power.... Clearly, every use of predestination to determine concrete events in history, rather than to secure one's orientation to one's place in the world beyond, immediately causes predestination to lose its ethical, rational character. [Note: He means rational in the Weberian sense, not in the popular sense.] The belief in predestination practically always had an ascetic effect among the simple warriors of the early Islamic faith, which in the realm of ethics exerted largely external and ritual demands, but the ascetic effects of the Islamic belief in predestination were not rational, and for this reason they were suppressed in everyday life. [Emphasis added] The Islamic belief in predestination easily assumed fatalistic characteristics in the beliefs of the masses, viz., kismet, and for this reason predestination did not eliminate magic from the popular religion.' ----end of quote So, at least according to Weber the warrior tendency as well is the 'backwardness' of Islamic culture are no accident. Furthermore, the basic world view of Calvinism was a good fit with urban life, so that it flourished in that environment. In Islam the fundamental beliefs were not a good fit with Urban life, so Islam either withered in the cities or became ineffective competitors to Western beliefs. This is why the reformation was never completed. He feels, for instance, that Catholicism is 'not rational' in the sense that it encourages fatalism. The reformation was necessary to jump start the industrial revolution. According to this view (which is also held by Gellner), what the Islamic world needs is a Protestant version of the faith, that can establish itself decisively in the urban centers. -Scott Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Aug 26, 1998 at 13:37:28 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: Jim Subject: You will lose this argument Message: OOOoooo, Jim, guess I should just give up now, since you've already told me I'm going to lose this argument. Thanks for the prediction. By the way, you my two questions are still outstanding and unanswered. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Aug 26, 1998 at 09:18:45 (EDT)
From: Judith Email: None To: JW Subject: Generalize when it's fair Message: JW I must say I've been following your arguments through this thread and just want to compliment you on your obvious abilities. You are not just well informed but have the ability to assess what the central issues are, and you present the whole argument in a way that makes it look easy. I for one find it impressive. What are you doing with the rest of your life? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Aug 26, 1998 at 15:06:32 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: Judith Subject: Generalize when it's fair Message: Thank you, Judith. That's very nice of you to say. Sometimes it's hard to explain what I do for a living, partly because I'm not always sure myself. Basically I work in the corporate world; advising corporations on risk management and insurance issues, and I work with expert witnesses in insurance coverage litigation in the US court system. The rest of the time, is equally divided between 1) spending time on the forum; 2) looking for sex, and 3) looking for a parking place. Just kidding, I don't spend all that much time on the forum. :) Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 25, 1998 at 22:04:59 (EDT)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: JW Subject: Right on, Joe. Message: Joe: There is a large islamic fundamentalist population in the US, for example, as well as a large non-fundamentalist group, neither of which is anti-American, obviously because they live here and have chosen to live here. They are also relatively prosperous and it's interesting how once that happens, despite being fundamentalist, the political aims change and they become rather upstanding members of the community. They are not violent terrorists, the become members of the school board. Also, as they become more prosperous and educated, they tend to become less 'fundamentalist.' So, fundamentalism becomes destructive, in the sense of being a threat to others and the world, when there is an economic/political underpinning. With the exception of the final sentence you have hit the nail on the head. I could not have said it better. All fundamentalist groups become more moderate as they become more economically successful. It's called 'rationalization.' It takes about 30 years to get to a point where all of the old fanatacism has become 'greyed.' The same thing happened to the Calvinists, but in the mean time there was Oliver Cromwell. The best hope for civil order in the Islamic world is the rationalization of the Islamists. That way secularization will come from the group that most opposes the western brand of secularization, and it will be stamped in their image. I don't think it would be accepted if it came from outside. But in the mean time... -Scott Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Aug 26, 1998 at 00:18:27 (EDT)
From: VP Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Right on, Joe. Message: The same thing happened to the Calvinists, but in the mean time there was Oliver Cromwell. Hey, Scott. You lost me here. Would you please breifly explain what happened with the Calvinists? I am ignorant on this point. Thanks, VP Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Aug 26, 1998 at 10:01:12 (EDT)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: VP Subject: Oliver Protector Message: VP: For a brief period of time, during what the English used to refer to as their 'Civil Warre' (John Aubrey) England was ruled by a radical Protestant (Calvinist) sect under the command of Oliver Cromwell. During the period he was often referred to as 'Oliver Protector' by his minions. Eventually the British royalists were able to defeat him and, of course, they lopped off his head. This brief period in English history so terrified the British aristocracy that they began to establish institutions that would open up education and achievement to the middle class, and they also began to curb the power of the Monarchy. Cromwell's reign has been credited with innoculating the British against the sort of absolute monarchies that took place on the European continent. Also, when it became clear that the British were not well-disposed toward the Calvinists they went to America where, under John Winthrop, they set about creating a 'city on a hill.' -Scott Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Aug 26, 1998 at 21:50:25 (EDT)
