Ex-Premie Forum 7 Archive
From: Sep 18, 2001 To: Sep 21, 2001 Page: 2 of: 5


Jim -:- Bin Laden's real reason for hating the states -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 13:56:49 (EDT)
__ such -:- dat's what I thought, too -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 19:21:05 (EDT)
__ Scott T. -:- Bin Laden's hissy fit. -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 18:19:04 (EDT)
__ Deborah -:- Very insightful, thanks [nt] -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 15:48:34 (EDT)
__ Joe -:- I wish I got the BBC/Friedman and NYT -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 14:44:43 (EDT)
__ __ Scott T. -:- Re: I wish I got the BBC/Friedman and NYT -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 17:00:58 (EDT)
__ __ Jim -:- Re: I wish I got the BBC -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 14:52:56 (EDT)
__ __ __ Joe -:- Yeah, but Jim... -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 15:10:53 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- The Irish idea of a hero. -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 17:18:48 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Carl -:- Yep, it's the damn oil -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 16:30:34 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ btdt -:- Re: Yep, it's the damn oil -:- Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 03:14:17 (EDT)
__ gerry -:- Jim, something wrong here -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 14:14:20 (EDT)
__ __ Jim -:- What do you mean? -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 14:16:37 (EDT)
__ __ __ gerry -:- Re: What do you mean?? -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 14:20:52 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- Oops, yes of course -- thanks [nt] -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 14:29:45 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- Well change it dear Liza -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 14:37:05 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Here's a test message -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 21:06:13 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Well clearly -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 23:12:37 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Yeah, it didn't work -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 21:09:52 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- Beats me, Jim [nt] -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 21:29:34 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- I can't -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 14:55:15 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- When it happens to me ... -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 17:24:59 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- Hey! it just kept happening -:- Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 19:25:58 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Deborah -:- Re: I can't -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 15:47:44 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- Re: I can't -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 15:16:19 (EDT)

Joe -:- Is America Great, or What? -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 13:30:55 (EDT)
__ Rick -:- Re: Is America Great, or What? -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 20:11:38 (EDT)
__ __ Joe -:- Thanks Rick -:- Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 18:01:35 (EDT)
__ Katie -:- 'don't ask, don't tell' and blood -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 19:51:36 (EDT)
__ __ JohnT -:- giving blood -:- Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 18:26:01 (EDT)
__ __ __ Joe -:- Re: giving blood -:- Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 18:45:00 (EDT)
__ __ Joe -:- this is confused/what actually happened. -:- Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 17:47:45 (EDT)
__ __ __ Katie -:- Thank you for the clarification, Joe -:- Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 18:57:45 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Joe -:- You're Welcome and thanks to you, too -:- Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 19:32:09 (EDT)
__ Scott T. -:- So, let me get this straight... -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 15:34:29 (EDT)
__ __ Katie -:- Re: So, let me get this straight... -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 19:55:32 (EDT)
__ __ __ Scott T. -:- Re: So, let me get this straight... -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 21:04:36 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Robyn -:- Re: So, let me get this straight... -:- Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 07:19:10 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Re: So, let me get this straight... -:- Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 10:59:56 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Sheesh, Scott! -:- Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 11:17:59 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Ask questions, or presume the worst? -:- Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 11:44:06 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Robyn -:- Re: Ask questions, or presume the worst? -:- Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 19:20:50 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Re: Ask questions, or presume the worst? -:- Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 11:53:26 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- P.S. Reactions of ex-premies -:- Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 11:36:07 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Re: P.S. Reactions of ex-premies -:- Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 11:51:56 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- People call you intelligent Scott -:- Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 12:07:56 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Thanks for sharing. [nt] -:- Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 12:24:06 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Re: P.S. Reactions of ex-premies -:- Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 11:57:15 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Re: P.S. Reactions of ex-premies -:- Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 12:00:27 (EDT)
__ __ JHB -:- Re: So, let me get this straight... -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 19:35:33 (EDT)
__ __ __ Joe -:- Clarification -:- Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 18:04:18 (EDT)
__ __ __ Scott T. -:- Re: So, let me get this straight... -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 22:37:18 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Forum Administer -:- *****WARNING, WARNING***** -:- Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 11:43:29 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Don't be a hypocrite, Gerry -:- Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 12:11:24 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- US against the world. -:- Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 12:39:39 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- Re: Don't be a Liar, Jim -:- Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 12:15:33 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Put that thing down, Ger -:- Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 12:28:21 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- OK. Time to decide I guess. -:- Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 11:58:44 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- Don't be so childish Scott -:- Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 12:19:44 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- It's mostly for your benefit -:- Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 12:07:54 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Oh get real -:- Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 12:22:46 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Please don't leave, Scott -:- Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 12:03:07 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- KO -:- Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 12:31:57 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ gErRy -:- THE END -:- Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 12:38:24 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- OK, I apologize. -:- Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 12:48:37 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- Re: OK, I apologize. -:- Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 12:51:33 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Re: OK, I apologize. -:- Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 13:03:46 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Conservative ex-premies -:- Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 12:36:47 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- Re: Conservative ex-premies -:- Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 13:01:51 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Re: Conservative ex-premies -:- Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 13:00:17 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Re: Conservative ex-premies -:- Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 13:07:54 (EDT)
__ __ Joe -:- Scott, honey, you are just so fucking sweet -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 17:34:03 (EDT)
__ __ __ Scott T. -:- Don't call me 'honey,' huney. -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 18:02:28 (EDT)
__ __ __ Joe -:- And also Scott -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 17:37:07 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Re: And also Scott -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 18:05:30 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- I'm flattered, Scott -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 18:29:52 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Don't be. -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 18:45:11 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ GERRY -:- GENTLEMEN, GENTLEMEN -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 19:30:57 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Robyn -:- Re: GENTLEMEN, GENTLEMEN -:- Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 07:26:49 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- world Gone Mad -:- Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 09:34:34 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Yeah, and they both voted for Nader, too [nt] -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 19:52:39 (EDT)
__ __ Dermot -:- Re: So, let me get this straight... -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 16:40:38 (EDT)
__ __ __ Scott T. -:- Re: So, let me get this straight... -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 17:25:06 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Dermot -:- It's just the timing Scott -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 17:42:23 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Could 'a been better. -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 18:09:14 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- Scott, are you dense? -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 19:31:24 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Re: Scott, are you dense? -:- Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 00:42:54 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- And to put the last nail in it. -:- Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 00:56:52 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Scott, please -:- Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 10:40:59 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Katie, please -:- Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 11:16:03 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Re: Scott, please -:- Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 11:31:03 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Well, of course -:- Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 12:18:28 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Re: Well, of course -:- Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 12:29:14 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Re: Well, of course -:- Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 13:24:36 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- THANK YOU SCOTT! -:- Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 13:28:16 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Re: THANK YOU SCOTT! -:- Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 14:37:10 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Hey Dermot -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 17:46:26 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- Re: Hey Dermot -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 18:08:47 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- You are right -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 17:59:52 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pat:C) -:- As a pragmatist -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 19:17:58 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Enigmas and the unmarked grave of discarded ideas. -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 23:03:52 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pat:C) -:- I agree. Just read your post above -:- Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 04:19:50 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Thanks Pat, -:- Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 15:59:10 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Right, you have to be careful -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 19:23:26 (EDT)

Katie -:- 'Rumors of War' legends link -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 13:16:01 (EDT)
__ Suedoula -:- Re: 'Rumors of War' legends link -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 22:10:04 (EDT)
__ __ Suedoula -:- Sorry -- posted in wrong spot! [nt] -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 22:12:48 (EDT)
__ Francesca ()) -:- You're wecome, Katie! [nt] -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 13:22:02 (EDT)
__ __ salam -:- Fran -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 14:12:15 (EDT)

Joe -:- Adam Mayblum's Account from WTC 1 -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 12:33:20 (EDT)
__ Francesca -:- Thanks so much, Joe [nt] -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 23:58:50 (EDT)
__ magiclara -:- Re: Adam Mayblum's Account from WTC 1 -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 17:30:56 (EDT)
__ Brian Smith -:- A compelling first person account [nt] -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 16:16:59 (EDT)
__ btdt -:- Re: Adam Mayblum's Account from WTC 1 -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 13:20:20 (EDT)
__ Katie -:- Thanks, Joe (and thanks to Adam M) [nt] -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 13:17:32 (EDT)

Carl -:- Alternative to 'War': words by Ben Ferencz -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 12:07:51 (EDT)
__ a0aji -:- ::interesting:: [nt] -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 15:50:33 (EDT)
__ Scott T. -:- Not yet. -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 14:14:19 (EDT)
__ __ Carl -:- Subtract the emotional 'war' rhetoric -:- Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 02:05:49 (EDT)
__ Francesca :C) -:- Thanks Carl -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 13:24:49 (EDT)

Salam -:- Who said Afganies don't have a sense of humor? -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 10:04:22 (EDT)
__ [Blank] -:- OR -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 10:07:43 (EDT)

Scott T. -:- Moslem Clerics Ask UBL to leave. -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 09:04:04 (EDT)
__ Scott T. -:- More thoughts on hospitality. -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 15:25:44 (EDT)

AJW -:- Invade Switzerland, not Afghanistan. -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 05:52:28 (EDT)
__ Brian Smith -:- Yes, But -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 14:09:50 (EDT)
__ btdt -:- Re: Invade Switzerland, not Afghanistan. -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 13:24:55 (EDT)
__ Jim -:- What report? -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 11:15:21 (EDT)
__ __ Jean-Michel -:- This is an oifficial news in Europe -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 11:20:20 (EDT)
__ __ __ Jim -:- Here it is -- you're dreaming, Anth -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 11:32:55 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Ben Lurking -:- Re: Here it is -- you're dreaming, Anth -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 13:15:55 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ AJW -:- Hey Jim, you got the wrong end of the stick. -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 12:13:39 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Are you playing games, Anth? -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 14:28:28 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Re: Hey Jim, you got the wrong end of the stick. -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 12:53:53 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- It's the end of ... -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 12:24:49 (EDT)
__ __ __ Katie -:- Official here too, J-M [nt] -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 11:28:50 (EDT)
__ Don't you worry 'bout a thang -:- Our Uncle Sam will take care of all [nt] -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 06:40:56 (EDT)
__ __ Why we all need Uncle -:- Re: Our Uncle Sam will take care of all -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 07:52:13 (EDT)
__ __ __ one more time..we need Uncle -:- Re: Our Uncle Sam will take care of all -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 08:00:17 (EDT)
__ Sir Dave -:- USA should invade Afghanistan -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 06:21:51 (EDT)
__ __ AJW -:- Okay Dave, Invade Luxembourg instead. -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 06:32:47 (EDT)
__ __ __ Sir Dave -:- Been there, done that -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 06:52:59 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ AJW -:- I hope you're right Dave. -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 06:58:56 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ JHB -:- Re: I hope you're right Dave. -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 07:19:47 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ AJW -:- The IRA. -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 07:26:44 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- Americans still finacially support IRA -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 07:39:01 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Re: Americans still finacially support IRA -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 11:18:45 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- Re: Americans still finacially support IRA -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 14:45:42 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Well, after last night's speech by Bush -:- Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 10:54:52 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- Re: Well, after last night's speech by Bush -:- Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 12:51:01 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Thanks, Dermot -:- Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 12:58:04 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ magiclara -:- Re: Americans still finacially support IRA -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 17:35:52 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- Yo Magiclara -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 17:59:16 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ magiclara -:- Re: Yo Magiclara -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 19:22:41 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Disculta -:- 'Restraint' ho ho ho -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 13:14:15 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Re: 'Restraint' ho ho ho -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 13:20:37 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- Kipling -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 17:02:07 (EDT)


Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 13:56:49 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: All
Subject: Bin Laden's real reason for hating the states
Message:
Anyone see the excellent BBC documentary on TLC last night, Behind the Terror: Understanding the Enemy? I only caught the last half but Laurie saw it all and tells me that it made a strong, simple case for Bin Laden's hatred of the States arising from his sense of hurt and rejection that he, and not the U.S., was called upon to fight back Iraq when it invaded Kuwait. Yep, that's it. The guy felt so powerful after the Soviet retreat and he just couldn't believe that his fellow muslims would cry for help to the licentious, sinful Americans rather than his good, muslim crew. Yeah, the U.S. has so much to apologize for here. How dare they?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 19:21:05 (EDT)
From: such
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: dat's what I thought, too
Message:
like an ego-bubble boisting -- den revenge, 'cause now it's poisonal... dadadadada-DA - bingo.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 18:19:04 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Bin Laden's hissy fit.
Message:
Jim:

Seems that everybody's getting hot under the collar about not having been asked to fight in the first place, huh? Yeah, I can see how he'd be real insulted. Now it all makes sense.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 15:48:34 (EDT)
From: Deborah
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Very insightful, thanks [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 14:44:43 (EDT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: I wish I got the BBC/Friedman and NYT
Message:
I mean besides Masterpiece Theater, Keeping Up Appearances and that sitcom with Judy Dench that we get on PBS.

I have heard much the same. Apparently bin Laden hates Saddam Hussein, but what did you mean by not being 'called upon' to fight Iraq? Called upon by whom, the Saudis? Kuwait? The USA?

Tom Friedman from the NYT was interviewed ty Terry Gross last night. I disagree with LOTS Friedman says, although his latest book 'The Lexus and the Olive Tree' is very interesting about the Middle East.

Anyhow, one of the main things he said that I really agreed with is that bin Laden wants, and leaders in the Middle East are very afraid will happen, that the US respond to the attacks in a massive, indiscriminate way in the Middle East. The US would then be the main recruiter for bin Laden and related groups. Also, he wants to see a clamp-down on, and attacks on Arabs living in the USA, because the image of a pluralistic, tolerant society, where anyone can come and 'make it' is one of the most positive images of the USA in the Middle East. He says bin Laden and related groups are very strategic, and they want to get a reaction that will benefit them, and enforce the view they have of the West in the Middle East.

He also said that he believed about 50% of the Middle East, while maybe not dancing in the streets, silently isn't too upset at what happened. And much of it comes from the conditions under which they live.

He mentioned that Egypt, for example, has the same per capita income it had in 1950!!!! Amazing, but true. The country hasn't been able to modernize, and has an extremely repressive government. The US gives $3 BILLION in military aid to Egypt every year, and since Egypt has no real external enemies and even has a peace treaty with Israel, the arms are mostly used to control its own population. So, they hate the US for supporting their repressive government, and they also blame the US for their economic condition, which is really due to the failures of that same government.

Plus, one of the strategies of the Egyptian government has been to let the press in Egypt deflect blame onto Israel and the US for all their problems. The press in Egypt, Friedman says, is virulently anti-US and anti-semitic. Kids in Egypt grow up hearing this, and are recruits for bin Laden, the fundamentalists, and other violent groups.

I've also read that bin Laden is very upset with the US for propping up the Saudi government, which bin Laden opposes, and he is really pissed because US troops are stationed in Saudi Arabia, which he thinks is a desecration of Islamic holy sites, or something like that.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 17:00:58 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Re: I wish I got the BBC/Friedman and NYT
Message:
Joe:

Anyhow, one of the main things he said that I really agreed with is that bin Laden wants, and leaders in the Middle East are very afraid will happen, that the US respond to the attacks in a massive, indiscriminate way in the Middle East. The US would then be the main recruiter for bin Laden and related groups. Also, he wants to see a clamp-down on, and attacks on Arabs living in the USA, because the image of a pluralistic, tolerant society, where anyone can come and 'make it' is one of the most positive images of the USA in the Middle East. He says bin Laden and related groups are very strategic, and they want to get a reaction that will benefit them, and enforce the view they have of the West in the Middle East.

And don't you think the fact that they miscalculated on damn near everything is an excellent case study of the brain damage produced by cult thinking? Just asking.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 14:52:56 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Re: I wish I got the BBC
Message:
Joe,

I mean by the Saudi government. Apparently, his distaste for their corruption (in the face of 'true Islam' that is) only really took flight after they looked to the states and not him to rebuff Saddam Hussein.

I've heard and accept all the rest of what you're saying although I note that the U.S. is in an impossible damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation regarding arab countries. If they give generous support, even if it's earmarked as only humanitarian, they're offending the would-be insurrectionists. If they don't, they're callous and greedy. If they try to intervene in local politics, they're ugly, imperialistic interventionists. Give me a break, people!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 15:10:53 (EDT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Yeah, but Jim...
Message:
It's mostly MILITARY aid that the US gives. Egypt is the biggest recipient, but the US props up the Saudis, Kuwaitis, etc., because of oil and really for no other reason. In the case of the Saudis, it's huge military aid and even troops, and the Saudi government kind of trades the free-flow of oil for 'protection' by the US. Those govenments are completely undemocratic and repressive, and hated by much of their populations.

Plus, the US overthrew the government of Iran and set up the Shah, who was really brutal and hated, but that backfired on the US big time.

The US looks out for its own interests. Sometimes that backfires.

The other thing the USA did was arm and train bin Laden to fight the Soviets (which was in the interest of the US) and then when the Soviets left, so did the US (when it was no longer in its interest to give a crap about Afghanistan.) bin Laden arose out of that.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 17:18:48 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: The Irish idea of a hero.
Message:
It's mostly MILITARY aid that the US gives. Egypt is the biggest recipient, but the US props up the Saudis, Kuwaitis, etc., because of oil and really for no other reason.

You don't think the 'balance of power' consideration enters into it at all? Not that I don't think our compulsion for 'stability' isn't self-defeating. Perhaps we'll learn something now, if they bring in some of the dissident voices like Daly to help solve the problem. Nothing concentrates the mind, and gets rid of irrelevancies, like contemplating a fall from a great height.

In the case of the Saudis, it's huge military aid and even troops, and the Saudi government kind of trades the free-flow of oil for 'protection' by the US. Those govenments are completely undemocratic and repressive, and hated by much of their populations.

Not that I don't think reduction of our oil dependence isn't a critical component of any solution (and we should all go back to riding bikes to work), but what's the evidence for the assertion that the Saudi and Kuwaiti governments are hated by their people? I realize that the judgment exercised by the US fails to distinquish between peoples interested in freedom, and those interested in theocracy and mosque-centered repression, but I just have a hunch that the majority of Saudis are fairly satisfied, even if not completely happy, with the present setup. Do you think they're clammering for social democracy or something?

The other thing the USA did was arm and train bin Laden to fight the Soviets (which was in the interest of the US) and then when the Soviets left, so did the US (when it was no longer in its interest to give a crap about Afghanistan.) bin Laden arose out of that.

So you're saying we should have stayed?

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 16:30:34 (EDT)
From: Carl
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Yep, it's the damn oil
Message:
When on earth are the best scientific minds going to direct their focus on discovering or developing cheap, clean and efficient energy sources other than oil?

I mean, how DO those UFO's scoot about silently and with such swift and great power? We need that.

(only half-joking, I think)
Carl

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 03:14:17 (EDT)
From: btdt
Email: None
To: Carl
Subject: Re: Yep, it's the damn oil
Message:
Well, you know what happened to the guy who invented the nicotene free, non addictive cigarette.........
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 14:14:20 (EDT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Jim, something wrong here
Message:
I think you should reread and edit your post as it's bassackwards.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 14:16:37 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: What do you mean?
Message:
I did re-read it. What are you talking about? I don't get it.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 14:20:52 (EDT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: What do you mean??
Message:
Bin Laden's hatred of the States arising from his sense of hurt and rejection that he, and not the U.S., was called upon to fight back Iraq when it invaded Kuwait.

Shouldn't that read:

Bin Laden's hatred of the States arising from his sense of hurt and rejection that the US, and not Bin Laden, was called upon to fight back Iraq when it invaded Kuwait.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 14:29:45 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: Oops, yes of course -- thanks [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 14:37:05 (EDT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Well change it dear Liza
Message:
Or shall I? Then I will delete the rest so it doesn't water down your post.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 21:06:13 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: Here's a test message
Message:
I'll post this, and try to correct it but I know it won't work. Rather than save the corrections it'll just start trying to download something and then will quit.

Error to correct: The CAT jumped over the moon.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 23:12:37 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Well clearly
Message:
I'll post this, and try to correct it but I know it won't work.

you have to have more faith. BELIEVE! I had a number of problems with IE 5.5 on Win98. It got so bad I couldn't download porn. Perhaps if you upped to Win98SE? Do you use Update regularly. I decided to make the leap to Win2000, which seems the most stable of all Windows sytems so far. But it's NT based, and different from Win98 in significant ways. MUCH better, but different.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 21:09:52 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Yeah, it didn't work
Message:
Oh well. I must have some sort of weird thing set up so that the download for Real Audio thinks 'save' means save that way.

I'll see if I can get someone to figure it out.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 21:29:34 (EDT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Beats me, Jim [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 14:55:15 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: I can't
Message:
Gerry,

The editing feature was made with my name on it but, sadly, it doesn't work for me for some reason. I try to save the corrections and it starts doing some sort of unsuccessful download thing. You can change it, if you like. Or leave it as a testament to my shrew's eye for detail and accuracy.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 17:24:59 (EDT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: When it happens to me ...
Message:
... I hit the back button (don't even wait for the error page to load) and just try again. Usually works second time.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 19:25:58 (EDT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: Hey! it just kept happening
Message:
I was trying to post all this to Jerry way below, tried lots of times and in the end posted something much shorter (better too). Let's see if it goes now...

... and I know the influence of what PatC would call 'High Church' Islamic scholars and theologians is very limited among clerics in the Shar'ia states. Tariq Ali and other Muslim Brits were attacking these guys (verbally) when they were American allies. He is still attacking them as being unIslamic, but now is accused of being a supporter of terrorism or naive by the very fools that cosied up to these scum in the first place.

Fundamentalism is fundamentally antihuman, because it puts dead texts ahead of live people. Oh yeah, and religion stinks anyway.

But the Pat Robinsons are simply wrong. Al Qaida owes its genesis to a detestation of American foreign policy, and not of the kind of society we have in the West, or in the States in particular. I was struck by that when I read the interview with bin Laden that bill posted. In defense of these terrible actions UBL uttered not a word about the nature of American society, but talked only of the effect of the States' foreign policy on the Islamic world. It's the effect of American actions on their world that bugs 'em, a lot of those kids have little or no idea of what American society is really like.

It has been a terrible time, and I apologise if I misunderstood you. Thank you for being clear that you know American society as such is not hated by Islamicists. They, like many others, find religious freedom in the States (sigh), and Islam properly speaking is a religion that respects the beliefs of others.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 15:47:44 (EDT)
From: Deborah
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: I can't
Message:
Jim, once you hit the Save button, the work is done even though the screen doesn't confirm it. then hit the back button a couple of times and get back outside the thread. Look at the post and it will be changed.

however, on AG, you hit the Save button and it gives you a message. But not on F-VII.

it's about TRUST. ;)

Actually, I went back in to make an edit, and when I hit the SAVE button, it gave me a confirmation.

shit, life is weird.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 15:16:19 (EDT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: I can't
Message:
Jim, does the screen just go blank (black?) If so, just reload the page from your bookmarks and the edit should be there. Try it. If it doesn't work , I'll change it for you.

Gerry the gullible but helpful

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 13:30:55 (EDT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: All
Subject: Is America Great, or What?
Message:
I hope you guys don't just see this as another one of my gay rights rants, but two things arising out of all the terror we have been witnessing lately, just hit me as so bizarre, and so infuriating.

In yesterday's paper, I saw that 'the Pentagon' yesterday issued an order suspending discharges from the military of those who disclose their homosexuality.

You may recall that in 1993, Clinton valiantly tried to get rid of the ban on gay people serving in the military, which thousands do and have always done. Well, the outcry from the military and the right wing was deafening, and Clinton had to back down, and we ended up with the ridiculous and insulting 'don't as don't tell' compromise.

It was a policy that was supposed to allow gay people to serve as long as they didn't disclose that they were gay, and in return the military wouldn't harass them, or try to hunt them out.

Well, it didn't work, and the US military services used the compromise to go on an absolute witchhunt to kick gay people out, and many more gays and lesbians have been kicked out (as well as beaten up and even killed) in the military services than before the compromise went into effect.

Well, that was in peace time. Now that we are at 'war', well, somebody has figured out that fags don't look any different in a body bags than straight people, so the military is graciously 'suspending' the wtichhunt against them. This is what Steve Ralls, head of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network said in yesterday's Chronicle:

The stop-loss order is an explicit acknowledgment by the Pentagon that gays and lesbians can serve their country, no question about that. It also sends the unfortunate message what while there are gay men and lesbians who put themselves in harm's way, who risked their lives for the country, they can expect to be fired from their job once the conflict is over.

Is this country great, or what?

Okay, so the second thing.

People have been asking what they can do to help in this disaster, and one of the main suggestions has been to give blood. Even if you aren't in New York, apparently blood supplies were expected to be short everywhere as lots of blood went to the NYC hospitals from all over the country.

Well, the problem is for me, is if you are a gay man in the USA you are banned from giving blood. I know, it's ridiculous, but it's true. And it isn't because you are sick or otherwise unable to do it, it's just because you're a gay man. Or else you have to lie about it.

The gay blood ban, in effect since the early 80s because of AIDs, does not factor in somebody's HIV status, and does not apply even to the most promiscuous and reckless of heterosexuals.

Actually, the statement from the blood banks is that you are forbidden to donate blood if you are a man and you have had sex with another man -- even once -- at any time since 1977. This despite the fact that all blood is tested, donors get tested, and all the rest. It's just so stupid and, and so discriminatory, and so insulting.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 20:11:38 (EDT)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Re: Is America Great, or What?
Message:
America's bigotry against gays is as ugly as any of its other prejudices. It seems like most of the targets were random differences like skin color, religion and sexual orientation. History has shown these attitudes change; whether minorities will ever be totally accepted is yet to be seen. I think they will.

Part of the reason I think that is that the vested interests of society change. The mainstream used to be more attached to the stereotypical perception of superiority as white, male, heterosexual, and Christian. This has changed as the population has changed, and accompanying trends.

One thing that hasn't changed is the power structure. The real ugliness that bigotry is rooted in is power. Some day, gays and blacks and women and Hispanics and everyone will have varying chances of getting a big slice of the American pie. No doubt it will be in the context of the current corporate beehive. Unfortunately, the beehive will be just as ugly, just more diverse.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 18:01:35 (EDT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: Thanks Rick
Message:
Yes, it's a slow process, but I've given up the idea that things necessarily get progressively better. In the areas of discrimination and prejudice that isn't always true, unfotunately.

BTW, Kevin and I almost made it up your way last week, but I got stuck in Chicago after the bombings, so we couldn't do it. I hope we can get back up there, because I could use of few days of heat, mellow relaxation, and the good food.

Joe

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 19:51:36 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: 'don't ask, don't tell' and blood
Message:
Hi Joe -
Re the suspension of 'don't ask, don't tell', I guess I'm cautiously optimistic. I am surprised that some of the more hard-line social conservatives in the military even agreed to that. Brian and I were talking about this last night, and we agree that it appears that they will not need to draft cannon fodder in this war (as in Vietnam). Instead, they need to recruit highly intelligent people. So in that way, it's a compliment. But, as PatC said, these gay people will have to be careful.

Re the ban on gay men giving blood - I didn't know about that and that is terrible. I can tell you, as a heterosexual, that they do ask you a lot of questions about your sex life and any interveinous drug use - it's actually quite an ordeal. Don't see why they cannot ask gay men the same kinds of questions.

Take care,
Love,
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 18:26:01 (EDT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: giving blood
Message:
the ban on gay men giving blood

It's the same here, just a blanket ban, the equivalent of 'racial profiling' in police matters. I agree it's dreadful. Just like in the States, give blood in Britain (one can only give -- selling your blood is not allowed here) and they ask you a lot of questions about your sex life, and if you use needles for fun. There's no need to treat gay men any different.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 18:45:00 (EDT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: Re: giving blood
Message:
It's illegal in California to sell your blood also.