From: VP Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Pardon my memory Message: Thanks, Scott. It's coming back to me now. VP Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Aug 24, 1998 at 17:19:24 (EDT)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: JW Subject: make it real, compared to what Message: Joe: I suppose that on most of this stuff we will just have to agree to disagree. My Jordanian roommate (the best roommate I've ever had) saw things very much as you do. I can't see how you can hold those views, but what the heck... However, regarding this statement: But, for the US, whenever anyone opposes those policies of ours, regarding OIL and ISRAEL, we label them 'terrorist' and assume they have absolutely NO legitimate gripe. And when they rise up in some way, we bomb them, just increasing the animosity that many otherwise peaceful people feel in the region. The operative word here is 'legitimate.' Exactly how is the killing of hundreds of innocent civilians, and wounding of thousands more, a legitimate resoponse to ANYTHING. How can people who engage in such activities ever be regarded as having 'legitimate grievances' even in the most liberal interpretation of the term? Doesn't one have to have STANDARDS before the term 'legitimate' applies? But, in the interest of semantics suppose we call them indescriminate murderers instead of terrorists. That accurately describes their actions, to me. The appropriate response would be to find them, try them, and execute them, as murderers. To do that would require a sovereign power above that of the nation-state. The solution is to establish a legitimate authority with a monopoly of coercive power, to quell feuds. That's the way the problem has always been solved. The only way this can be accomplished is for those who hold power to be bound by the same rules as everyone else. This is what is commonly referred to as the 'rule of law.' It is worthy of a war, IMHO. Make it real, is all I'm saying. -Scott Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Aug 24, 1998 at 18:02:04 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: make it real, compared to what Message: You missed my point Scott. I'm not saying those who do the bombing are legitimate, although their grievances might be real, that doesn't condone bombing. I am saying that the US policies in the middle east creat a climate in which the terrorists get sympathy and support from others in the population, who wouldn't ever support or sympathize with terrorists normally. So, the underlying policies create the fertile soil, and the recent bombings just aggravate the situation, creating even more sympathy for the terrorists. Without a base of support, these terrorists groups can't last for long. Frankly, I think these recent bombings did more to help Ben Ladin in the long run, than it did to slow him down. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Aug 24, 1998 at 19:54:55 (EDT)
From: Mike Email: None To: JW Subject: make it real, compared to what Message: JW: I understand your post, but what do you think would make it better. What would stop terrorism, absolutely and positively. What policies would you change that would guarantee the elimination of terrorism? I don't think isolationism is workable, but is that what you would propose? If so, why? BTW, those aren't meant to be smart-alik questions. I really am serious. I think we have beaten the why-terrorism-exists topic to death, but no one (me included) started to discuss how it could be fixed. I know we all have some VERY strong (understatement)opinions on why it exists, but how would you fix it? This might make an interesting thread. Who knows, maybe the answer is right here.... P.S. Would you take the time to read my responses to your post down the way. I think I left you with a VERY big misunderstanding concerning the motive for my reply to your post. Thanks JW. -Mike Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 25, 1998 at 00:41:33 (EDT)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: JW Subject: citizens of... what? Message: Joe: I am saying that the US policies in the middle east creat a climate in which the terrorists get sympathy and support from others in the population, who wouldn't ever support or sympathize with terrorists normally. The truth is, I just don't know. I mean, this is really all new territory and it IS something of a dilemma. If the bombings were purely retaliatory then you might have a point. But, I think the national security people took a look at this and said: 'This guy is well-funded, dangerous, and will not go away. We don't have that much to lose.' Add to that the fact that reliable intelligence shows he had other bombings in the works, and was preparing weapons of mass destruction. I just can't figure out anything else they could have done. An article in the CS Monitor today printed some interviews with Pakistanis, and the chief grievance of most Muslims is that the US treats them like 'second class citizens.' Now, that is an interesting comment, since they are NOT US citizens. I suppose they meant something on the order of 'world citizens,' but it's still an interesting and revealing statement, isn't it? -Scott Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 25, 1998 at 13:50:12 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: citizens of... what? Message: But, I think the national security people took a look at this and said: 'This guy is well-funded, dangerous, and will not go away. We don't have that much to lose.' All of the experts I have heard have said that the actual military effect of those bombings, on the ability to do terrorist acts is minimal. Even the US