I think the blood banks are really afraid of being sued, because a lot of Hiv-tainted blood got into the system in the early 80s. But now, there's no excuse because the tests are very good, (both of people and of blood) and all blood is tested anyway. I think they believe if they open it up to gay men, that they will be criticized and be sued. I think that's it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 17:47:45 (EDT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: this is confused/what actually happened.
Message:
Thank you Katie, and it's great to see you and your reasoned, thoughtful insights here. They are always valuable.

Re the suspension of 'don't ask, don't tell', I guess I'm cautiously optimistic. I am surprised that some of the more hard-line social conservatives in the military even agreed to that.

In all the rhetoric about this, the actual facts have gotten obscured. Let me try to say what actually happened.

Because the military is now calling up reserves (over 50,000 under Bush's order) and staffing needs have increased, the Pentagon issued an order suspending discharges. This applies to ALL discharges except 'administrative discharges' (medical, hardship, suitability, etc.) which could continue under this order. Its called a 'stop loss' order and is routine in times of conflict, to avoid disruption in the military units.

The Pentagon did not single out the gay discharge, and they can't. They can only do the "accross-the-board" suspension. And the military can't change the policy either, they can just suspend it in this kind of 'war' situation. The last time it happened was in the Gulf War, and it extends to the discharge of homosexuals who disclose that they are, who don't stay completely in the closet.

I have never supported DADT, and Scott's statement above that my argument means I do, is also false, but he already knows that.

Don't Ask Don't Tell, which doesn't really exist in reality just on paper because the military is, in practice, 'asking' quite a lot, and expelling gays in greater numbers than ever, is still the official policy of the military, and that hasn't changed. And, it can ONLY change by an executive order of the President (which GW Bush would not do in a million years) or an act of Congress, which isn't likely either, and Bush can veto it, which he would. You know as well as I do, that Bush probably wouldn't survive politically if he allowed the change, even if he wanted it, and Clinton was practically crucified for trying it after the Gulf War, even though in the campaign he said he intended to do it. Scott is just wrong if he thinks the military can do this on its own, even if it wanted to, and it can only 'suspend' discharges in times of 'war' or 'emergency' not the rest of the time.

Okay, so this means that while the suspension is in place, a gay soldier could disclose his or her orientation, and can't be discharged, but the minute the suspension is lifted, he or she can be. So, do you think they will rely on George W. to protect them, especially when Clinton couldn't? Get real.

AND there is history here. During the Gulf War, and right after, many gay people 'came out' during the last 'stop loss'order, thinking, foolishly in turns out, that the successful war and their service in it, would prevent the military of expelling them, just like Scott suggests. WRONG. They got expelled, and the military didn't seem to care that they had just fought in a war. Many others 'came out' after Clinton got elected, and got expelled under DADT. You may recall lots of disclosures on TV, like on Jay Leno and the like.

So, I don't think you need to be speaking from my 'subculture' as Scott so diplomatically describes it, to see that the message from the Pentagon is that it's okay to serve as an out gay person while you are needed in conflict, but it's not okay the rest of the time. I don't see it as a 'compliment' except to the extent it is a tacit, back-handed admission that gay people are actually valuable to the military, but without really saying it. I think saying it's a compliment really stretches what that means.

No, it's rank hypocrisy by the Penatagon and that's why I reacted to Scott's retrograde suggestion that I'm just looking for something to complain about. The fact that he reacted so emotionally and with such meanness, to me suggests there is something else going on there, I'm not sure what.

But the idea that after this conflict that the policy will be changed is absurd, because neither Bush nor the Congress would do it. Not to try to compete with Scott in dropping names and inserting footnotes, let me quote Georgetown University law Professor Chai Feldlum from the SF Chronicle of September 19, 2001:

'I would be surprised if the military softens its stance against gay men and lesbians in the military....I hope the policy does get lifted, but that's not going to happen for a number of years. It will require a change in society, after people realize that the policy is antiquated.'

Regarding giving blood, it's a completely stupid policy and there have been a number of suggestions to change it, including a resolution from the SF Board of Supervisors, but the Red Cross won't and neither will the blood banks. I know what you mean about the questions, but for a gay man, you don't even get to those, you are excluded just for who you are, not what you've done.

A lot of gay men are very patriotic. They wanted to give blood after what happened last week when it was suggested that was the best thing to do. But you can't.

Thanks again Katie. Hope you are doing well,

Joe

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 18:57:45 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Thank you for the clarification, Joe
Message:
And, in the interests of getting along, I would say that I think a lot of us are pretty emotionally raw right now. As Scott said, the fact that there are over 6000 dead people under that rubble in NYC is tearing lots of people here up.

Don't know if you read the posts in this thread, but Scott's last answer to me re this issue (which we weren't debating based on the facts you just gave - so please take that into account. I am not informed re this issue) was, re gays in the military:

I suppose any group that's been so excluded for so long would have serious reservations. I'm sorry if I didn't give that attitude sufficient credibility. The downside for gays is simply that they have to continue to hide, and since this in itself could have negative consequences for the military perhaps it would be prudent to move the 'suspension' to a 'revocation,' now rather than later. A legitimate political and organizationsal issue. Let's discuss.

Well, obviously they can't 'revoke' discharges, so that's a moot point now. But I hope you will see Scott's efforts towards reconciliation, even if you guys did get really pissed at each other. I know from Scott's previous posts on the forum, and from meeting him personally, that he certainly DOES have questions about US politics, even if he's not expressing that right now.

At this point, I'd really like to hear from people of all political persuasions, from all countries, because I want to know what people are thinking. I know this is all OT, and is likely putting a strain on not just the FA, but other people who want to use this forum for its intended purpose - so if someone can come up with a solution to that, I will abide by it. (I don't think that going to AG is a solution, because the people who use that forum like THAT forum to be the way it is.)

Yeah, the ban on blood giving by gay men sucks - what can I say? I'm surprised that more people here didn't respond to that part of your message.

Hope you are doing well too, Joe - I know that the events in NY affected you and people you know personally - and will probably continue to do so. I'm all right - just trying to cope, and to figure out what I think and feel. I've been posting here about the attacks because many people where I work don't want to talk about what happened - which is their right - but I need to talk about it. Also the people here are very intelligent and it's instructive and interesting to read what they think.

Lots of love,
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 19:32:09 (EDT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: You're Welcome and thanks to you, too
Message:
I didn't read the thread. It became a screaming match -- something I don't need right now. I just wanted to clarify the actual situation as it apparently got very messed up. I've been distracted as well. We probably all are. I talk to Marsh and Aon people a lot, and they are really reeling.

But with all due respect to Scott, it's more than 'serious reservations' it's more certain reservations, because the policy has not changed, and I don't think we should be rejoicing because it's suspended temporarily because the military needs the personnel.

I belong to an organization called 'Service Members Support League' that raises money for the legal defense of gay military people who are being expelled from the military. Actually, my firm is also a a sponsor, and a group of us in the firm have the firm sponsor a table at fundraisers, etc. What has been happening since DADT really is a witch hunt. It's much worse than it was before. It's horrible.

It almost seems to be worse with lesbians. The modus in a lot of the services is that military superiors will hit on a female military person who they think might be a lesbian. If she refuses to have sex with him, then she gets labled a lesbian and is under suspicion. I know it sounds awful, but I've heard numerous testimonies about this. Often, they aren't lesbians at all, but in both cases, they often feel they need to have sex with the harrasser to defuse suspicion. As long as the DADT policy is in effect that kind of abuse will continue, because gay people are vulnerable to blackmail.

If the woman tries to bring a harrassment complaint, the issue about whether she is a lesbian, whether she is or not, is used against her.

A lot of people who go into the military are pretty young. They may not even realize they are gay when they go in, and only discover it later. Others have very distinguished careers, sometimes over many years, and they really love the military and have dedicated their lives to it, and then they get kicked out, and sometimes even their superiors and co-workers are very supportive of them. I know from personal experience that it's almost impossible to keep your sexual orientation hidden, especially in a situation like the military. It's almost an impossible situation that these people have been put in, except for the periods during which the country needs them the most.

I can't even imagine even wanting to be in the military. But there are those who want to be there, and it's discrimination, irrational prejudice, and plain ignorance that makes them live lies and kicks them out. I just think a situation like we have now, exposes that very clearly, and that's why I brought it up in the first place.

I know what you mean about hearing from everyone. I especially appreciate the views from people outside the USA. That's really helpful to me.

I'm off to the Blues Festival. I'm praying for sunshine.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 15:34:29 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: So, let me get this straight...
Message:
You're now in favor of the 'don't ask don't tell' policy, or you're just insulted that it took a war to end it? (I say 'end' rather than 'suspend' because I see no way to credibly reinstitute it now that it's been revoked.) Now, what were those arguments you made for acceptance of gays in the military, and why aren't they just as relevant now? I'm sorry Joe, I think you're looking for excuses to be insulted. My take.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 19:55:32 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: So, let me get this straight...
Message:
Hi Scott -
I'm not as sure as you that the suspension will turn into a revocation. As I said to Joe, I am cautiously optimistic about that, but it could really backfire on gay people in the military after this war (or whatever it is) is over. So in that way, it's quite insulting. They should have just revoked it.

Take care -
Love,
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 21:04:36 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Re: So, let me get this straight...
Message:
Well, I'd have revoked it if I were the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. About the future, how would anyone be able to make an argument that gays are a 'danger' in combat once we have empirical evidence, and more importantly battle line experience, that they are as good as any soldier? I guess I can't blame someone for being insulted about that though. I see it more as a matter of bureaucratic foot-dragging than any intent to exploit. I mean, what do you expect? It's the military for heaven sake. The language specifies a 'suspension?' I can see a suspension pending review or something, after which a full revocation. War isn't a good time for social experimentation, so I felt that for someone to take offense *now* they have to have been reaching for it. To me it was a clear attempt to accomodate gays, who would rather be embraced I suppose (and perhaps deserve to be) than simply accommodated. It's seemed a recognition that we are all Americans, however we differ on other matters. And once accepted here, the way is more open for broader acceptance in other areas, such as scouting. Violence against gays woud *have* to decline, if there's a gay medal of honor winner in a major war. No? I guess lots of blacks were insulted by Jackie Robinson's lone entry into the Dodger lineup on a provisional basis, but they sure didn't act that way. The love that dare not speak its name sometimes seems like the love that won't shut up. I guess it's a good thing, but it doesn't strike me as a particulary wise or insightful thing.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 07:19:10 (EDT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: So, let me get this straight...
Message:
Dear Scott,
You are very intelligent, I know but you are writting about military logic, an oxy moron for sure!
Why would you even consider that they would do 'the right thing' later if they have to give it in such a back handed way. They are using gays because they need them is how I see it and MAYBE if gays and others fight hard for their acceptance after this is over they will claw their way into being allowed to give their lives for their country and say out loud that they are gay.
For me, the first, always, when the government is conserned is suspision and mistrust. Seems in the past I've sadly been proven correct.
Also, I am insulted to have my government behave this way so I am quite sure I would feel more upset if I was gay or lesbian.
Love,
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 10:59:56 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: Re: So, let me get this straight...
Message:
Robyn:

Why would you want to be part of an organization that is populated by individuals who are essentially illogical bigots? It seems to me if you thought that you would simply walk away, and nurse your insult elsewhere. In my experience, the military are *very* logical and their logic gets much keener on the eve of battle. Furthermore, if you feel the American people would stand for the kind of betrayal you seem to think *probable* your opinion of them is just as lowly. If I felt about the military, our leadership, and our people, they way you folks seem to, I'd be on the other side.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 11:17:59 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Sheesh, Scott!
Message:
Basically, what you are saying is 'America, love it (and agree with it) or leave it'. I have said this before on here, but I am VERY politically torn by this situation - and I imagine that Robyn and others on here are too. And I don't agree with your point about the logic of the military, and that comes from MY personal experience.

It's OK to ask questions here - in fact, we need to.

Love,
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 11:44:06 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Ask questions, or presume the worst?
Message:
Tell me about this personal experience? Do you really think Archie Bunker is in charge of the US military? Perhaps you are offended by my tone, but if that's the case then maybe you need to be. The presumption of anti-american sentiment is that such a thing would be tolerable in any non-Lockean system of governance. It would not. And I'd appreciate it if you didn't couch my disagreement as 'love it or leave it.' It's more like 'know what you're supporting, instead of taking it for granted.' (And of course, whether it's worth supporting.) It seems reasonable for me to ask you to make up your mind, or at least test your own assumptions. I'm simply asking a question about *why* you would support a system with the fatal defects you seem to think dominate it. I'm astonished that you're conflicted. What have you seen that I haven't?

BTW, if you believe it's really possible to recant on this 'provisional' acceptance of gays then perhaps you need to mobilize around that. I think that would a bit premature though.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 19:20:50 (EDT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: Ask questions, or presume the worst?
Message:
Dear Scott,
I feel more 'American' now then ever in my life. I do disagree with a lot of things but I still think this is one of the best places to live. I think part of patriotism is to speak out. I don't speak out in hate just stating how I feel or think about something. I know I can't be the only one to feel the way I do about anything in life.
Love,
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 11:53:26 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: Ask questions, or presume the worst?
Message:
Scott,
My father, who was VERY competent, got fired from his high-level (GS-17) job by Lehmann when he was Secretary of the Navy. This was because they did not get along because my dad talked back to the guy (who was a political appointee, I believe, and not all that bright).

THAT is my personal experience. My father was an abrasive person, but he was very good at his job. Nethertheless, he got canned because he wouldn't kiss Lehmann's ass.

BTW, I didn't refer to 'fatal defects' or anything similar. I do know that the people who work for the military are human - and that they make mistakes, sometimes really dumb ones.

As far as being 'politically torn' - I am a liberal Democrat who stopped watching the national news after Bush got elected because I was so depressed. So OF COURSE, I am politically conflicted now - why is that so weird?

Re the gays in the military issue - it's not a primary issue for me. I was just trying to explain why people might not agree with you in assuming that the military would do the right thing.

Why are you so mad about this?
Take care,
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 11:36:07 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: P.S. Reactions of ex-premies
Message:
Also, Scott - I don't think I've made this point on here before, but ex-premies as a group would tend to be distrustful of authority figures and distrustful of emotional appeals because of their experiences with Maharaji. I myself have had a big problem with the flags all over, and that is a direct result of having been manipulated emotionally to support Maharaji.

I do believe that we have to trust SOME authority figures - not to do so leads to complete cynicism and maybe even nihilism. But I think it's far harder for ex-premies to do so than say 'the average American' (if there is such a thing.)

TC -
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 11:51:56 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Re: P.S. Reactions of ex-premies
Message:
Katie:

I don't know how we expect to maintain life as we know it without two things: interpersonal love and trust, and patriotism. Perhaps you believe one of these is dispensable. If ex-premies as a group are incapable of the latter, in a pinch, then I'd say they've been permanently damaged. On the other hand, if it's a matter of having been crippled then some form of further healing may be called for, or if nothing else a prosthesis. I did not find the healing difficult, but then I've had access to some extraordinary people.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 12:07:56 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: People call you intelligent Scott
Message:
I'm not one of them.

Being clever doesn't necessarily mean being intelligent.

Your type of 'patriotism' is childish and fucking dangerous, quite frankly.

Yep I reckon my Dr Strangelove jibe was about right.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 12:24:06 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Thanks for sharing. [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 11:57:15 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: P.S. Reactions of ex-premies
Message:
Scott,
I did not say that ex-premies were 'incapable' of patriotism, nor that I believed it was dispensable - please don't make those kinds of assumptions from my posts. I just wanted you to try and understand that it's difficult to rebuild trust when it's been damaged. Especially overnight, and especially after the election last November.

I'm working on finding a patriotism I can live with - and I'm in process.

Take care,
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 12:00:27 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Re: P.S. Reactions of ex-premies
Message:
Katie:

Apparently it's more difficult than I thought, and will remain so if dissent isn't tolerated.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 19:35:33 (EDT)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: So, let me get this straight...
Message:
Scott,

You're coming across as homophobic here. I'm not saying you are, but that's how this debate reads. From Joe's post, it's clear he is very against the 'don't ask don't tell policy' which by any objective analysis is a gross violation of human rights. It's also clear that suspending the policy in a time a potential war is hypocritical, especially as the word suspension implies the policy will be reintroduced after hostilities subside. So to avoid appearing homophobic, perhaps you could clarify your position on this issue?

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 18:04:18 (EDT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: Clarification
Message:
You're now in favor of the 'don't ask don't tell' policy, or you're just insulted that it took a war to end it?

John, is this the statement from Scott that I think you were referring to? And, once again, it's not ended.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 22:37:18 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: Re: So, let me get this straight...
Message:
John:

I'm not sure how you get the idea that I thought Joe in favor of DADT. Are you getting that impression from my post, or from Joe's 'follow up' that seems to make the same [mistaken] attribution. I don't know any gays who were in favor of DADT, except as a compromise possibly. My point was that the set of arguments they used to denounce DADT, and to support wholesale acceptance of gays in the military, can now be put to the test. Am I to infer that *he* would prefer his right to be such a pissant be defended solely by heterosexuals? Of course not! I agree with Katie [and not Joe] about the probable considerations behind the 'lifting' of the policy, and think that whether that is temporary or permanent depends in large part on the history of events. Wartime is not the time for social experimentation, so I can only conclude that the military have decided that gays can make a valuable, or even vital, contribution. If they have decided that gays make good cannon fodder then I'd expect all-gay units, though the very notion is preposterous.

But, most importantly I am apalled, offended, and discouraged by subject lines of the ilk 'Is America Great or What?' What the fuck is that all about? Have we not seen? Is there any doubt? If Joe has to mull over every hackneyed anti-American sentiment he has ever heard I suppose it would be more circumspect to simply ask him what the country had done to him that he harbors such bitterness against it. I don't care what he thinks it may or may not have done to others. I don't believe he really cares about that anyway.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 11:43:29 (EDT)
From: Forum Administer
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: *****WARNING, WARNING*****
Message:
Scott, you are about two clicks away from being blocked and having all your posts deleted. Stop your personal attacks on other ex-premies or you are out of here. In fact I think you may just get the boot anyway.

Gerry the fuckin' totalitarian dictator who pays for the space you outgas in.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 12:11:24 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Forum Administer
Subject: Don't be a hypocrite, Gerry
Message:
Gerry,

Here you don't just tolerate, you actually encourage and join in with some of the most virulent anti-American posts of all, insulting not just the government (as if it's a given that that's always a fair shot, they're just the government, after all) but the media, the corporate world, the military, you name it. Do you give a damn that many posters might find that offensive? Sure doesn't seem like it. Rather, it seems that you're just enjoying the fact that you can say anything to anyone here with impunity so long as it isn't a physical threat. Free speech, if people don't like your ideas, too bad.

So Scott and Joe into a debate over an issue that Joe raises and, as Scott fairly addresses, Joe raises it as a criticism of the country in general. Scott takes issue with Joe, they argue, others join in. It gets a little heated but nothing compared to some of the many other exchanges that happen here, some of which you yourself have been involved in. So what? You don't like Scott's viewpoint so you're going to block him? And meanwhile you're giving Mel high-fives for trotting out ridiculous conspiracy theories like the Pakistani article about the jews?

That's completely hypocritical, in my opinion.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 12:39:39 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: US against the world.
Message:
Jim:

That has to be the most ironic development since Begin and Sadat kissed each other on the lips.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 12:15:33 (EDT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: Don't be a Liar, Jim
Message:
And meanwhile you're giving Mel high-fives for trotting out ridiculous conspiracy theories like the Pakistani article about the jews?

OK you're blocked too.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 12:28:21 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: Put that thing down, Ger
Message:
You can take someone's eye out if you're not careful. My reference is to your telling Mel that you agree with his post and he not backing down from posing the question about the Pakistani article as if it were a reasonable one but rather suggesting that Bush couldn't be trusted about the number of Israeli's lost in the attack.

But what about the rest of my post? Why no comment?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 11:58:44 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Forum Administer
Subject: OK. Time to decide I guess.
Message:
You've just settled things. Apparently only one viewpoint is acceptable here. People attack me personally and I defend myself, with logic and argument that may or may not be acceptable to you. Guess that's stepping over the line. Bye. You are not my friends, and have never been.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 12:19:44 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Don't be so childish Scott
Message:
'People attack me personally' ....well if they do , you attack them personally at times. Such is life.

You've already classed 'all' ex-premies as somehow deficient (perhaps excluding Jim) because they don't fall in line with your brand of 'patriotism'.

Grow up Bud. Argue your case by all means but if you are opposed .....isn't that a facet of democracy ? American democracy too ?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 12:07:54 (EDT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: It's mostly for your benefit
Message:
Christ, you sound like you're cracking up. You seriously need to get away from here. When you feel the impulsive need to answer even the most mundane posts with your expertise (like Jim's message edit problems) it's time for you to reconsider your participation here.

The other thing that gravely concerns me is that you will drive away other solid and strong contributors here like Joe Whalen. The thing is Scott, you have not contributed a damn thing to the discussion about Maharaji in months. You stir up controversy and alienate people with this political bullshit. Ok, so we all don't have your insider political savvy. Well, that's not really needed on a forum about guru maharaji. You're driving people away, or could be. That's more my concern than your point of view.

About the 'friend' thing, that's just plain childish. Take a break, give us all a break. You're becoming oppressive.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 12:22:46 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: Oh get real
Message:
Gerry:

I have to tell you, I don't put advice from you on a very high place in my list of considerations. My benefit? [supresses explitive]

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 12:03:07 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Please don't leave, Scott
Message:
I think your reactions have been emotional, as well as logical. I think that's OK, too. And I don't think people with a conservative viewpoint should be banned from this forum - I know several other exes who are at least as conservative as you are about this issue. But I do think you need to realize that you are reacting emotionally here - just like the rest of us.

Love to you,
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 12:31:57 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: KO
Message:
Oops, I meant OK. :-) Emotional? Me? What gave you that idea? Are my fingerlips quivering as they touch the keyboard? If there are 'conservative' exes out there who support my perspective I sure haven't seen them in awhile. And how would they feel safe stating their opinions under the circumstances, especially with (if you'll forgive the expression) someone with the balanced outlook of Gerry in charge of what gets read and considered? (I guess irony isn't dead after all.)

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 12:38:24 (EDT)
From: gErRy
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: THE END
Message:
I'm pulling my credit card and support in five minutes. That's all folks
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 12:48:37 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: gErRy
Subject: OK, I apologize.
Message:
You're not really imbalanced.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 12:51:33 (EDT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: OK, I apologize.
Message:
You are my main impetus for this, Scott. Happy?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 13:03:46 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: Re: OK, I apologize.
Message:
You are my main impetus for this, Scott. Happy?


---

Grateful, actually. If you can't tolerate open expression of ideas logically presented and defended you need to get out of the business. Period.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 12:36:47 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Conservative ex-premies
Message:
Well, *I* think you are expressing quite a bit of emotion and emotional reaction here, especially when I recall your posts about the election last November.

Re conservative American exes - they don't feel welcome expressing their views here. Some have posted about this in the past - some have posted about it on this forum. If one reads the forum, one knows who they are. While I disagree with their political views, I don't like the fact that they feel censored here. I'd like to hear from some other American conservatives right now, actually - just to hear what they have to say.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 13:01:51 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Re: Conservative ex-premies
Message:
Well democracy includes conservatives and I think they have every right to propound their views. Others have a right to oppose those views.

(in the background, full volume, Leonard Cohen sings 'Democracy is coming ...to the USA ) :)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 13:00:17 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Re: Conservative ex-premies
Message:
Katie:

I tried to give the sense of irony a boost with a smiley face, but it apparently didn't take. I get emotional, but I'd suggest (on a serious note) that non-emotionality would be perverse indeed under the circumstances. I don't believe my emotions interfere with my logic, though they may shade the range of evidence I see. I'm not willing to say that this range is more narrow than yours. And to tell the truth I'm not a conservative, either in the classic sense or in it's peculiar American meaning. I happen to agree with the conservatives about the prosecution of this war. If I didn't I'd say so. It probably stems from the fact that I came to all those conclusions before the conservative element even expressed them. That gives the conclusions a certain amount of validity with me that they would not enjoy had I simply 'borrowed' them.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 13:07:54 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: Conservative ex-premies
Message:
Hi Scott -
I know you're not a traditional conservative, but there are people here who are, and who feel that they get 'shouted down' when they post here re politics.

Re your emotionality, I would suggest that it has made the TONE of your posts reactive - which people tend to react to negatively. And I don't believe that some of what you are saying takes in the whole picture - but I don't say that I am either.

Take care,
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 17:34:03 (EDT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Scott, honey, you are just so fucking sweet
Message:
I can hardly stand it. Boy, do I have the hots for you now, I just love guys who can't seem to even read and act like Erika Andersen and just make stuff up to sound condescending and smart in responding to what they made up. It really makes me hot.

Just to help you out here, Scott, I never said I was in favor of DNDT and, you misinformed jerk, it was SUSPENDED not revoked, as I also said and will be policy until it is.

And as for being insulted, fuck you, and that really is an intended insult Scott, so no need for any excuses.

Social skills, and reading skills, are not your forte are they Scott?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 18:02:28 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Don't call me 'honey,' huney.
Message:
'Just to help you out here, Scott, I never said I was in favor of DNDT '

No! Really? And what in my statement suggests to you that I thought you were? I assumed that your reasons for being opposed to it are the same now as they were then. What, about that position, involves advanced calculus?

So, your mix of offensive insults is to suggest you're attracted to me and that if I don't agree with your perception of things I'm a 'misinformed jerk?' Yeah Joe, I don't think you know a damn thing about social motivations, and if you think there was some sort of *advantage* to a non-suspension of the ban on outed gays then you have your head up that cute little butt of yours. [And I prefer big-assed people anyway.] Basically the message *your're* sending is that you think serving in the military is an unprecedented burden rather than a duty. Or have I misperceived you again, cutie pie?

-Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 17:37:07 (EDT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: And also Scott
Message:
From now on I will ignoring your ass so don't bother to respond to what I post. Your comments are no longer appreciated or of any interest to me. Go play with somebody else.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 18:05:30 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Re: And also Scott
Message:
Now, why is that I wonder? To be honest Joe, I haven't got much interest in your SD ramblings either, but I'll continue to point out the error in you subculture-centric perspective, whether you mind or not. Bye bye.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 18:29:52 (EDT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: I'm flattered, Scott
Message:
, I haven't got much interest in your SD ramblings either, but I'll continue to point out the error in you subculture-centric perspective, whether you mind or not.

It's dirty job, but somebody has to do it. Good luck in your crusade to protect the world from my 'errors.' Go knock yourself out.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 18:45:11 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Don't be.
Message:
The world *would* be in danger, if you had any power. Fortunately, your bad policy judgment is only matched by your lack of political savvy. But hey, I thought you weren't reading this?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 19:30:57 (EDT)
From: GERRY
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: GENTLEMEN, GENTLEMEN
Message:
I'LL HAVE NO SUCH CHAT, AND NEITHER WILL I TAKE IT FROM SUCH SNAPPY YOUNG BRATS. AND IF YOU INSULT US WITH ONE OTHER WORD, I'LL CUT OFF YOUR HEADS IN THE MOR-A-OR-NING.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
now shake hands and be the friends you are.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 07:26:49 (EDT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: GERRY
Subject: Re: GENTLEMEN, GENTLEMEN
Message:
Dear Gerry,
You, the voice of reason!? YIKES! What is going on, the world has gone truly mad! :)
Hope you and yours are well.
Love,
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 09:34:34 (EDT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: world Gone Mad
Message:
Dear Gerry,
You, the voice of reason!? YIKES! What is going on, the world has gone truly mad! :)
Hope you and yours are well.
Love,
Robyn


---

Yes dear Robyn, tis true. It's a topsy-turvy world where black is white and white is black.