government isn't claiming great destruction of the capability of these groups to conduct terrorist acts again. But I disagree that there isn't anything to lose. Take Sudan for example. Sudan has opened up that pharmaceutical plant for inspection by reporters and has asked the UN to analyze the site to prove that no nerve gas was being produced there. It has also condemned the US for bombing it's capital city, injuring its citizens and costing hundreds of people their jobs in an already impoverished country. Sudan is definitely taking the high ground here and it has created lots of sympathy and support for a regime in Sudan which is ruthless, bruthal, and which has practically destroyed the country by waging a civil war agains the christian minority in the Southern part of the country. In the long run, I think we have just helped a very repressive regime stay in power and gain legitimacy. By the way, I now understand the Pakistan has flipped again, and now says that a cruise missle DID detonate on Pakistani territory, but I haven't heard what the casualties were from that. It is also looking like the pharmaceutical plant wasn't making nerve gas. All the US says is that they found traces of a chemical that is used to make nerve gas, but that two more steps have to be taken to accomplish this, and that at least one of them is extremely sophisticated and complicated. I think the comments about 'second class citizens' relates to citizens of 'the world.' As I think I said in an earlier post, it is a widely held belief in the middle east that the US is only interested in the region's natural resources (and in supporting Israel) and in doing so support very repressive regimes who are allied with those policies, like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, and in earliar times, Iraq and Iran. And when anyone in the region opposes that, they are labeled 'terrorists.' I would call that being treated like 'second class citizens.' Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 25, 1998 at 14:13:41 (EDT)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: JW Subject: citizens of... what? Message: Joe: All of the experts I have heard have said that the actual military effect of those bombings, on the ability to do terrorist acts is minimal. Even the US government isn't claiming great destruction of the capability of these groups to conduct terrorist acts again. I think there is just too much distance between our points of view for us to be able to meet. I still don't understand the logic of hitting an aspirin factory with munitions costing in the millions of dollars. Even if the US made a mistake in targetting that site (it took soil samples to document the claims about neve gas) in this particular instance the consequences of a 'beta' error in the other direction (failing to bomb a nerve gas factory) are just enormous. I've heard the military experts who say that the chances of harming the terrorists' long run capability with these strikes in minimal, but it was my understanding the the strikes were designed to forestall their short term capacity. Apparently they were VERY effective in doing that. Let's not get confused here. Agreement is difficult enough. -Scott Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 25, 1998 at 14:32:45 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: citizens of... what? Message: I still don't understand the logic of hitting an aspirin factory with munitions costing in the millions of dollars. Oh come on, Scott. Millions of dollars is NOTHING to the US. We have often been extemely extravagant and wasteful in military campaigns, sometimes to just 'send messages' instead of reaching a military objective. The point wasn't to be effective militarily. The point was to ACT to do SOMETHING that had at least some pretense of reasoning behind it. This was at least as much of domestic consumption (to be seen to be doing SOMETHING) as it was for foreign consumption. I think if Sudan was concerned that nerve gas was there, they wouldn't allow journalists in and ask the UN to investigate, now would they? Wouldn't they claim some kind of national sovereignty and keep people out? Well, again, the soil samples are hearsay, based on 'intelligence' and even then the US only claims finding a trace of a chemical that is used in the process of MAKING nerve gas, and that to actually make nerve gas, two more highly sophisticated processes have to be performed. The US doesn't say WHERE the samples were taken, and won't say what other 'intelligence' they had. Certainly, examining the plant will reveal if those existed there, although I saw interviews with plant employees who said they knew nothing about anything other than medical and veterinary medicines, so it either isn't true, or they were kept in the dark. In any event, it's a pretty tenuous excuse, but one the US public will likely accept, because they want to see the US do SOMETHING to strike back for the bombings of our embassies. Well, there is even disagreement as to 'short term' capabilities as a result of these bombings, Scott. The experts I have heard discount even a 'short term' effect. It isn't confusion, although there might be some disagreement. But given the highly diverse nature of these groups, what I have heard is that bombing isn't effective, even in the short term. What 'short term capacity' are you talking about Scott? Some particular 'bomb' or 'plan' to do something? Just how would those bombings do that? I mean even you don't suggest that there was ACTUAL nerve gas being produced, so how can you argue there was a short term 'use' for it? So at least as to that particular bombing, your argument doesn't make sense. And do you really think that bombing an isolated camp in Afghanistan would prevent a terrorist group from bombing an airliner, embassy, or anything else, especially in the short term? If it was 'short term' wouldn't it be likely that the people and equipment were already IN the country were the terrorist act was going to take place? Certainly you don't suggest that we were concerned about a terrorist act IN Afghanistan. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 25, 1998 at 20:45:19 (EDT)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: JW Subject: I quit Message: Joe: Oh come on, Scott. Millions of dollars is NOTHING to the US. I see. The basis of your argument that millions of dollars was spent to wipe out an aspirin factory is that we had it to waste. So one can chalk the episode up to incompetence or mendacity in the face of profoundly dangerous circumstances. The problem is that I don't agree that these folks are incompetent. I know many of them pretty well. And if they WERE that incompetent I'd try to get underground as far as possible, if I were you. You remind me of an employee we had once who announced with an air of concern one day that the AIDs virus had become airborne. If we are heading into this new set of circumstances with the virtual certainty of global terrorism seeking to activate weapons of mass destruction (and it IS a certainty), with leadership that is as inept as you seem to believe, then the AIDs virus might as well be airborne, for all it matters. I give up. You aren't weighing risks and costs in anything like a rational way. What you're doing is like trying to lift a tank with a child's balloon full of helium. -Scott Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Aug 26, 1998 at 13:56:19 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Don't Quit Message: I see. The basis of your argument that millions of dollars was spent to wipe out an aspirin factory is that we had it to waste. So one can chalk the episode up to incompetence or mendacity in the face of profoundly dangerous circumstances. The problem is that I don't agree that these folks are incompetent. I know many of them pretty well. And if they WERE that incompetent I'd try to get underground as far as possible, if I were you. Straw man, Scott. Who said anything about incompetence? That's your interpretation, not mine. I said it was done to send a message and that millions of dollars spent to do that isn't an impedement. Scott, what do you think it cost for the navy to blow up those platforms in the Red Sea to 'send a message' to Iran a few years ago. It cost millions because we used cruise missles, and no one even suggested the action was anythinother than symbolic and to 'send a message.' It certainly had no military impact on Iran. The message got sent quite well in the current situation and the objective wasn't really military. I never said it had anything to do with incompetence. Where the hell did you get that? I'm beginning to think you really don't read the posts, after all. And that thing about AIDs is pretty irrelevent because I have never even mentioned ineptitude. Scott, once again, are you pissed at me about something? Accusing me of irrationality is another example of a gratuitous condescending comment, and very unfair, especially when it appears you didn't even bother to read what I actually said. You can disagree if you want to, but I take offense at being called irrational. That's uncalled for. Since you didn't respond to my earlier questions about why you are being so nasty, earlier when you did much the same thing, I kind of have to assume you really are pissed. Are you? Why? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Aug 26, 1998 at 15:06:03 (EDT)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: JW Subject: Don't Quit Message: Joe: In my view bombing an innocent target to 'send a message' is pretty inept because it sends the message that we don't know enough to target a real threat. Perhaps, to you, it represents the some sort of apex of competence? I suspect that you believe the acts mendacious rather than incompetent, but on that score I'd have to say that the effects of incompetence and mendacity are similar. All of your arguments focus on some doubts that some people have about whether the attacks had any military rationale. In the words of Bruce Hoffman, who heads the Center for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland: 'Sitting idly by would be perhaps the worse policy. But we should have realistic expectations. We are not going to achieve a spectacular victory overnight, if we even achieve a victory at all.' I don't think it's humanly possible to falsify your argument because you give the claims that someone really was brewing up nerve agents no credibility whatsoever. That seems more like advocacy, than serious policy discussion. As far as I can tell Bin Laden has every reason to develop nerve agents, as well as sufficient resources. People in this field are seriously attempting to be realistic, and the sum of their deliberative doubts does not add up to a conclusion that we bombed an aspirin factory on purpose, in order to send some rather stupid message about our inability to pick a decent target. I'm not pissed at you, just tired of being involved in a fruitless discussion. Had we done nothing at all I seriously think that 500 to 1000 more innocent civilians would be dead by now. They may die anyway, but at least they had a few extra weeks. -Scott Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Aug 26, 1998 at 16:29:00 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Don't Quit Message: Scott, sorry you consider this discussion 'fruitless.' I do feel compelled to respond, but feel free to ignore it and move on to more fruitful endeavors. If you acheive the goal, you are not inept. The military did an extremely competent job in doing what they were asked to do. It was not inept. But I am not alone in saying even the short term effect on quelling international terrorism is nil. In fact vitually no military operation would succeed in doing that. And no, I din't say there was no 'military rationale.' The 'military rationale' was to show strength, respond quickly, and send a message. I think that was fulfilled. If the 'military rationale' was to have an impact on quelling international terrorism, I don't think it worked, and most of the terrorist experts I have read say the same thing. So, I don't think that is an 'irrational' position to take. And, unlike you, I also don't think the 'message' was 'stupid.' I agree with Hoffman