What can I say except I've evolved and that was then and this is now. Email me sometime.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 19:52:39 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: GERRY
Subject: Yeah, and they both voted for Nader, too [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 16:40:38 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: So, let me get this straight...
Message:
To suspend/end whichever the case may be, just at the time of 'war' appears to be sending the message... 'you can't live in the military as a gay but you sure as hell can risk your life and perhaps die as a gay in the military.'

Sure sounds insulting to me.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 17:25:06 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Re: So, let me get this straight...
Message:
Well, I think it sends the message that gays are in this as much as anyone. Sheesh, do you think special treatment would be to their advantage? I agree that it shouldn't have come to this, but it's a good deal more than half a loaf. If I were a gay I'd be saying 'Yep, Americans like everyone else. Told you so.' I mean, if you really want to rub it in a little...

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 17:42:23 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: It's just the timing Scott
Message:
I don't really know much about the issue of gays in the American military...except , I do remeber Clinton promised something or other pre-election and then fudged the issue once elected.

I think there's more resistance to openly acknowledging gays in the British military than the American military. A lot of the euro/nato states don't seem to make an issue out of it.

You must admit the timing of the decision is a bit rum ....some gays will just accept it and some will be insulted I guess.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 18:09:14 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Could 'a been better.
Message:
Dermot:

You must admit the timing of the decision is a bit rum ....some gays will just accept it and some will be insulted I guess.

Granted. And those with some political savvy will rejoice.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 19:31:24 (EDT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Scott, are you dense?
Message:
Joe has a legitamate rant here. Gays are hounded out of the military during peacetime. But during wartime, their blood (being spilled) is as good as anybody's. Sounds like a double standard to me.

Don't be such a knee jerk patriot.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 00:42:54 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Re: Scott, are you dense?
Message:
Jerry:

Like I said... Well, read it above. You ask for something. You get it on a provisional basis. You bitch and act offended. The confounding factor is that if you get it you are in harm's way. But that's BEEN A PART OF THE DEAL FROM THE BEGINNING. Did you want it, but only if it's SAFE? (Now there's the dirty little secret, huh?)

There's absolutely NO justification for the assumption that anyone want's gays for cannon fodder, any more than they want my nephew for cannon fodder. That's Joe's whacky and unfounded fantasy. The time to bitch is if, when all is said and done (if we get out alive), they decide to reinstate DADT. Yeah, that's gonna happen. Right.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 00:56:52 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: And to put the last nail in it.
Message:
If ALL of the arguments against gays in the military (overtly or covertly) were that having them there MADE US MORE VULNERABLE or somehow compromised the military mission, then just how are you EVER going to make that argument NOW??? Or EVER AGAIN?? GET IT?? JESUS!! Talk about dense...
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 10:40:59 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Scott, please
Message:
I realize that the RATIONAL arguments about gays in the military was that they compromised security and morale. However, I also believe that the underlying thrust of these arguments was irrational homophobia. This may or may not go away - especially with all the focus on God and Christianity these days.

Also, please do not forget that women were allowed to do all kinds of industrial jobs during WWII UNTIL the men came back from the war. Then they were forced out - no matter how competent and capable they were. I know that that could not happen now, but I don't think public consciousness about gay people has been raised all that much.

Thirdly, I feel that you are very angry - maybe upset - but it seems like you are directing an disproportionate amount of anger at Joe. I hope I'm not completely out of line by saying this, but that's what I feel.

Lots of love,
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 11:16:03 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Katie, please
Message:
Katie:

I also believe that the underlying thrust of these arguments was irrational homophobia.

What I'm saying is that the majority of Americans know the difference between a rational argument and an irrational one, especially if it's presented to them in stark terms. If you don't have sufficient faith in the political system to believe it will do the right thing (and if necessary hold the military's feet to the fire) then what is it you're supporting, exactly? The airline industry?

I am frustrated by what I see as a profoundly distorted view of this country, it's history, and its values. I see Joe as the current proponent of that view but 9/10ths of the people who post here have adopted it to some degree.

As for anger, I see Joe as directing a disproportionate amount of his at me. I didn't start the name calling, and the point I made was a logical one. (And I still maintain that it's graspable.) You have yet to convince me otherwise. No, this is not 1945 and there aren't any kitchens we can send the gays back to anyway, and it sure wouldn't be to anyone's advantage to keep them 'barefoot and pregnant.' :-)

Perhaps the political logic of this thing is more unattainable than I realized, but I'm somewhat shocked... and worried.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 11:31:03 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: Scott, please
Message:
Hi Scott -
Unfortunately, I still believe that the gay rights issue is still emotional - not logical - for many people in this country - including many people I know where I work. As I said before, I am cautiously optimistic that this suspension of DADT will lead to a revocation of that, but since the military leaders did NOT take the step of revoking it, then, obviously, people are going to wonder about that. I don't understand why you can't see that.

The reason I don't have faith in the political system is because Bush and others in his cabinet are social conservatives - enough so that they got lots of support from people like Pat Robertson (and that Gore got a majority of the womens' vote in this country). And IMHO, many of the socially conservative viewpoints are not logical. Right now, we are not debating social issues in this country because most people are united behind a common goal, but that doesn't mean they are going to go away.

Love,
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 12:18:28 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Well, of course
Message:
I am cautiously optimistic that this suspension of DADT will lead to a revocation of that, but since the military leaders did NOT take the step of revoking it, then, obviously, people are going to wonder about that. I don't understand why you can't see that.

How would they take the step of revoking it on the eve of a war? Give me a plausible way for them to do that and I'll take it to whoever I know in the human resources department of the DOD. My business partner is the former deputy head of that organization. I'm politically pragmatic about this suspension being permanent, but perhaps that isn't as transparent to everyone as it is to me. I'm a bit concerned about the level of political acumen here, since I think it essential that Americans understand the politics of the war we're entering. Irrational attitudes survive and dominate when they are left unexposed, and when their inconsistencies aren't obvious. In what sense would this inconsistency be less than obvious? The conditions as we enter the war will not be the same as when we leave. Do you want poll results on the extent to which Americans have come to accept gays? A steady and consistent rise in acceptance over the past several decades to the point where we now perceive them as potentially on par with everone else when it comes to ultimate defense of the country. Perhaps we should have come further, but let's be as pragmatic as Pat about it, OK? Is this trend going to suddenly disappear, do you suppose? Do you not see this as essentially a positive development? I don't understand why you can't see that?

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 12:29:14 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: Well, of course
Message:
Hi Scott -
I'm really trying to see both sides here. When Joe posted his initial post, I felt cautiously optimistic, as I said (although the thing about the Red Cross not accepting gay men's blood is, IMHO, far more shocking.) But I also know that wartime isn't the same as peacetime - people have far more time to quibble about issues like DADT in peacetime. I know you know this too.

Re whether this will be positive - I don't think there's any way we can know now. I HOPE it will be positive, but if I was gay, I would keep on doing DADT.

I am trying to be pragmatic here too about the whole issue of going to war under a conservative government - hope you can see that from my posts. And, yes, I am torn and am having to re-examine all my attitudes - both the conservative and liberal ones. I don't like knee-jerk anti-Americanism any more that you do, but I am also trying to hear what other people are saying on here. I couldn't do that in the first days after the attack, but I think I can do it now, and I think that's important. We have an opportunity on this forum to interact with people from other countries that most of us don't have elsewhere in our lives - so I'm interested in listening to them, even if I disagree. And I'm hoping that people will listen to me too.

Take care,
Love -
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 13:24:36 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Re: Well, of course
Message:
Re whether this will be positive - I don't think there's any way we can know now. I HOPE it will be positive, but if I was gay, I would keep on doing DADT.

I wish they had more confidence in the system. I suppose any group that's been so excluded for so long would have serious reservations. I'm sorry if I didn't give that attitude sufficient credibility. The downside for gays is simply that they have to continue to hide, and since this in itself could have negative consequences for the military perhaps it would be prudent to move the 'suspension' to a 'revocation,' now rather than later. A legitimate political and organizationsal issue. Let's discuss.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 13:28:16 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: THANK YOU SCOTT!
Message:
I REALLY appreciate your attitude of reconciliation. Means a lot to me - THANKS again.

Just hope Gerry doesn't shut down the forum over this. Believe me, I can very much relate to what he must be feeling right now - because I have felt it - in spades. I think he's done a good job as FA - and I don't see lots of people lining up to take that job.

Love,
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 14:37:10 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Re: THANK YOU SCOTT!
Message:
I think there's a big hole, with 6300 bodies, that lies at the bottom of this heat. The principles involved are acting as a surrogate for our grief. Unfortunately we've only begun to deal with it. Am very concerned that Gerry is not the right man for the job, in spite of his generosity in taking it on.

From my point of view, the purpose of my involvement here has always been larger than Maharaji. That's been the case since day 1, when I began to post on what I called 'Good vs. Evil Charisma.' I think Maharaji is a relatively marginal issue right now, though he is a lot more relevant than much of what I see the talking heads discussing. I think the whole issue of cults is the key to obtaining accurate intelligence on Bin Laden specifically and absolutism in general. This is a phenomenon whe MUST understand, to survive. And now I need to go make a living. Will give you a call later.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 17:46:26 (EDT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Hey Dermot
Message:
Clinton ended the ban on gays in the military, but the outcry from the military, especially, was go great that Congress threatened to pass a law banning gays officially. Up till then, it was subject to an executive order.

So, the compromise was don't ask don't tell, which has been a disaster, both for gays and for the military. But it is interesting that when it comes to fighting and dying, well the military isn't so picky.

Dermot, I thought as part of the European Union, Britain had to open up its military to gays like the rest of Western Europe. Is that true? Pretty sure I heard that.

Thanks for your comments.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 18:08:47 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Re: Hey Dermot
Message:
No Joe ....not the European Union but the 'European Human Rights act' which Britain is party to, may be used.

The EU doesn't really force itself on each member states armed forces ...and the British and French military in particular are very wary of any outside influence. The fact that the EU agreed on rapid reaction force ....mainly Brit,French and German ....caused uproar here. The concept of a Euro army is anathema here....Brit military only wants US / Nato links really, thinking that the EU (with all it's wrangling) would be totally ineffective militarily wise.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 17:59:52 (EDT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: You are right
Message:
European human rights legislation effectively gives Britain a written constitution. And that means the ban can be challenged in the courts. I don't think the military are falling over themselves to make things easy for gays tho.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 19:17:58 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: As a pragmatist
Message:
I'm sure that gays in the military (especially careerists) are breathing a sigh of relief no matter how it came about. The threat of losing one's pension and being discharged dishonorably and sometimes threatened with legal repercussions has been a nightmare for gay military careerists and there are plenty of them, always have been. The male camaraderie has always drawn gays to the military. There are also just as many lesbians.

All I can say is that I hope the generals don't forget after the war, like they did after WW11.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 23:03:52 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: Enigmas and the unmarked grave of discarded ideas.
Message:
Pat:

As usual, on the nose.

All I can say is that I hope the generals don't forget after the war, like they did after WW11

Unlike Katie I don't see how they can, unless there are instances where gays are implicated in some sort of intelligence breech or responsible for some other fiasco. I hardly think that is very likely though. So the very stakes of the War, and the probable contribution to it, virtually guarantee broader acceptance of gays as well as a greater sense of participation *by* gays themselves in the American experiment [for it may yet fail]. This latter is probably more important than the former.

WWII saw the greatest contribution of the war by a gay man, who was so shaken by his rejection afterwards that he took his own life. I don't expect such betrayal here. I have a sense that this is the war that brings us together, black, gay, woman, muslim, jew, American, extra-American, and that such an experience may be as important in the long as Alan Mathison Turing's crack of that other Enigma.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 04:19:50 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: I agree. Just read your post above
Message:
You said: ''If ALL of the arguments against gays in the military (overtly or covertly) were that having them there MADE US MORE VULNERABLE or somehow compromised the military mission, then just how are you EVER going to make that argument NOW??? Or EVER AGAIN??''

Exactly! During WW11 homosexuality was not a political hot potato as it is now. It wasn't even talked about. Talking about it will not go away nowadays.

Once this is all over, if the generals try to reverse their policy, they will be discredited immediately for the very reasons that Joe stated: it will be obvious that they only wanted cannon fodder.

No, gays are there to stay in the military - openly this time. Anyone who is discharged for being gay after this will have lawyers fighting to represent him or her.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 15:59:10 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: Thanks Pat,
Message:
I knew someone would get it, eventually. Had a hunch it might be you, too.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 19:23:26 (EDT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: Right, you have to be careful
Message:
Like the guy from the Servicemenbers Defense League said, if people decide to 'tell' there is not assurance they won't get booted out when the suspension of the rule is over.

.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 13:16:01 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: All
Subject: 'Rumors of War' legends link
Message:
Francesca just provided this excellent link to an 'Urban Legend' website that clarifies some of the weird rumors flying around these days. Good site - thanks, Francesca.
[ Rumors of War ]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 22:10:04 (EDT)
From: Suedoula
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Re: 'Rumors of War' legends link
Message:
This myth has been debunked on the Rumors of War site posted by Katie and Francesca above. Here is the direct link to this page.

Best,
Susan
[ Israeli WTC Workers ]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 22:12:48 (EDT)
From: Suedoula
Email: None
To: Suedoula
Subject: Sorry -- posted in wrong spot! [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 13:22:02 (EDT)
From: Francesca ())
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: You're wecome, Katie! [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 14:12:15 (EDT)
From: salam
Email: None
To: Francesca ())
Subject: Fran
Message:
weird site.

Can you e-mail me?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 12:33:20 (EDT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: All
Subject: Adam Mayblum's Account from WTC 1
Message:
I received this from a friend, Sunny Christiansen, who works for a Silicon Valley High Tech firm.

This story comes from Adam Mayblum who had an office on the 87th floor of the first tower hit by the airplanes. As you can see, it's an amazing, but true, story.

This is the guy I mentioned in my post to AJW, down below.

From: Adam G. Mayblum
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 4:47 PM

THE PRICE WE PAY:

My name is Adam Mayblum. I am alive today. I am committing this to paper so I never forget. SO WE NEVER FORGET. I am sure that this is one of thousands of stories that will emerge over the next several days and weeks.