that the fight against international terrorism is a long haul, and has to be done on many levels. One essential one, is to alter US policies that encourage terrorism, possibly including the recent bombings. Frankly, I think one of the 'messages' the US was sending in these bombings was to the American public, that this is a 'war' that will be long and difficult, probably as long as the 'cold war' and just as difficult. I don't think this was 'stupid' either. I don't think it's humanly possible to falsify your argument because you give the claims that someone really was brewing up nerve agents no credibility whatsoever. Even the US government hasn't said that the nerve gas was being produced, only that the trace of a chemical that could be used to make nerve gas was found in a soil sample, while Sudan says there was no such production, and has opened up the site for international inspection. If that happens, maybe we will find out for sure. As far as I can tell Bin Laden has every reason to develop nerve agents, as well as sufficient resources. Well, reports today say that Bin Laden had no financial or other interest in the pharmaceutical plant, and that the US is now saying it acted because there was evidence the Iraqi scientists met with people from the plant. So, now it appears that the fear was Iraq and not Bin Laden. The US hasn't even suggested a link to the plant and Bin Laden. Had we done nothing at all I seriously think that 500 to 1000 more innocent civilians would be dead by now. They may die anyway, but at least they had a few extra weeks. I never suggested 'doing nothing.' But from what I have read, the effect, again, on those terrorists is minimal, and to offset that, the additional support and sympathy these terrorists (and Sudan) might receive could well offset even those 'minimal' gains. Pardon my saying so, but I think this is a very 'rational weights and balances' way to look at the whole situation. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Aug 26, 1998 at 18:11:13 (EDT)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: JW Subject: Hope springs eternal Message: Joe: The 'military rationale' was to show strength, respond quickly, and send a message. Even this is a mis-statement. Surely you don't think the Arab world has any doubts about US strength? It might be construed as an attempt to demonstrate resolve, but not strength. And, unlike you, I also don't think the 'message' was 'stupid.' How would you construe a resolve that couldn't find a relevant target? If I were a terrorist it would certainly not be demoralizing to me. The 'message' that would have been sent so 'successfully' is one of impotent resolve. You're right, I'd consider that a stupid message in view of the stakes and the cost. Duh! Frankly, I think one of the 'messages' the US was sending in these bombings was to the American public, that this is a 'war' that will be long and difficult, probably as long as the 'cold war' and just as difficult. I don't think this was 'stupid' either. Again, this would be a stupid message to 'the public' and one that would not be likely to produce resolve on their part. How would you feel about being protected by a blind bodyguard? One would be much better advised, under such circumstances, to hide one's blindness. However, a really stupid leadership might conclude that they'd be able to fool the public about the aspirin factory. In my experience the lessons of the Pentagon Papers were not lost on leadership. They know the public will find out eventually. If you're preparing the public for a short term escapade the message you suggest might work. But, I thought you said the message was to prepare the public for a protracted war? Duh, again! Even the US government hasn't said that the nerve gas was being produced, only that the trace of a chemical that could be used to make nerve gas was found in a soil sample... Give us a break. The US government has said that nerve gas was being produced, and the soil sample was taken as evidence. Am I supposed to believe the government is on the verge of an admission here? Joe, look... if the US targeted this plant w/o knowing with some certainty that it produced nerve gas then I'm more worried than you are about this series of events. Unlike you, I think that demonstrates severe incompetence. It makes me want to replace the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. I heard someone suggest once that the military officer in charge of our binary chemical weapons stockpile ought to be executed in the event of an 'accident,' that involved the lives of civilians. We can hardly tolerate incompetence in this area. Who gives a damn about someone's career under those circumstances? I never suggested 'doing nothing.' But from what I have read, the effect, again, on those terrorists is minimal, and to offset that, the additional support and sympathy these terrorists (and Sudan) might receive could well offset even those 'minimal' gains. Pardon my saying so, but I think this is a very 'rational weights and balances' way to look at the whole situation. I don't think anyone knows yet what the effect is, but you seem willing to make an assumption about it, and to calculate your 'rational weights' about such a deadly serious policy based on that assumption. Indeed, I think you are talking about doing nothing. I think it's a form of denial. What I'm talking about is this: If the targeting of the Bin Laden camps and the chemical factory was as ill-advised as you suggest then the officers and national security persons who made those decisions ought to be fired, and their careers ended. Now, that would send a message: Next time, blow something up that matters. Hurt the right people... seriously. End their dreams forever. No, I think you're talking about doing nothing as far as I can tell. That is what scares me. The odds are that we will lose this battle, and possibly the war, no matter what anyone does. Here is another thing I don't think you apprehend. It really does not matter that much whether the terrorists gain followers or not. That simply would occasion a political situation that might