>I arrived as usual a little before 8am. My office was on the 87th floor of 1 World Trade Center, AKA: Tower 1, AKA: the North Tower. Most of my associates were in by 8:30m. We were standing around, joking around, eating breakfast, checking emails, and getting set for the day when the first plane hit just a few stories above us. I must stress that we did not know that it was a plane. The building lurched violently and shook as if it were an earthquake. People screamed. I watched out my window as the building seemed to move 10 to 20 feet in each direction. It rumbled and shook long enough for me to get my wits about myself and grab a co-worker and seek shelter under a doorway. Light fixtures and parts of the ceiling collapsed. The kitchen was destroyed. We were certain that it was a bomb. We looked out the windows. Reams of paper were flying everywhere, like a ticker tape parade. I looked down at the street. I could see people in Battery Park City looking up. Smoke started billowing in through the holes in the ceiling. I believe that there were 13 of us.

We did not panic. I can only assume that we thought that the worst was over.The building was standing and we were shaken but alive. We checked the halls. The smoke was thick and white and did not smell like I imagined smoke should smell. Not like your BBQ or your fireplace or even a bonfire. The phones were working. My wife had taken our 9 month old for his check up. I called my nanny at home and told her to page my wife, tell her that a bomb went off, I was ok, and on my way out. I grabbed my laptop. Took off my tee shirt and ripped it into 3 pieces. Soaked it in water. Gave 2 pieces to my friends. Tied my piece around my face to act as an air filter. And we all started moving to the staircase. One of my dearest friends said that he was staying until the police or firemen came to get him. In the halls there were tiny fires and sparks. The ceiling had collapsed in the men s bathroom. It was gone along with anyone who may have been in there. We did not go in to look. We missed the staircase on the first run and had to double back. Once in the staircase we picked up fire extinguishers just incase. On the 85th floor a brave associate of mine and I headed back up to our office to drag out my partner who stayed behind. There was no air, just white smoke. We made the rounds through the office calling his name. No response. He must have succumbed to the smoke. We left defeated in our efforts and made our way back to the stairwell. We proceeded to the 78th floor where we had to change over to a different stairwell. 78 is the main junction to switch to the upper floors. I expected to see more people. There were some 50 to 60 more. Not enough. Wires and fires all over the place. Smoke too. A brave man was fighting a fire with the emergency hose. I stopped with to friends to make sure that everyone from our office was accounted for. We ushered them and confused people into the stairwell. In retrospect, I recall seeing Harry, my head trader, doing the same several yards behind me. I am only 35. I have known him for over 14 years. I headed into the stairwell with 2 friends.

We were moving down very orderly in Stair Case A. very slowly. No panic. At least not overt panic. My legs could not stop shaking. My heart was pounding. Some nervous jokes and laughter. I made a crack about ruining a brand new pair of Merrells. Even still, they were right, my feet felt great. We all laughed. We checked our cell phones. Surprisingly, there was a very good signal, but the Sprint network was jammed. I heard that the Blackberry 2 way email devices worked perfectly. On the phones, 1 out of 20 dial attempts got through. I knew I could not reach my wife so I called my parents. I told them what happened and that we were all okay and on the way down. Soon, my sister in law reached me. I told her we were fine and moving down. I believe that was about the 65th floor. We were bored and nervous. I called my friend Angel in San Francisco. I knew he would be watching. He was amazed I was on the phone. He told me to get out that there was another plane on its way. I did not know what he was talking about. By now the
second plane had struck Tower 2. We were so deep into the middle of our building that we did not hear or feel anything. We had no idea what was really going on. We kept making way for wounded to go down ahead of us. Not many of them, just a few. No one seemed seriously wounded. Just some cuts and scrapes. Everyone cooperated. Everyone was a hero yesterday. No questions asked. I had co-workers in another office on the 77th floor. I
tried dozens of times to get them on their cell phones or office lines. It was futile. Later I found that they were alive. One of the many miracles on a day of tragedy.

On the 53rd floor we came across a very heavyset man sitting on the stairs. I asked if he needed help or was he just resting. He needed help. I knew I would have trouble carrying him because I have a very bad back. But my friend and I offered anyway. We told him he could lean on us. He hesitated, I don t know why. I said do you want to come or do you want us to send help
for you. He chose for help. I told him he was on the 53rd floor in Stairwell A and that was what I would tell the rescue workers. He said okay and we left.

On the 44th floor my phone rang again. It was my parents. They were hysterical. I said relax, I m fine. My father said get out, there is third plane coming. I still did not understand. I was kind of angry. What did my parents think? Like I needed some other reason to get going? I couldn t move the thousand people in front of me any faster. I know they love me, but no one inside understood what the situation really was. My parents did.

Starting around this floor the firemen, policemen, WTC K-9 units without the dogs, anyone with a badge, started coming up as we were heading down. I stopped a lot of them and told them about the man on 53 and my friend on 87. I later felt terrible about this. They headed up to find those people and met death instead.

On the 33rd floor I spoke with a man who somehow new most of the details. He said 2 small planes hit the building. Now we all started talking about which terrorist group it was. Was it an internal organization or an external one? The overwhelming but uninformed opinion was Islamic Fanatics. Regardless, we now knew that it was not a bomb and there were potentially more planes coming. We understood.

On the 3rd floor the lights went out and we heard & felt this rumbling coming towards us from above. I thought the staircase was collapsing upon itself. It was 10am now and that was Tower 2 collapsing next door. We did not know that. Someone had a flashlight. We passed it forward and left the stairwell and headed down a dark and cramped corridor to an exit. We could not see at all. I recommended that everyone place a hand on the shoulder of the person in front of them and call out if they hit an obstacle so others would know to avoid it. They did. It worked perfectly. We reached another stairwell and saw a female officer emerge soaking wet and covered in soot. She said we could not go that way it was blocked. Go up to 4 and use the other exit. Just as we started up she said it was ok to go down instead. There was water everywhere. I called out for hands on shoulders again and she said that was a great idea. She stayed behind instructing people to do that. I do not know what happened to her.

We emerged into an enormous room. It was light but filled with smoke. I commented to a friend that it must be under construction. Then we realized where we were. It was the second floor. The one that overlooks the lobby. We were ushered out into the courtyard, the one where the fountain used to be.

My first thought was of a TV movie I saw once about nuclear winter and fallout. I could not understand where all of the debris came from. There was at least five inches of this gray pasty dusty drywall soot on the ground as well as a thickness of it in the air. Twisted steel and wires. I heard there were bodies and body parts as well, but I did not look. It was bad enough.
We hid under the remaining overhangs and moved out to the street. We were told to keep walking towards Houston Street. The odd thing is that there were very few rescue workers around. Less than five. They all must have been trapped under the debris when Tower 2 fell. We did not know that and could not understand where all of that debris came from. It was just my friend Kern and I now. We were hugging but sad. We felt certain that most of our friends ahead of us died and we knew no one behind us.

We came upon a post office several blocks away. We stopped and looked up. Our building, exactly where our office is (was), was engulfed in flame and smoke. A postal worker said that Tower 2 had fallen down. I looked again and sure enough it was gone. My heart was racing. We kept trying to call our families. I could not get in touch with my wife. Finally I got through to my parents. Relived is not the word to explain their feelings. They got throughto my wife, thank God and let her know I was alive. We sat down. A girl on a bike offered us some water. Just as she took the cap off her bottle we heard a rumble. We looked up and our building, Tower 1 collapsed. I did not note the time but I am told it was 10:30am. We had been out less than 15 minutes.

We were mourning our lost friends, particularly the one who stayed in the office as we were now sure that he had perished. We started walking towards Union Square. I was going to Beth Israel Medical Center to be looked at. We stopped to hear the President speaking on the radio. My phone rang. It was my wife. I think I fell to my knees crying when I heard her voice. Then she told me the most incredible thing. My partner who had stayed behind called her. He was alive and well. I guess we just lost him in the commotion. We started jumping and hugging and shouting. I told my wife that my brother had arranged for a hotel in midtown. He can be very resourceful in that way. I told her I would call her from there. My brother and I managed to get a gypsy cab to take us home to Westchester instead. I cried on my son and held my wife until I fell asleep.

As it turns out my partner, the one who I thought had stayed behind was behind us with Harry Ramos, our head trader. This is now second hand information. They came upon Victor, the heavyset man on the 53rd floor. They helped him. He could barely move. My partner bravely/stupidly tested the elevator on the 52nd floor. He rode it down to the sky lobby on 44. The doors opened, it was fine. He rode it back up and got Harry and Victor. I don t yet know if anyone else joined them. Once on 44 they made their way back into the stairwell. Someplace around the 39th to 36th floors they felt the same rumble I felt on the 3rd floor. It was 10am and Tower 2 was coming down. They had about 30 minutes to get out. Victor said he could no longer move. They offered to have him lean on them. He said he couldn t do it. My partner hollered at him to sit on his butt and schooch down the steps. He said he was not capable of doing it. Harry told my partner to go ahead of them. Harry had once had a heart attack and was worried about this mans heart. It was his nature to be this way. He was/is one of the kindest people I know. He would not leave a man behind. My partner went ahead and made it out. He said he was out maybe 10 minutes before the building came down. This means that Harry had maybe 25 minutes to move Victor 36 floors.

>I guess they moved 1 floor every 1.5 minutes. Just a guess. This means Harry was around the 20th floor when the building collapsed. As of now 12 of 13 people are accounted for. As of 6pm yesterday his wife had not heard from him. I fear that Harry is lost. However, a short while ago I heard that he may be alive. Apparently there is a web site with survivor names on it and his name appears there. Unfortunately, Ramos is not an uncommon name in New York. Pray for him and all those like him.

With regards to the firemen heading upstairs, I realize that they were going up anyway. But, it hurts to know that I may have made them move quicker to find my friend. Rationally, I know this is not true and that I am not the responsible one. The responsible ones are in hiding somewhere on this planet and damn them for making me feel like this. But they should know that they failed in terrorizing us. We were calm. Those men and women that went up were heroes in the face of it all. They must have known what was going on and they did their jobs. Ordinary people were heroes too. Today the images that people around the world equate with power and democracy are gone but America is not an image it is a concept. That concept is only strengthened
by our pulling together as a team. If you want to kill us, leave us alone because we will do it by ourselves. If you want to make us stronger, attack and we unite. This is the ultimate failure of terrorism against The United States and the ultimate price we pay to be free, to decide where we want to work, what we want to eat, and when & where we want to go on vacation. The very moment the first plane was hijacked, democracy won.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 23:58:50 (EDT)
From: Francesca
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Thanks so much, Joe [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 17:30:56 (EDT)
From: magiclara
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Re: Adam Mayblum's Account from WTC 1
Message:
Thank you so much nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 16:16:59 (EDT)
From: Brian Smith
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: A compelling first person account [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 13:20:20 (EDT)
From: btdt
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Re: Adam Mayblum's Account from WTC 1
Message:
Thank you, Joe, for posting this amazing account. It's left me in tears and speechless.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 13:17:32 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Thanks, Joe (and thanks to Adam M) [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 12:07:51 (EDT)
From: Carl
Email: None
To: All
Subject: Alternative to 'War': words by Ben Ferencz
Message:
I recently heard on the radio an interview with Benjamin Ferencz, who was the chief U.S. prosecutor at the Nuremburg war crime trials after W.W.II. I was impressed by the clarity of his thinking and the eloquence with which he spoke. He currently teaches international law at Pace University. He is 82, and has been around and seen much, and thought deeply about it. The following comes from his website, and it reflects closely what he said in the radio interview. Main idea: 'rule of law' instead of 'war'. What do you think?

(Quoting):
Dear Friends:

Perhaps some of the tears have dried and people can begin to think rationally about the horrors of the past week and what we can do to prevent the recurrence of such tragedies. As one who has witnessed such atrocities and who has looked into the unrepentant eyes of mass killers, please allow me to share some thoughts that I hope may help move us toward a less violent world where all may live in peace and human dignity. The basic thrust of my thinking is that we should try to rely more on law than war.

Hijacking passenger planes and deliberately and intentionally smashing them into large buildings, thereby causing the death of thousands of innocent civilians is clearly a crime against humanity. With origins going back to antiquity, the judicial punishment of such crimes at the Nuremberg trials after the Second World War was affirmed by the United Nations and in many courts since that time. The United States played a leading role in establishing that as a universally binding legal principle.

Any person, without regard to nationality or the capacity in which he acted, is deemed to have committed the crime if he was a principle or accessory, took a consenting part therein or was connected with any organization or group connected with the commission of the crime. Under common principle of criminal law, anyone who aids or abets a crime, before or after its commission, thereby becomes an accessory to the crime and is liable to punishment.

The United States should draw up an indictment against Osama Bin Laden and all of the terrorist groups known to the FBI, alleging the commission of crimes against humanity, details of which should be specified.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1368 of 12 September 2001 called upon all States urgently to bring to justice the perpetrators and organizers of these terrorist attacks and stressed that those responsible for aiding or harboring the perpetrators would be held accountable. The US indictments should be submitted to the governments of Afghanistan, Sudan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Libya, and any other nations where such terrorist groups may be operating. The US should request that all persons believed to be connected with the crimes should be held hold for interrogation by US officials. A 10-day time limit should be adequate

The Security Council, acting pursuant to its UN Charter authority, should be called upon to create an international military force (as envisaged by the Charter) to help carry out the SC mandate. The force can be composed of volunteers from NATO or other nations, similar to the force used in the Gulf War.

Should, as expected, Afghanistan refuse or fail to cooperate, the United States should withdraw its recognition of the government in power and recognize the opposition groups as the legitimate government. Economic and military aid should be provided to the opposition to help them gain power over their country. The US can also use economic sanctions as a persuasive carrot and stick to obtain cooperation from all nations.

In the unfortunate absence of any permanent international criminal court, the Security Council, following its own precedents, can quickly set up an ad hoc international criminal tribunal to try the accused - as was done with US support - for the crimes against humanity committed in Yugoslavia and Rwanda. The trials should be absolutely fair. I would have no objection to fair trials in the US, but the world would doubt that it would be possible under the prevailing circumstances. If found guilty, the defendants could be incarcerated in the US - and we could throw away the key!