be difficult for our leadership, or for the mideast peace process. The essence of this situation is that extremists have a veto power. They have a veto over your life and mine. The smaller the group the more determined they are to use that veto. I agree with your assessment about the long run consequences of fundamentalist Islam, but it is not really relevant to this issue. In fact, the more moderate the Islamists became the more marginalized the extremists will be. One might even argue that a larger following for Bin Laden is safer, since it diverts his attention to more conventional political goals. Here is a little passage I dug up about 'public opinion' in case you're interested: 'When the public is supreme, there is no man who does not feel the value of public goodwill, or who does not endeavor to court it by drawing to himself the esteem and affection of those amongst whom he is to live. Many of the passions which congeal and keep asunder human hearts, are then obliged to retire and hide below the surface. Pride must be dissembled; disdain dares not break out; egotism fears its own self.... Men learn at such times to think of their fellow-men from ambitious motives; and they frequently find it, in a manner, their interest to forget themselves.' - Alexis de Tocqueville -Scott Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Aug 27, 1998 at 02:28:32 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Hope springs eternal Message: Even this is a mis-statement. Surely you don't think the Arab world has any doubts about US strength? It might be construed as an attempt to demonstrate resolve, but not strength> This distinction is silly, Scott. Of course it was to show strength, as well as our willingness to use it, and well as the other things I mentioned. How would you construe a resolve that couldn't find a relevant target? If I were a terrorist it would certainly not be demoralizing to me. The 'message' that would have been sent so 'successfully' is one of impotent resolve. You're right, I'd consider that a stupid message in view of the stakes and the cost. Duh! Here's were maybe I'll have to give up. You just don't get the point. Who ever said that the 'message' was to 'demoralize' terrorists? I don't think it did send that message and never said so. It sent a message to the American public and to the world that we have the strength and are willing to use it and that we can act quickly.. I think that was successful, but I agree it dosen't do much to prevent future terrorism, that has been my point all along, if you recall. It seems to have been quite successful with the American public. But I don't think either objective is stupid and there are legitimate reasons for sending those messages, although I don't agree with them and of course it isn't worth the cost. Since I have said from the beginning that the bombing was counterproductive, I agree it wasn't worth the cost. What is your point here?. You probably thought that because I said it. I think the statements by the government referring to this as part of a 'war' and being just the beginning, and other statements to that effect, support that conclusion. The fact that these attacks didn't do much to stop the terrorists is really rather common knowledge Scott. It's all over the media, but that doesn't diminish the message that the US wants the public to begin thinking of this as a protracted war and the limited effectiveness likely supports it, because more actions will be necessary. Again, I'm not the only one saying this, I saw Howell Raines say the same thing in the NYT.. The US government has said that nerve gas was being produced, and the soil sample was taken as evidence. This is false, Scott you got your facts wrong. Here is what was reported in the NYT: 'The United States believes that senior Iraqi scientists were helping to produce elements of the nerve agent VX at the factory that American cruise missles destroyed last week, Administration and intelligence officals said today....The rare chemical would require two more steps, one very complex, to be turned into VX.....' Only one of the ELEMENTS of nerve gas is alleged to have been there. Not nerve gas itself. Am I supposed to believe the government is on the verge of an admission here? Joe, look... if the US targeted this plant w/o knowing with some certainty that it produced nerve gas then I'm more worried than you are about this series of events. I wouldn't call it an 'admission.' I think this is the best evidence the US has, and as I have said repreatedly, it's tenuous. There is no evidence that the plant PRODUCED nerve gas. None. Now, I completely agree that you ought to be worried about these events, Scott, but not because they demonstrate incompetence. Regarding the joint chiefs, I think they did what they were told to do. Gee, Scott, is it so hard for you to see that these attacks were for POLITICAL and not military purposes? Is that so hard to believe? Maybe I'm more cynical than you, but I don't have any problem believing that at all. And it's primarily for DOMESTIC political consumption. Indeed, I think you are talking about doing nothing. I think it's a form of denial. Bullshit. I have already suggested a number of things the US could do, many in the policy area. In addition, there are, really, effective anti-terrorist activities that don't involve bombing that doesn't do much of anything except create sympathy and support for the terrorists. The problem is, theses other anti-terrorist actions take a long time, aren't visible, and so you don't get much of a political bang out of them, but a military response is fast and makes the headlines. Scott, blowing things up, even if you have the 'right' target, whatever that is, isn't effective. Period. If you could drop a bomb on Bin Laden's head, it might do something, but that's pretty unlikely. With these groups there is no 'RIGHT' target, in the sense that it could cripple further terrorist attacks. It is too diverse and far-flung a group for that to happen. This is pretty accepted, even in the mainstream press, Scott. It really does not matter that much whether the terrorists gain followers or not. It DOES matter to some extent, I mean there is a need for a certain, small, number of actual terrorists. But what I mean about gaining support is financial and other support from people who don't actually JOIN the group. They need all kinds of support like that, including money, influence, sympathetic countries, safe houses, transportation, etc., etc., and also protection from apprehension after they attack. That's the REAL support that they might get more of because the US is seen as even more of the great satan because it just bombed a couple more muslim countries. I think the number of actual terrorists will always be small, but the more support they have outside the group, the more effective the group will be. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Aug 27, 1998 at 09:24:29 (EDT)