I have experienced the horrors of war and I cannot bear to see the destruction and the pained eyes of those digging in the ruins or the helpless relatives refusing to accept what they know is now inevitable. I have flashbacks of riding over the ruins of St. Lo in Normandy where the sky was black with American bombers and the earth rocked as a French city was reduced to rubble. I smell the smoke of Wurzburg burning when we dropped incendiary bombs that burned every house to the ground, leaving only ghostly walls standing. I recall the emaciated corpses at Buchenwald and Mauthausen and a host of other charnel houses. And I remember Berlin when the Russians got through with it. I see my remorseless Nuremberg defendants who killed over a million people, including the murder of 33,771 innocent men woman and children at Babi Yar on Sept. 29 and 30, 1941 - the Jewish High Holy Days. All this may help explain the trauma that drives me to try to prevent war.

We must try to understand the causes of the violence and try to diminish the hatreds that encourage people to kill or be killed for their particular cause. This requires new thinking, a willingness to compromise, compassion and tolerance, a greater respect for the goals set down in the UN Charter and infinite patience. I am now approaching 82 and I have not given up hope. To those of all faiths, I extend my best wishes for peace and happiness.

Sincerely,
Ben

(endquote)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Carl here. I am very concerned that GWB is behaving like an enraged cowboy, egged on by a huge military only too eager to play with and justify their awesome toys.

The rage and dismay over the attack is genuine, understandable and valid. We all share it, I think. But the action response to the outrage must be supremely calculated and patiently relentless, and not a massive bombing-to-smithereens anything and anyone who gets in the way.

Why can't the full force of a cooperative international police action -- aided by various cooperating militaries as required -- be the tool of justice, instead of the war machinery and that rationale alone?

As it is (or seems now), with the U.S. responding with massive force down an avenue marked 'war', belligerent actions can only perpetuate and exacerbate the unfathomable misery already suffered by thousands of innocents.

I think the lives of the recently slain are honored more by a scrupulous regard for, and execution of, the very principles of justice and the rule of law, under which they had lived and prospered, than by a regression to indiscriminate aggression of war and the endless cycle of retaliation and further terrorism.

By swiftly consolidating the intelligence of a myriad of nations, and with the mutual self-interest to eradicate all cells of terror from their and our midst -- wouldn't this be motivation enough, effective enough, to bring an end, or at least a dramatic reduction, to worldwide terrorist activity?

Best,
Carl
[ Ben Ferencz' website ]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 15:50:33 (EDT)
From: a0aji
Email: None
To: Carl
Subject: ::interesting:: [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 14:14:19 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Carl
Subject: Not yet.
Message:
The proposal only weakly addresses the issue of what to do about Bin Laden specifically, and outlines no program on how to deal with the larger question of his organization or terrorism in general. Bin Laden is not the primary problem, he is merely the one who has given us the 'wake up' call. If a proposal for 'the rule of law' resolution of the terrorist threat includes relinquishment of a significant portion of national sovereignty by all the signatories then I'm all for it.

Remove the threat of unambiguous massive military force used against anyone who chooses arbitrarily to harbor terrorists, and we would be left with an insurmountable morass of problems involving establishment of a new trial authority and a new coalition for each and every instance of terrorist organization; an unacceptable situation. Leaving the 'rule of law' without the authority and obligation for using force to uphold it, in other words leaving 'law' optional, removes the 'rule' from the equation.

If US allies insist on this 'resolution' as a condition for their participation it will paralyze the US, leaving us with a crude choice. I fear that we would be left only with 'absolute' options, in the form of strategic nuclear weapons. We have that capacity. However, if the 'rule of law' shakes out as a group of states willing to relinquish sovereignty aligned against those who don't we would have an effective means for dealing with the problem; but also I fear a condition that would lead to a World War. Therefore, as far as I can tell, the best option is the one we are currently implementing.

Finally, it is the national sovereignty of the United States that has been attacked, its citizens that have been killed (mostly), and its way of life that has been threatened. Unless we wish to abrogate the principle of national sovereignty itself the United States must, under 'international law,' be given the option of defending itself in any way that's appropriate. I see no way out; short of the one outlined above. If anyone wants to float a petition for the establishment of world government organized under Lockean principles I'll sign it in a heartbeat, even though I think it would mean World War.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 02:05:49 (EDT)
From: Carl
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Subtract the emotional 'war' rhetoric
Message:
No doubt that this was a 'wake up' call, but not only for the complacent U.S.; it rings loudly for all civilized, putatively democratic nations.

Can terrorism be fought with terrorism? Yes, but at the cost of higher principles. Terrorism is being defined as the deliberate murder of civilians not engaged in active warfare. The current perpetrators are attempting to frame the conflict as a war along 'religious' or ideological lines, and while that may be one component of their fervor, it is not the only one. Others seem to include economic miseries and political frustrations and ambitions, the usual mix.

It must be broadcast and widely understood that no possible interpretation of any truly spiritual principle is valid or to be tolerated if it justifies this or any sort of slaughter. (This also holds true for oft-referenced 'remember me and fight' of Krishna, essentially giving Arjuna permission to slaughter his kinfolk, because they are 'already dead anyway' not having the presumed enlightment recently 'bestowed' by Krishna to Arjuna. Then again, that was understood to be a battle situation. But think of the miserable mischief that can be unleased when Hindus get into the act, using that notion as a rationale. There is little love lost between Muslims and Hindus as we all know.) But I digress.

It is the higher principles that must be constantly reinforced, painfully, probably at great cost, but as the collective statement and active will far above any nationalistic banner. Perhaps they are merely secular principles, but just look at what so-called religious principles have wrought over the ages. And most major religions profess to be universal. Perhaps they are, but they are human constructs with a great appeal to emotions and cultural differences.

What is needed is an acknowledgment of a transcendent, collective, international will toward 'zero tolerance' for mass murder (whether as terrorism as defined above, or as the result of 'contractual war') however it was justified by a regional ideology. This is only common sense. But it needn't require relinquishment of national sovereignty any more than it would require relinquishment of regional languages or other signs of cultural identity. It will require the acknowledgment of the primacy of the investigative and security efforts of the coordinated world community according to a very simple rule of law. And these are to be freely monitored and critiqued by worldwide free press and the international scientific and academic communities.

The threat of unambiguous massive military action upon rogue states is OK as sabre-rattling, very loud sabre-rattling as is now required, but in the name of universal law, human justice, and the collective international will, rather than as the frustrated cry of one region upon another, regardless how justified. Now, whether this is a NATO, United Nations, or any other coalition, it must be framed in as broad a context as can be assembled and articulated. It needn't be created as ad hoc responses to each new terror. It would need to be a sustained effort.

The current situation seems to have given birth to something as close to this unity of purpose as we've yet seen on the international stage. The collective voice is strong indeed, yet, understandably, it is the anguished cry of the U.S. that is the loudest. Was U.S. sovereignty attacked? Yes, but not only, not only. The evident intention of the perpetrators was global destabilization. The response must be likewise global. In that context, "war" is an unacceptable frame of reference.

If we are faced with a cancer, we can treat it with precise and patient remedies: chemotherapy, radiation, surgery, changes to environment, diet, lifestyle and attitude. Or we can in a panic hack indiscriminately with a hatchet. What and how are we addressing this growing international metastasis? I wonder.

Recently we have seen the creation of the European Union. However grudgingly the component states may have joined, nevertheless it has been accomplished, and appears to be the wave of the future. I think the civilized world is holding up a model of prosperity and tolerance about which others are ambivalent, intrigued yet jealous. If, however, from an international platform, respect for national and cultural differences can be communicated to the four corners of this world, along with genuine material assistance and opportunities for education, along with a zero tolerance for murderous crimes across national boundaries, the world will breathe much easier.

War can be made obsolete. Our collective will, supra-boundary, can make it so. We merely need critical mass, unenflamed by the emotions of the hour.

I know, I know: lots o' luck, pal.

Carl

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 13:24:49 (EDT)
From: Francesca :C)
Email: None
To: Carl
Subject: Thanks Carl
Message:
Dear Carl,

I am printing this up to read when I have a moment!

Thanks,

Francesca

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 10:04:22 (EDT)
From: Salam
Email: None
To: All
Subject: Who said Afganies don't have a sense of humor?
Message:
FUNNY

scroll right down the bottom and click o n the photos of Bill Gates. Look like premeis.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 10:07:43 (EDT)
From: [Blank]
Email: None
To: Salam
Subject: OR
Message:
Microshaft
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 09:04:04 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: All
Subject: Moslem Clerics Ask UBL to leave.
Message:
Moslem clerics have asked Ussama Bin Laden to leave Afghanistan voluntarily. I confess that I don't know exactly how this works, but if he refuses isn't this tantamount to failure to follow agya? I mean, he's supposed to be 'churchy' isn't he? Bad news for him, it seems.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 15:25:44 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: More thoughts on hospitality.
Message:
I think this may well be a very significant development. I realize that it might be a ploy to keep Bin Laden's organization intact within Afghanistan, but can't help finding encouragement. First of all, it must have been very difficult to get 700 clerics to agree on anything, and the fact that the cats are all moving in the same direction has to be taken seriously. Second, it virtually concedes the point of Bin Laden's complicity, without actually stating it. Third, I believe it would be perceived as an enormous breech of etiquette to refuse to leave after having been asked to do so, something that must undermine Bin Laden's credibility in the Moslem world. In other words the 'request' amounts to an order with attached obligation that brands Bin Laden a pariah should he refuse. I think we should press to have the entire organization put under the same 'voluntary' request/obligation as Bin Laden himself though. Not doing so would leave us with a very difficult problem. Still, very encouraging. It gives us some handholds on that precipice that we didn't have yesterday.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 05:52:28 (EDT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: All
Subject: Invade Switzerland, not Afghanistan.
Message:
I saw a report yesterday that there had been an extremely large amount of shares in both airlines and insurance companies, sold off, shortly before the attack in the US last week.

People with information about what was going to happen before the event made millions by selling airline and insurance shares before the attack, then buying them back after the prices had collapsed.

It should not be too difficult to find out who are behind these deals. The profits end up in bank accounts in Switzerland or Lichtenstein.

The Swiss, however, won't reveal this information, because of their banking laws, designed to keep the dodgy financial dealings of the super-rich secret.

If we are serious about dealing with countries that are protecting the terrorists, maybe we should invade Switzerland, not Afghanistan. At least we'll have hard evidence about who's behind it all.

Anth the commie sleuth.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 14:09:50 (EDT)
From: Brian Smith
Email: None
To: AJW
Subject: Yes, But
Message:
I am not sure that Switzerland should be relegated to the most wanted list because of the recent terrorist events.

I do think you are on to something though Anth, and it goes to attacking the assets of the terrorists, where ever they are hidden. If sources and accounts can be positively linked to such groups, eliminating or embargoing the sources and freezing the assets and bank accounts would do huge damage their system.

I doubt that it is possible to enlist the aid of countries like Switzerland to do this. Switzerland it seems would be hard pressed to compromise their banking policies for any reason to aid in the assistance of ferreting out the sources.

Theoretically you make another point, it may take some sort of coup to obtain this information from the swiss government and financial system.

Whatever can be done to lessen the bloodshed should be done no matter what, I think a huge blow to the terrorist regime's and supporters pocket book would serve the purpose of justice better than a huge missle attack.

Anyone who supported or intentionally profited from this tragedy should be dealt with accordingly as well. The money trail will lead right to these doorsteps if we can enlist co-operation, or somehow obtain this information from the Swiss.

Put a squeeze on the money and you pinch the abilities of the Bin Laden's to function at the level they would like.

Brian pondering the possibilities

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 13:24:55 (EDT)
From: btdt
Email: None
To: AJW
Subject: Re: Invade Switzerland, not Afghanistan.
Message:
At the risk of sounding completely stupid, because I didn't understand the specifics, what I heard discussed on the news
was that it's possible to sort of lock in a stock price. If it goes up, too bad, but if it goes down, the price holds. There was a term for it and they were describing the procedure. This is what they were going to investigate, to see if any of the people trickled back to terrorist links. The guy talking said he had never in all his stock brokerage years seen so many of whatever the heck this thing is called, purchased.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 11:15:21 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: AJW
Subject: What report?
Message:
As I said below, you can't just say stuff like this without some backup. Personally, I think the idea's absurd but let's see the same report you did first before we talk about it further.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 11:20:20 (EDT)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: This is an oifficial news in Europe
Message:
and it's been investigated, so they say ....

Officials say it's been very likely done by some of the Bin Laden financial groups.

But again, that could also be one of the paranoid stories flying these days.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 11:32:55 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: Here it is -- you're dreaming, Anth
Message:
Here's the Reuters newswire piece. It's unreasonable and, yes again, offensive, to suggest as you did particularly when you mentioned this in the thread below, that anyone but Bin Laden was playing the markets. Why would you do that?

Regulator probes trades possibly tied to attacks

By Kevin Drawbaugh and John Poirier

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. securities regulators have said they are 'vigorously pursuing' leads related to financial trading possibly linked to last week's attacks on New York's World Trade Centre and the Pentagon by hijacked jetliners.

'We have received reports that those associated with the terrorist activities of last week may have sought to exploit our securities markets to profit from those activities,' said Stephen Cutler, acting top enforcement officer at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, in a statement.

'We are vigorously pursuing all credible leads, but at this time, we have drawn no conclusions,' he said.

The SEC investigation involves other federal agencies and has reached deep into Wall Street. Several companies contacted about the probe Wednesday either declined comment or referred questions to the SEC and the FBI.

JPMorgan Chase said it was cooperating with the probe along with other leading U.S. investment banks.

Cutler, the SEC's top cop, said there was 'no foundation in fact' in speculation about what the agency was looking into. He added that the agency was working closely with other law enforcement agencies and regulatory counterparts overseas.

Regulators in Europe, Japan and the United States have indicated in recent days that they were looking into unusual trading activity following reports that Osama bin Laden and associates may have tried to profit from their inside knowledge of the Sept. 11 attack by playing the markets in advance.