From: Mel Bourne Email: None To: JW + Scott Subject: Time for a bit ...... Message: COMIC RELIEF.... For all the answers you need to know about this debate (and various other matters), ask the EXPERTS. But beware of 'cookies'..... Mel |
Date: Thurs, Aug 27, 1998 at 09:42:54 (EDT)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: JW Subject: Hope springs eternal Message: Joe: I could go into another series of disagreements with you, but I think that the basic position is this: Gee, Scott, is it so hard for you to see that these attacks were for POLITICAL and not military purposes? Is that so hard to believe? Maybe I'm more cynical than you, but I don't have any problem believing that at all. And it's primarily for DOMESTIC political consumption. I think your conclusions are all based on that cynicism, while I'm close enough to what's going on here to make some assumptions that people, in the military, are fucussed on some actual military (as opposed to political) objectives. The new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is the first appointement EVER from 'Special Ops.' You are very vague about what you propose in the long run, but it's possible I don't disagree with you on that. As for the terrorists getting resources from the 'following' that might be true. And if all that happens is that the core group of radicals grows a little at the edges then it probably won't moderate. I don't think Bin Laden is disposed toward backing down until the US is out of the region completely, including (espuecially) Saudi Arabia. I still don't see the connection between the 'successful' message sent to the public and the world, and the ineffectivensss of the raids. Guess I'm not as cynical about the public as you are either. Also, I've always been under the impression that the Commander in Chief says 'attack' and the military and security folks pick the target. That's what I mean by incompetence. Well, I guess you think it's totally a political move so it doesn't matter what the target is. That's a bit beyond cynical in my opinion. If that's ALL then we need a new leadership altogether. I sincerely hope you are as wrong as I believe you are. -Scott Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Aug 27, 1998 at 12:58:58 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Cause to Be Cynical Message: I'm glad you have such confidence in the Joint Chiefs, Scott, but my read is even the joint chiefs are political appointments and usually want to make the president happy. Moreoever, even the joint chiefs rely on US 'intelligence' which is notoriously crappy, inept, subject to manipulation, and incompetent, so they might be operating on inadequate information. Maybe you aren't as cynical as me. I guess I've just seen to much over the years to have any kind of blind faith in US foreign policy, either stated or unstated. Given the objective evidence regarding this raid, I see nothing that makes me any LESS cynical. I wish I did. By the way, Scott, the 'rationale' for bombing the Sudan pharmaceutical plant gets MORE tenuous by the day. Yesterday, as I quoted to you, the NYT said the US contends only a component that could, theoretically, be used to make VX nerve gas was found, and US didn't contend nerve gas was actually being produced. Well, today, I cracked my NYT and here is what I found on the front page. It says that the chemical COULD be used for purposes other than to make nerve gas, and might well have been another chemical altogether. From today's NYT page 1: 'The chemical that the United States cited to justify its missle attacks on a Sudanese factory last week could be used for commercial products, the international agency overseeing the treaty that bars chemical weapons said today. ...The agency's spokesman said the chemical, known as Empta, could be used 'in limited quantities for legitimate commercial purposes...including fungicides and antimicrobial agents, and not just making VX'... Other questions have arisen about the Administration's accusations, including statements by senior intelligence officials hours after the attack that the plant in Khartoum was heavily guarded and produced no commercial products. But in the Sudan, a variety of people have said this plant was not heavily guarded, and Administration officials now concede that it did produce commercial products. Today, several American experts in chemical warfare and analysis offered another possible explanation of what the plant made. They said the chemical's structure resembled that of an agricultural insecticide, known as fonofos, which is commercially available in Africa. While the two are not identical, they have molecular similarities and could be confused in a laboratory test performed under less-than-ideal conditions, such as a delay between the taking of a soil sample in Khartoum and a scientific test of the sample.....Nr. Ellison, who ran the Army's chemical and biological warfare programs in the 1980s, said that the chemical characteristics of fonofos and Empta were 'very similar' and that those similarities 'could be misinterpreted in a lab analysis.' In the Hague, an official with the chemical weapons organization said research also suggested that Empta could be the byproduct of the breakdown of other pesticides.... Thomas Carnaffin, a British engineer who worked as a technical manager during the factory's construction from 1992 to 1996, said he never saw any evidence of materials involved in the production of VX. 