Regulators from several nations held a global conference call Monday and discussed the possibility that those who organized the attacks had placed large bets aimed at profiting from the carnage, German markets watchdog BAWe said.

Bin Laden and his associates may be capable of pulling off such audacious speculation, said Bruce Hoffman, terrorism specialist at the research group Rand Corp.

'He's absolutely sophisticated enough ... if his finances are managed with the same care he puts into setting up his operations,' Hoffman said.

'He's shown himself to be far more sophisticated than other terrorist adversaries we've faced. He has considerably enhanced logistical capabilities, dwarfing other terrorist groups.'

NUMEROUS POSSIBLE MARKET PLAYS

A U.S. derivatives trader who asked not to be named said there were numerous ways that bin Laden -- whose personal fortune has been estimated at $100 million or more -- could have tried to cash in on knowing in advance about the attacks.

One would have been to go short on airline, insurance and banking stocks of companies likely to be hurt financially by the attacks. But shorting stocks in the U.S. cash markets would leave a clear paper trail, traders and short sellers said.

Short selling is a common, but risky way of exploiting a falling share price by selling borrowed shares, buying them back more cheaply later and keeping the difference as profit.

Another, less visible way to profit from inside knowledge of the attack that left thousands dead would have been to short futures contracts or to play the options market, traders said.

'They could make a gigantic amount of money. I'm talking about billions ... But the more they tried to make, the easier it would be to detect,' said the derivatives trader.

Savvy investors would likely have avoided the intensively policed U.S. markets and have opted for less regulated markets in Europe and Asia, traders said.

David Tice, a noted short-seller based in Dallas, said it would have been possible for bin Laden to cash in on inside knowledge of the attack.

'It's possible ... To my knowledge there'd been no precedent for it,' he said.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 13:15:55 (EDT)
From: Ben Lurking
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: Here it is -- you're dreaming, Anth
Message:
I don't know the link Jim but the German government reported last week that they were investigating short sells on the major reinsurance companies that happen to insure the airlines and wtc. It has a 'high' coincidence factor. Selling off airlines may have started to make sense but short selling reiunsurers? shorts have a limited time life before you have to cover, much riskier than selling a stock and repurchasing.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 12:13:39 (EDT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Hey Jim, you got the wrong end of the stick.
Message:
Jim,

I wasn't suggesting anybody other than Bin Ladens backers was making money on the tragedy. In fact I believe they were. What I am suggesting is, if the US is serious about taking action against 'those harbouring terrorists', they should look in the Swiss banks, as well as the Afghan mountains.

Anth the headless goat.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 14:28:28 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: AJW
Subject: Are you playing games, Anth?
Message:
Jim,

I wasn't suggesting anybody other than Bin Ladens backers was making money on the tragedy. In fact I believe they were. What I am suggesting is, if the US is serious about taking action against 'those harbouring terrorists', they should look in the Swiss banks, as well as the Afghan mountains.

Anth the headless goat.


---

I atek back my apology, Anth. You tell me here that you weren't suggesting that anyone other than Bin Laden's backers knew in advance. Bullshit, Anth. You called your post below 'They knew in advance':

Hi Mel,

Somebody definitely knew in advance (see my post about Switzerland above) as shown by the massive selling of insurance and airline shares immediately before the attack.

I wonder how badly the powers that be want to know who it is?

Anth the headless goat.

There's no way in the world you were talking about Bin Laden's backers, especially in the context of Mel's own posting of that ugly Pakistani article. Your subject line couple with your questioning as to whether or not the 'powers that be' really want to know who was playing the markets, shows you're lying. Hate to say it, but I can't see any other explanation.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 12:53:53 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: AJW
Subject: Re: Hey Jim, you got the wrong end of the stick.
Message:
Sorry, then. It's a little hard to tell where the anti-American sentiment stops these days.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 12:24:49 (EDT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: AJW
Subject: It's the end of ...
Message:
... banking secrecy as we know it.

One of the many freedoms that are in danger of being lost. Not one that bothers me overmuch, I have to admit. The only secret thing about my bank is that they are crap.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 11:28:50 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: Official here too, J-M [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 06:40:56 (EDT)
From: Don't you worry 'bout a thang
Email: None
To: AJW
Subject: Our Uncle Sam will take care of all [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 07:52:13 (EDT)
From: Why we all need Uncle
Email: None
To: Don't you worry 'bout a thang
Subject: Re: Our Uncle Sam will take care of all
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 08:00:17 (EDT)
From: one more time..we need Uncle
Email: None
To: Why we all need Uncle
Subject: Re: Our Uncle Sam will take care of all
Message:
Islam must rule the world and until Islam does rule the world we will continue to sacrifice our lives,' Al-Badr spokesman Mustaq Aksari told CNN in an interview four months ago.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 06:21:51 (EDT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: AJW
Subject: USA should invade Afghanistan
Message:
We should invade Afghanistan and liberate the people there from the Nazi Muslim regime that oppresses the people. See link above. See also this site about the oppression of women there.

Regarding Swiss bank accounts. I believe the Swiss have cleaned up their act now and the dirty money goes to Luxembourg and Austria. If I had some money that needed washing, those would be the laudrettes I'd take it to.
[ Oppressive leader of a Nazi regeme ]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 06:32:47 (EDT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: Okay Dave, Invade Luxembourg instead.
Message:
But find out who's behind them.

Anth the goat

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 06:52:59 (EDT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: AJW
Subject: Been there, done that
Message:
I'm sure someone's onto it. I went to Luxembourg once but I didn't realise it until I looked at the map afterwards.

The Americans in Pakistan yesterday, said they would continue to help Afghanistan. The US goverment is not as gung ho as the American people are. And George W isn't as dumb as people think he is. He's already produced a ceasefire in the Middle East. I feel sorry for Pakistan amongst all this, though. They're stuck between a rock and a hard place.

By the way, who was Stan?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 06:58:56 (EDT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: I hope you're right Dave.
Message:
But I think the far right are taking advantage of the situation to settle lots of old scores. Restraint and wisdom are not two qualities I'd associate with Bush.

And what's the 'Stan' thing Dave. Have I missed something, or is my short term mem..what was,..aw fuck it.

Anth the headless sentence.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 07:19:47 (EDT)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: AJW
Subject: Re: I hope you're right Dave.
Message:
Afgan is Stan
Pak is Stan
Kurd is Stan
I can't spell any of the others.

BTW, do you think Americans have stopped donating to the IRA?

John

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 07:26:44 (EDT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: The IRA.
Message:
Hi John,

Apparently the 'War on Terrorism', is going to be against terrorists all round the World.

Do you think we'll launch cruise missiles into the Republican areas of Derry and Belfast?

Anth, just wondering.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 07:39:01 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: AJW
Subject: Americans still finacially support IRA
Message:
It was on the radio this morning.An interview with the American secretary of some Irish org in Boston. They were still supporting the 'continuity IRA' ie those IRA members who want to continue the terror campaign.

The American guy said they only give money to help political prisoners and the families of prisoners.When asked 'how do you know the money doesn't go to terrorists campaigns?' he said the money goes to a Dublin bank account and he's sure the Irish Gov. knows about it.

Dermot

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 11:18:45 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Re: Americans still finacially support IRA
Message:
Hi Dermot -
Actually, until now, the US government has not had much power to deal with Americans who give money to the IRA - it would have been a very unpopular move. And course people here had that 'it can't happen here' attitude, so I doubt there would have been much support. But now, I believe people in the US are starting, at least, to hear and LISTEN to news reports form the UK about the bombings there.

Maybe now the US government will be able to do something about it. Almost all our British friends are asking the same question - so let's hope that something can be done. And I think the people in the UK should KEEP asking - and make a point that there are people in the US who are supporting terrorist attacks.

(BTW, don't want to argue Irish politics here, and I won't get into it with anyone who wants to - just want to stop from blowing people up. It solves nothing.)

JMHO, as always -
Love to you,
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 14:45:42 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Re: Americans still finacially support IRA
Message:
Hi Katie

I agree, let's not discuss Irish politics ! I'd be too schizophrenic about it .....flitting from allegiance from Ireland to England and back again haha :)

Yeah I agree with everything you say. It used to puzzle people when Manchester had its city centre heart blown to smithereens or the huge bomb in the city of London plus of course all the bombings in N Ireland and other parts of UK ....and it seemed like lots of America couldn't give a damn about that form of terrorism because it was Irish not Arab or muslim.

Hope you're well

Cheers me dear

Dermot

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 10:54:52 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Well, after last night's speech by Bush
Message:
I am not so sure that anything will be done about American's contributions to the IRA. I took note that he talked about fighting terrorism with a 'global reach' - not sure if the IRA counts. Tony Blair was in the audience, so I would assume that they had spoken about it - or will.

What can I say - I am sorry many of the people in the US are so 'America-centric'.

Love,
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 12:51:01 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Re: Well, after last night's speech by Bush
Message:
Well Katie, I think Sinn Fein political party will continue to receive funds from America. That's fine by me.

There may be a crackdown on the 'continuity IRA' or 'Real IRA' as they call themselves, especially if they commit another atrocity like the Omagh bombing where lots of people were killed in the public square whilst celebrating Rememberance day (including a few Spanish kids on an exchange visit).

As regards 'America-centric' ....well America has people such as yourself in it, so there's hope !! I also think people over there will want to become more aware of what's going on in the world(hopefully),after the terrible attacks.

I was reading a report the other day in the TIMES saying how loads of Americans have been scrambling to get the BBC coverage of events recently. And BBC world service radio had an increased audience of millions and millions worldwide. It also praised CNN quite a lot but then went on to say the US NETWORKS barely cover world events (and definitely not with in-depth analysis). A top CNN guy said the US is fed crime stories, lottery results etc but no real informative, in-depth 'news'

In one way it's understandable. When you are top dog politically, economically and military AND you've barely been invaded or fought home soil wars (excl: civil war)and affluent too, then maybe a feeling of self-satisfaction just doesn't inspire the average Joe Blow to want to know what's going on in the big bad world.

Maybe things'll change. Maybe not. Be good for all of us I guess if things did change.

Cheers Katie !!

Dermot

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 12:58:04 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Thanks, Dermot
Message:
I agree that the American network news is terrible - I think mostly because of the pontificating anchormen, and lack of real news, as you mentioned. I think CNN is great - I started watching them during the election last fall because it was the only thing I could handle.

You're right that people in the US have been complacent - we've had a good economy (which is now in the toilet), and a relatively peaceful domestic front. But that complacency is gone now for the most part. Some people say that September 11 was the end of the world as we know it - I think it's more like we are living in the REAL world now - along with the rest of the world.

Take care -
Love,
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 17:35:52 (EDT)
From: magiclara
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Re: Americans still finacially support IRA
Message:
Right on Dermot I saw the Manchester bombsite with with my own eyes very scary.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 17:59:16 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: magiclara
Subject: Yo Magiclara
Message:
Are you from Manchester or thereabouts? I'm from Barrow-in-Furness (near the lake district) a bit further north.

Yeah that Manchester bomb was devastaing.....

Cheers

Dermot

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 19:22:41 (EDT)
From: magiclara
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Re: Yo Magiclara
Message:
I am from Lancashire originally about 30 miles from Manc. Live in Liverpool now. Any lurking premies that know me will know who I am from this post, and you know what I don't care any more. Out and proud!
Love Magiclara
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 13:14:15 (EDT)
From: Disculta
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: 'Restraint' ho ho ho
Message:
Someone pointed out to me yesterday that anyone who is considering invading Afghan I Stan might want to talk to the Russians. They invaded. They bombed. They snuck in. They threw just about everything they had at Afstan for years and ended up retreating much like the US did in Vietnam.

I don't think anyone is relishing trying to repeat the Russian experience.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 13:20:37 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Disculta
Subject: Re: 'Restraint' ho ho ho
Message:
Hi Disculta -
There has been a LOT said on TV about the Russian's experience in Afghanistan - mostly by conservative American political figures - and they feel that it is instructive and not something they want to repeat. BTW, I think they ARE talking to the Russians about it - which I think is good.

Hope you are OK -
Lots of love from your fellow recoving apocalyptic,
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 17:02:07 (EDT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Kipling
Message:
Hi Disculta -
There has been a LOT said on TV about the Russian's experience in Afghanistan - mostly by conservative American political figures - and they feel that it is instructive and not something they want to repeat. BTW, I think they ARE talking to the Russians about it - which I think is good.

Hope you are OK -
Lots of love from your fellow recoving apocalyptic,
Katie


---

... and the Brits who were on the ground giving practical guidance to Taliban fighters on how to wage war on the Soviet troops. That was in the Cold War days when our people fought their people in other people's countries.

In practical terms it means there are Brits who can walk into the area and be treated as friends somewhere. Rather them then me.

At the height of Britain's technological and military power the country suffered its greatest military defeat when a British army entered Afghanistan. Out of the sixteen thousand (not counting camp followers) one man returned to the safety of the fort at Peshawer. His horse died tho'.

Kipling wrote four poems with the word 'Afghan' - The Young British Soldier is terrible in its cheerful Kipling sort of way.


    ...

    When first under fire an' you're wishful to duck,
    Don't look nor take 'eed at the man that is struck,
    Be thankful you're livin', and trust to your luck
    And march to your front like a soldier.
    Front, front, front like a soldier . . .

    When 'arf of your bullets fly wide in the ditch,
    Don't call your Martini a cross-eyed old bitch;
    She's human as you are -- you treat her as sich,
    An' she'll fight for the young British soldier.
    Fight, fight, fight for the soldier . . .

    When shakin' their bustles like ladies so fine,
    The guns o' the enemy wheel into line,
    Shoot low at the limbers an' don't mind the shine,
    For noise never startles the soldier.
    Start-, start-, startles the soldier . . .

    If your officer's dead and the sergeants look white,
    Remember it's ruin to run from a fight:
    So take open order, lie down, and sit tight,
    And wait for supports like a soldier.
    Wait, wait, wait like a soldier . . .

    When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
    And the women come out to cut up what remains,
    Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
    An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.

I like IF much better - I'm severely tempted to bowlderise the last line to make it PC tho!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index