'I suppose I went into every corner of the plant. It was never a plant with high security. You could walk around anywhere you liked, and no one tried to stop you.' Scott, also given that Sudan has opened the plant to reporters and has asked for a UN commission to investigate the plant to prove that it was used ONLY for commercial purposes, and given that the US is quietly opposing such a commission, and given the above, isn't there SOME cause to be a bit cynical here? I mean, even ye of great faith in the Joint Chiefs must be feeling just a LITTLE uncomfortable about this, aren't you? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Aug 27, 1998 at 13:40:42 (EDT)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: JW Subject: Tenuous? Message: Joe: Thanks for the info on the NYT story. Will try to keep abreadst, but this sounds like a fairly typical process of self-examination and challenge in a free society. It sounds like the jist of the artile is that the bombing could have been a mistake. The 'could' is not even read as 'probably' yet. Aren't you jumping to a conclusion that supports your predisposition? So, if that conclusion is correct then the bombing of the Sudanese factory was not a mistake? It sent the right message? No. Don't think so, sorry. I'm willing to call a fuckup what it is, unless you can somehow prove that the administration knew it was an aspirin factory. Then I would change my terminology to FUCKUP. (As in the sort of fuckup that had become the norm during the Vietnam War.) Incidentally, I'm a little confused about when the soil samples were taken. The article seems to imply that occured after the bombing, as an ex-poste justification. Is it possible the ex-ante justification is simply classifed, and revealing it would place the special ops group in peril? -Scott Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Aug 27, 1998 at 14:38:03 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Tenuous? Message: I haven't reached a 'conclusion' Scott, I'm just saying it's getting even MORE tenuous, the justification that is, than it was before, and it was very tenuous to begin with. Again, the burden of proof is on the US, and they aren't providing it, while in the meantime all kinds of evidence is coming out pointing in the other direction. No one is going to prove a negative here, but wouldn't you assume the US had PROOF that the plant was making nerve gas BEFORE they bombed it? If so, why didn't they produce it? Instead we get this chemical-in-the-dirt excuse, and we now find even that isn't definitive. I hope the UN DOES do the investigation, and you would think that if the US is SO SURE about what it did that it would be vigorously supporting that, rather than opposing it. Cynical yet, Scott? Also, Scott, neither the article, nor I, are suggested the bombing was a mistake. That seems to be an idea you are stuck on for some reason, and I don't know exactly why. I think the US wanted to send a message, and felt it had 'sufficient' proof, or rather excuse, to do so and that even if questions were raised, no one will be able to prove them wrong. This might prove to be a miscalculation. Clearly, if it IS proven that they acted hastily, or cynically, it will do even MORE to aid the terrorists cause, than the bombing is already doing. But I think the decision was that action, of any sort, was in the administration's best interest and the factory could be bombed and the US would have at least a shred of reasoning why it was justified. God, Scott, please listen. The administration has conceded, as the NYT article I just quoted to you said, that the plant produced commercial pharmaceuticals. I guess that IS an 'aspirin factory' as you keep calling it and there isn't any dispute about that, as far as I can tell, EXCEPT, the US said right after the raid that the plant DIDN'T produce 'aspirin' and then, later, conceded that it DID. The articles I have read are quite clear that the US contends the dirt sample was taken before the bombing took place. The history of the US is that ANYTHING embarrassing is 'classified.' But I sense this story is snowballing, and the US might be in for a LOT of criticsm about the plant bombing. ESPECIALLY, if it continues to oppose a UN commission to investigate the site. I don't think the bombing was a mistake, I think it was cynical, and I think the US thought it would get away with it, and it still might. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Aug 27, 1998 at 19:36:38 (EDT)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: JW Subject: Soak time Message: Joe: I think the US wanted to send a message, and felt it had 'sufficient' proof, or rather excuse, to do so and that even if questions were raised, no one will be able to prove them wrong. This might prove to be a miscalculation. They may or may not have 'miscalculated,' but my contention is that if they even made the calculation in the first place it was a mistake. Somehow we are missing one another in the fog. I'm in the policy business, i.e. my degree is in Public Policy, and I do professional work in that area. If the US acted as you suggest it was quite clearly a policy mistake. On second thought you probably have an ideosyncratic idea of what the term 'policy' means as well. Perhaps there is no meeting place. Maybe it's just a matter of 'soak time.' Anyhow, thanks for the discussion. You've given me some things to think about. -Scott Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Aug 27, 1998 at 23:59:51 (EDT)
From: Nigel Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: comparing like with like... Message: And how exactly is dropping bombs on a country you're not at war with legitimate? How do you reassure the the families of innocent bystanders that their relatives were not in fact murdered by terrorists, but 'accidently' sacrificed by the good guys for the greater good of all? Will they get compensation? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |