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


Chuck S. -:- A new website about Maharaji... -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 16:51:28 (EDT)
__ Francesca :C) -:- BRAVO! [nt] -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 01:05:43 (EDT)
__ Deborah -:- His UGMug made my head spin ()) -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 21:54:30 (EDT)
__ __ Silvia -:- Hey!! Wait a minute -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 23:13:33 (EDT)
__ __ __ Deborah -:- You like that one ()) -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 23:17:42 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Loaf -:- can I try ()) [nt] -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 05:45:43 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Silvia -:- ())())())())()) hahahahaha -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 23:21:13 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ trying -:- Re: ())())())())()) hahahahaha -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 09:17:29 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Try again -:- Re: ())())())())()) hooray -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 09:18:50 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ ()) -:- ;)())())())())()) hooray -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 10:56:00 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ ())())())())()) -:- Re: ;)())())())())()) hooray -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 13:13:19 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ ())())())())()) -:- Re: ;)())())())())()) hooray -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 13:13:00 (EDT)
__ Silvia -:- Thanks Chuck -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 17:58:21 (EDT)
__ Joe -:- Excellent...just what's needed ...FA? -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 17:09:58 (EDT)
__ __ Forum Janitor -:- Re: Excellent...just what's needed ...FA? -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 18:18:54 (EDT)
__ __ __ Deborah -:- That was FUNNY Gerry [nt] -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 21:56:34 (EDT)
__ Pat:C) -:- ...but I still prefer your old website -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 17:06:49 (EDT)
__ __ saucy -:- gurus suck -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 20:42:06 (EDT)
__ __ __ salam -:- Mr Willams=Charles? -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 23:03:13 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ How about... -:- Re: Mr Willams=David Anderson? -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 23:11:36 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Suedoula -:- Re: Mr Willams=David Anderson? -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 23:59:46 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Deborah -:- Good one, Soudoula -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 00:02:08 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Deborah -:- YES! Mr Willams=David Anderson? ~) -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 23:31:31 (EDT)
__ __ __ chas -:- Erika's 101 Reasons... -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 22:53:43 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Hey this is an excellent post -:- JM, *****Best Of***** -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 11:46:21 (EDT)
__ __ __ Disculta -:- Hey Chuck -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 20:49:30 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Chuck S. -:- M's websites... -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 23:06:18 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Sure, here it is... -:- just click... -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 23:23:51 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Miss PWK -:- How did you like that pic, Piggybai Ji -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 21:51:52 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Piggybai Ji -:- Swooning -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 12:43:24 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Miss PWK -:- Dear Miss Piggybai -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 13:21:25 (EDT)

Tim Matheson -:- Why I'm disappointed about the new M website -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 16:26:01 (EDT)
__ Silvia -:- I SOLD MY JEWELERY -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 16:34:05 (EDT)
__ __ ggg -:- Re: I SOLD MY JEWELERY -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 19:15:57 (EDT)
__ __ Suedoula -:- Re: I SOLD MY JEWELERY -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 19:04:01 (EDT)
__ __ __ Silvia -:- Re: I SOLD MY JEWELERY -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 23:15:53 (EDT)
__ __ __ Deborah -:- ha ha ha ha ha -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 22:02:03 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Silvia -:- ha ha ha ha ha -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 23:18:21 (EDT)
__ Miss PWK -:- Thank you, Tim -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 16:31:28 (EDT)
__ __ Miss Piggybai -:- To Ms PWK -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 20:56:12 (EDT)

Jim -:- Why didn't M send in DUO? -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 15:40:28 (EDT)
__ salam -:- Re: Why didn't M send in DUO? -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 23:11:22 (EDT)
__ Pat:C) -:- More opportunists -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 16:05:29 (EDT)
__ __ Deborah -:- Re: More opportunists -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 22:10:45 (EDT)
__ __ __ Pat:C) -:- But not that clever -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 22:20:39 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Deborah -:- Re: But not that clever -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 22:43:25 (EDT)
__ AJW -:- DUO's Mental Health Work. -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 15:55:01 (EDT)
__ __ ulf -:- Re: DUO's Mental Health Work. -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 16:33:57 (EDT)

Joe -:- Pundit Watch re 'the War' -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 14:46:09 (EDT)
__ Nigel -:- Evil and ugly beyond belief.. -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 21:48:24 (EDT)
__ bill -:- egad, the pundits are crazy [nt] -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 20:44:45 (EDT)
__ __ Joe -:- What really freaked me.... -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 16:23:00 (EDT)
__ Scott T. -:- Re: Pundit Watch re 'the War' -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 17:48:43 (EDT)
__ __ Joe -:- Multiple Scott -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 18:17:30 (EDT)
__ __ __ gerry -:- I'll have a double Scott on the Rocks, please -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 18:41:05 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ bill -:- The Bush/Cheney plan. -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 20:53:27 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Re: The Bush/Cheney plan. -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 23:42:23 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ bill -:- I think you should read the above post. [nt] -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 20:57:02 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- But hopefully worry turned to relief. -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 18:51:59 (EDT)
__ __ __ Scott T. -:- Multi-Scott -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 18:35:11 (EDT)
__ Rick -:- Thanks, Joe (nt) -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 16:14:15 (EDT)
__ Jim -:- Who cares why they hate us? -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 15:46:11 (EDT)
__ __ JohnT -:- Re: Who cares why they hate us? -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 09:11:31 (EDT)
__ __ __ Jerry -:- They hate us because we're not Muslim -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 19:20:41 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ JohnT -:- hmmmmm -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 06:56:42 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- John, John, John -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 18:22:23 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- Thanks for the clarification -:- Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 15:37:35 (EDT)
__ __ __ Joe -:- Good point, John -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 16:10:13 (EDT)
__ __ JHB -:- Jim, are you serious?? -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 17:57:13 (EDT)
__ __ __ Scott T. -:- Now, I agree with THAT! -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 19:02:09 (EDT)
__ __ Joe -:- Ever heard of 'know your enemy?' -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 16:49:41 (EDT)
__ __ __ Jerry -:- Re: Ever heard of 'know your enemy?' -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 18:40:27 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Joe -:- Huh? -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 14:22:15 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- Re: Huh? -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 19:40:03 (EDT)
__ __ __ Scott T. -:- Yeah, know your enemy. -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 18:22:15 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Joe -:- That's just absurd, Scott -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 14:33:24 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- I love you, Joe. -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 20:06:50 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Addendum -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 00:30:40 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Rick -:- fucking brilliant, Joe (nt) -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 18:47:53 (EDT)
__ __ AJW -:- Why it matters. -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 16:17:55 (EDT)
__ __ __ Jerry -:- Re: Why it matters. -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 18:51:54 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ AJW -:- Terrorists don't grow on trees. -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 20:05:19 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Or is it that they 'hate freedom?' -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 16:12:13 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- Re: Terrorists don't grow on trees. -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 21:00:45 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- making enemies -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 09:31:49 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Guns -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 17:46:56 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Jerry -:- PS -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 18:52:56 (EDT)
__ __ __ Jim -:- Boy do I ever disagree with THAT! -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 18:35:01 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ JHB -:- Jim how would you do that? -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 19:22:53 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Re: Boy do I ever disagree with THAT! -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 18:46:32 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- I think Tom Clancy's got it right -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 19:05:18 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- He's mostly right -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 16:53:13 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Deborah -:- So do I -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 22:37:08 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Re: I think Tom Clancy's got it right -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 20:11:58 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- That would be one of the best things -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 17:43:37 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Dead or Alive -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 20:30:16 (EDT)
__ __ __ Gregg -:- our foreign policy -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 17:35:48 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Sorry Gregg -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 20:50:43 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ gregg -:- Re: Sorry Gregg -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 23:02:54 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- A few 'good' men. -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 00:21:49 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- You're incompetent. -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 20:43:18 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- No, he's not. -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 17:55:15 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- He's not. Just wrong. -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 21:21:12 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- Re: You're kidding yourself -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 21:40:28 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Rick -:- true -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 11:24:46 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Re: true -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 22:52:21 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Rick -:- Re: true -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 00:24:13 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Rick -:- by the way... -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 00:34:04 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- And you are fantacizing -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 23:54:18 (EDT)
__ Stonor -:- A Petition I received today ... -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 14:52:51 (EDT)
__ __ Scott T. -:- Re: A Petition I received today ... -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 01:36:45 (EDT)
__ __ salam -:- Re: A Petition I received today ... -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 20:47:26 (EDT)
__ __ __ Stonor -:- Thanks for the feedback -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 22:19:10 (EDT)

a0aji -:- CERT reports increase in Port 80 scanning -OT- -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 13:40:51 (EDT)
__ AJW -:- The email virus. -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 15:46:17 (EDT)
__ __ Scott T. -:- TROJ_SIRCAM -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 19:12:24 (EDT)
__ __ __ salam -:- Ooops -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 21:33:38 (EDT)
__ __ __ salam -:- u bloody using NT with IE5.5 -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 21:16:40 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- U talkin' to me? -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 00:29:03 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ a0aji -:- Re: u bloody using NT with IE5.5 -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 22:00:45 (EDT)
__ __ __ a0aji -:- Meet Nimda -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 19:42:15 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ a0aji -:- ::Nimda looks quite nasty:: -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 20:17:14 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- A Q about the email vector. -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 21:28:13 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ a0aji -:- RTOOS -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 19:46:22 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Pat:C) -:- I just updated my virus protection [nt] -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 14:53:30 (EDT)
__ __ a0aji -:- Re: The email virus. -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 16:05:00 (EDT)
__ __ Selene -:- if it's the new one today -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 15:58:33 (EDT)
__ salam -:- Re: CERT reports increase in Port 80 scanning -OT- -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 14:00:40 (EDT)
__ __ a0aji -:- Re: CERT reports increase in Port 80 scanning -OT- -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 15:51:58 (EDT)
__ __ __ salam -:- IIS sucks -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 20:51:25 (EDT)
__ a0aji -:- :: that link is good :: -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 13:45:58 (EDT)
__ __ a0aji -:- :: root directory also gone 403 Forbidden! :: [nt] -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 13:47:33 (EDT)
__ __ __ Pat:C) -:- Time for Zone Alarm -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 14:09:23 (EDT)

cq -:- Yusuf Islam (f.k.a Cat Stevens) speaks out -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 10:16:50 (EDT)
__ RichMandrake -:- Cat Stevens..Wonderful Poet and Soul -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 18:26:41 (EDT)
__ __ cq -:- Re: Cat Stevens..Wonderful Poet and Soul -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 13:53:38 (EDT)
__ __ Jim -:- What about the Rushdie fatwa? -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 19:12:06 (EDT)
__ __ __ Scott T. -:- Re: What about the Rushdie fatwa? -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 23:32:31 (EDT)
__ Sir Dave -:- Israel & Palestine ceasefire -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 12:44:25 (EDT)
__ __ Pat:C) -:- Today is Rosh Hashannah -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 14:34:09 (EDT)
__ __ Scott T. -:- Re: Israel & Palestine ceasefire -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 14:15:37 (EDT)
__ __ cq -:- Re: Israel & Palestine ceasefire -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 13:34:49 (EDT)
__ JohnT -:- and Richard Stallman -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 12:06:06 (EDT)
__ __ Scott T. -:- Who? -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 14:11:49 (EDT)
__ __ __ a0aji -:- Re: Who? -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 17:01:49 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Oh (nt) [nt] -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 17:50:11 (EDT)
__ __ __ JohnT -:- (sigh) [nt] -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 16:14:11 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- (groan) -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 17:56:50 (EDT)

cq -:- Islamabad's dilemma -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 09:45:04 (EDT)
__ a0aji -:- Interesting read. tnx [nt] -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 17:06:14 (EDT)


Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 16:51:28 (EDT)
From: Chuck S.
Email: None
To: All
Subject: A new website about Maharaji...
Message:
It's interesting that all these cult apologist websites keep appearing, attacking expremies while never linking to any of our sites, while most of the exes sites freely link to theirs, because we know the 'information' they contain does not hold up to scrutiny.

Here is a website about ALL websites about Maharaji:

http://www.geocities.com/maharajiwatch/
[ MaharajiWatch ]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 01:05:43 (EDT)
From: Francesca :C)
Email: None
To: Chuck S.
Subject: BRAVO! [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 21:54:30 (EDT)
From: Deborah
Email: None
To: Chuck S.
Subject: His UGMug made my head spin ())
Message:
Hee hee hee. I got freaked out when I saw that mug. It scared me. ~)

So I stuck my tongue out at him and I felt better :)

What a great page!! Let's add stuff to it. Nice job.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 23:13:33 (EDT)
From: Silvia
Email: None
To: Deborah
Subject: Hey!! Wait a minute
Message:
How did you made it spin????:0
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 23:17:42 (EDT)
From: Deborah
Email: None
To: Silvia
Subject: You like that one ())
Message:
do this () followed by another ). If I did it together, you'd only see the spinning head.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 05:45:43 (EDT)
From: Loaf
Email: None
To: Deborah
Subject: can I try ()) [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 23:21:13 (EDT)
From: Silvia
Email: None
To: Deborah
Subject: ())())())())()) hahahahaha
Message:
I read your mail: OHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!

Somebody is going to get it and is not us....

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 09:17:29 (EDT)
From: trying
Email: None
To: Silvia
Subject: Re: ())())())())()) hahahahaha
Message:
Try again ())())())())())())
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 09:18:50 (EDT)
From: Try again
Email: None
To: trying
Subject: Re: ())())())())()) hooray
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 10:56:00 (EDT)
From: ())
Email: None
To: Try again
Subject: ;)())())())())()) hooray
Message:
())
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 13:13:19 (EDT)
From: ())())())())())
Email: None
To: ())
Subject: Re: ;)())())())())()) hooray
Message:
()) ()) ())()) ()) ())
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 13:13:00 (EDT)
From: ())())())())())
Email: None
To: ())
Subject: Re: ;)())())())())()) hooray
Message:
()) ()) ())()) ()) ())
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 17:58:21 (EDT)
From: Silvia
Email: None
To: Chuck S.
Subject: Thanks Chuck
Message:
Good job! :) LOL .....to the oposition.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 17:09:58 (EDT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Chuck S.
Subject: Excellent...just what's needed ...FA?
Message:
Can Charles' page be linked to the Forum? And EPO Admin, can it be linked from the EPO website as well? Thanks.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 18:18:54 (EDT)
From: Forum Janitor
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Re: Excellent...just what's needed ...FA?
Message:
Hi Joe,

Sure I'll link to it. And I'll make a new hotmail email address for the forum and put that up too. (Don't know why I hadn't done this before.) A couple of folks have the forum password in case I slip on the soap and join shree hans in the cosmic bathtub...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 21:56:34 (EDT)
From: Deborah
Email: None
To: Forum Janitor
Subject: That was FUNNY Gerry [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 17:06:49 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Chuck S.
Subject: ...but I still prefer your old website
Message:

[ You Too Can Be Satgooroo ]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 20:42:06 (EDT)
From: saucy
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: gurus suck
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 23:03:13 (EDT)
From: salam
Email: None
To: saucy
Subject: Mr Willams=Charles?
Message:
I think.

But Buddah Baba knows better.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 23:11:36 (EDT)
From: How about...
Email: None
To: salam
Subject: Re: Mr Willams=David Anderson?
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 23:59:46 (EDT)
From: Suedoula
Email: None
To: How about...
Subject: Re: Mr Willams=David Anderson?
Message:
When I lived in Atlanta, David used to call himself Ol' Black Williams. Erika was Jehmima (SP? Don't remember why.

Just thought you'd be interested in knowing.

Best,
Susan

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 00:02:08 (EDT)
From: Deborah
Email: None
To: Suedoula
Subject: Good one, Soudoula
Message:
We have some posts here that can be compared but this is the icing on the cake. spot-on ;)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 23:31:31 (EDT)
From: Deborah
Email: None
To: How about...
Subject: YES! Mr Willams=David Anderson? ~)
Message:
It's true. It's true. Sad, but true. What ugly posts he left and then he came back and acted civil. But he lost it after a day or two.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 22:53:43 (EDT)
From: chas
Email: None
To: saucy
Subject: Erika's 101 Reasons...
Message:
... are mostly the same reasons posted by 'Mr. Williams' on FV in June. He ignored my reply to his post. Here is my reply again (to give Erika a chance to ignore it, too) :

Date: Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 18:37:26

From: Chuck Sprague

Email: bctanda@hotmail.com

To: Everyone

Subject: Mr. William's lists; a closer look...

Message:

Someone calling himself Mr. Williams posted some lists, in response to a post Joe made to Premies about why Elan Vital/Maharaji is a cult. It just scrolled into inactive before I could post this.


The two lists Mr. Williams made, of things that are ''Promoted'' and ''Not Promoted'' by M. are interesting, especially when offered as examples of how EV/M is not a cult. I want to make a few comments about them. Regarding the things he claims M promotes:

Promoted…


Daily practice of four techniques


Enjoyment of life


Freedom of choice


Listening to teachings of living teacher


Personal inner experience


Personal responsibility


Voluntary participation

This list is essentially the Knowledge Lite version of M and K, which is the ''for public consumption'' version offered to aspirants and which is how M and K are spoken of in the Introductory and Learning More series of videos. If only it really were that simple. That is what I kept telling myself, when I became involved in syncronised participation. That is how I really learned more, helping with the video library.

There are a whole series of color coded videos which are supposed to slowly persuade, to lead the student from the perception of M as a teacher, to being both a teacher and a Master, to eventually accepting him as something much more than a teacher; The Master. And The Master is... well, ''You Know Who''. K-Lite is the first stepping stone on the path leading to Full Industrial Strength Devotional K. It's Bait-and-Switch; Bait them with the teacher; hook them on the simplicity; muddle the distinction between a teacher and a Master; then switch to THE Master, who's REALLY You-Know-Who. Back it up with scripture, then hitch up the wagon load of crap that goes along with THAT concept, all the while insisting that it isn't a concept, just the truth.

And don't worry about the words, just concentrate on THAT feeling. (Didn't M once say, in the early days, that he came to the West to ''Kill the wicked witch of logic?'' Sounds like a slippery slope to me.)

And if the individual never makes it all the way to Devotional Knowledge, that's O.K., because anyone who buys videos and sends money is useful too, just like I was for the better part of 20 years. But if you don't make it to ISDK, then the devotional stuff (''Think of Me when you die'', ''Don't go through the darshan line unless you're ready to show some RESPECT'', ''Sing Arti like you MEAN it.'') doesn't make a lot of sense. Devotional K, which is devotion to M, is what it IS all about. It explain's M's comments like ''NEVER doubt the purity of the Master.'' That is not the typical way one talks about a teacher. That's probably one reason why the dropout rate is so high.

Many of the things mentioned on Mr. W's ''Not Promoted'' list actually WERE actively promoted in the past. Things like:

Not Promoted...(!?!)


Austerities, Practice of (in the Ashram)


Coercion of any sort (Ashram)


Communal living (Ashram)


Compulsory financial contributions (Ashram)


Free will, Surrender of (See the Knowledge Pledge)


Harassment of ‘ex-members’ - (Pat Haley and the hammer incident? In more recent times, EV taking down ex's websites with claims of copyright infringement. Fortunately most of the sites were re-instated, after explaining to the ISP's who was complaining, and why. And EV still maintains on their website that they support free speech, while trying to silence their critics.)


Hellfire & damnation, Belief in (M did a variation on this, with ''Rotting vegetables'' and ''smashed into a thousand pieces'', and other threats of insanity for those who leave the Master. M simply lies nowadays, claiming repeatedly that he NEVER said such things, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and the fact that people remember things!)


Holy relics, Belief in (What was that holy water, with the bits floating in it? Charnamit?)


Mind control (The mind was the enemy, and had to be controled. Currently, it's called ''The Doubtmaker''.)


Pressure not to ‘leave’ or to ‘return’ (Were not the Ashrams supposed to be a lifetime commitment?)


Private lives, Interference in (M telling premies not to marry.)


Self-sacrifice (Ashrams)


Separating children from parents (Many parents lost custody of their children because they belonged to a cult)


Sexual abstinence (Ashrams)


Storage or consumption of bodily wastes (Really, what WAS that stuff, those bits floating around in the holy water? GROSS!)

Guess Mr. W forgot about those? But I suppose they don't count, because that happened in the past, and that's been revised, improved and evolved? But have things really changed, or is M just trying to have it both ways? Was K-Lite and the ashram closures merely a response to the increased cult-awarness that began with the Jonestown tragedy? Isn't cult-awarness the reason why the old devotional practices are not allowed to be photographed, are hidden from public view, done in secret in remote places and protected from scrutiny with smart-card memberships?

How about some things that are STILL promoted, that are on Mr. W's ''Not Promoted'' list? Most noticably:

Conventional psychiatry, Antipathy towards (Perhaps M has softened his stance on this in recent times, but I recall many videos, and not old ones, where he ridicules any sort of self-help books. Clearly, M and K are supposed to be enough.)


Course fees (exorbitant or otherwise), Payment of (Large fees for various ''trainings'' EV offers frequently. Chuchladies love to compare the trainings they've had with other churchladies, to see who's done the most and if they should do more.)


Intellectual ability, Need for special (I agree with this one. No special intellectual ability needed, or encouraged.)


Rule books (The contents of many of EV's manuals are published on EPO. The committee meetings and video events are all highly controlled, with rules, and guidelines and proceedures for everything. That is what all these ''trainings'' are about. Rules, rules, and more rules, to make sure we are all ''syncronized and talking about K and M in the same way, at the same time''. Can you say ''Cult''?)


Scriptures, Authority based on interpretation of (M has used scriptures more and more, to talk about the Master, in case anyone is not clear on what the Master really is, and that he is actually ''You-Know-Who''. Really Mr. Williams, when is the last time you actually listened to M speak? Haven't you been Keeping In Touch?)


Special jewellery or accessories - (Of COURSE there is Special Jewelry, and Accessories that boggle the mind! Gee, aren't you even on the mailing list, Mr. Williams? Or don't you ever read the Divine Catalogs? Aren't you interested in enhancing your spoon collection? Don't you donate money or buy videos? The catalogs are sent to everyone who does.)


Therapy sessions - (Indeed, they are NOT promoted. For good reason. Any therapist worthy of the name, apon hearing about the mind-fuck their client has been put through via M and K, will tell their client they are in a Cult.)


And the references to wacky New Age stuff that are not promoted is no doubt meant to be funny (and is), but the funniest thing about it is, that many premies DO believe in that stuff, wether M promotes it or not. We have all seen this, in many of the premie posts on EPO. Guru ju-ju and New Age thinking fit together well, apparently.

The rest of the items on the list, yes, they make M seem like an easy cult, that doesn't make demands in many area's of your life. That's really a big part of it's appeal. M doesn't care if you drink or smoke or have sex. He doesn't care what you do with your personal life, as long as you are devoted to him as your Master, you keep his secrets, and you support him in a syncronized way so he doesn't have to do any real work, and can just live of donations like a playboy millionaire. Don't ask, don't tell. And he dosen't even know your name, and he doesn't WANT to know.

If that is what you want Mr. Williams, then go for it. Your choice. But please don't come here and whine about us not liking it. Such hit-and-run posts are too boring, too tiresome. I think Deborah is right, it seems like you just want to think of us as defective so you won't have to look at the truth.

Instead of claiming EV/M isn't a cult anymore because of what it doesn't do, how about honestly looking at what it does do? How about looking at Joe's post about the universal traits of a cult? Can you honestly say the shoe doesn't fit?

Worse than being in a cult, is to be in one and not know it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 11:46:21 (EDT)
From: Hey this is an excellent post
Email: None
To: chas
Subject: JM, *****Best Of*****
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 20:49:30 (EDT)
From: Disculta
Email: None
To: saucy
Subject: Hey Chuck
Message:
What about including the other MJ websites like Elan Vital and his personal one? Wouldn't this make your site more non-partisan?

Great job - I enjoyed surfing around what you did.

love ktd

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 23:06:18 (EDT)
From: Chuck S.
Email: None
To: Disculta
Subject: M's websites...
Message:
Under the list I explain that all of M's official websites can be found on page one of Roger's site. I didn't want to repeat them all on the new site, as they are on many of the listed sites already. But I suppose I shall have to list them, too. It is a web directory, after all, so I should make it as complete as possible.

Does anyone have the URL to Michelle Deradune's website? I remember it was kinda kooky, but I admired her spirit in saying what she wanted to say. If anyone remember's any other premie or ex-premies sites that I've left out, do let me know. The more the merrier.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 23:23:51 (EDT)
From: Sure, here it is...
Email: None
To: Chuck S.
Subject: just click...
Message:
This is fun...

Love....
[ HERE..... ]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 21:51:52 (EDT)
From: Miss PWK
Email: None
To: Disculta
Subject: How did you like that pic, Piggybai Ji
Message:
Isn't our Master so beautiful. Even now with the lines of worry on his shining face and the unfortunate bloating caused by the fact that we cause him so much pain that he has to drink a lot?

Some hateful manmut said to me that he looked greedy and selfish and debauched but as Shri Hans said ''devotion without Knowledge is blind.''

PatC: I wonder if that means that most premies don't have knowledge?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 12:43:24 (EDT)
From: Piggybai Ji
Email: None
To: Miss PWK
Subject: Swooning
Message:
How did I like the pic? Let me count the ways! I see a love of all diversity reflected in the texture of His skin. Barely controlled rage seething in his smokey eyes at the evil Manmut forces of mind that He has to deal with as He combats them in all of us on a daily basis. And the expansion
---
oh the expansion of that visage, in lo these many years, which of course symbolizes his expanding enlightenment.

How can these unfortunate humans formerly known as premies (hufkaps) even stand or hold up their heads in the face of this potent darshan?

I feel so sorry for them that they are missing 'that opportunity' to roll in shit

Love Ms Piggybai, former instructor, now promoted to divine toilet cleaner

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 13:21:25 (EDT)
From: Miss PWK
Email: None
To: Piggybai Ji
Subject: Dear Miss Piggybai
Message:
What the hell is a hufkap?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 16:26:01 (EDT)
From: Tim Matheson
Email: None
To: All
Subject: Why I'm disappointed about the new M website
Message:
We lovers of Lord Maharaji need to lead the way now. The weeping and gnashing of teeth is at hand. We need to sing the praises of OUR LORD MAHARAJI everywhere.

This new site and its owners show themselves to be totally embarrassed by OUR LORD's past.

I am not and freely admit we have all kissed his HOLY LOTUS FEETS many times and have sung 'Our Lord is the maker of all things created' to HIM many times. Oh, yes we have and we love doing it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 16:34:05 (EDT)
From: Silvia
Email: None
To: Tim Matheson
Subject: I SOLD MY JEWELERY
Message:
very cheap on a Saturday afternoon to travel to another country to be able to kiss his feet for the first time.

Oh, all the magic we were told radiated from those feet...They could clean us, make us closer to him. More devotees. More surrendered to him...

Oh, you brought tears to my eyes.

MAHARAJI SUCKS!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 19:15:57 (EDT)
From: ggg
Email: None
To: Silvia
Subject: Re: I SOLD MY JEWELERY
Message:
Ditto!!!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 19:04:01 (EDT)
From: Suedoula
Email: None
To: Silvia
Subject: Re: I SOLD MY JEWELERY
Message:
Shoot, Silvia --

I GAVE HIM MY JEWELRY!!!! HOW STUPID OF ME!!!! SO THEY COULD GOLDPLATE THE FAUCETS IN THE BATHROOM OF THAT FRIGGIN' JET!!! ARGHHH!!!!!!

And now I will stop shouting and simply pull out another handful of hair.

Back to your regular programming (or is that de-programming?)

Best to all,
Susan

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 23:15:53 (EDT)
From: Silvia
Email: None
To: Suedoula
Subject: Re: I SOLD MY JEWELERY
Message:
How good he did it to us! The bastardo!

But now, who is laughing? MEEEEEEEEEEE, and you, of course....LOL

:):):).....

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 22:02:03 (EDT)
From: Deborah
Email: None
To: Suedoula
Subject: ha ha ha ha ha
Message:
Suedoula, not you too! Has everybody taken mushrooms today? Dang! I have been laughing for over an hour at all the posts. Feels good.

Hi Silvia, I know you're reading this post :)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 23:18:21 (EDT)
From: Silvia
Email: None
To: Deborah
Subject: ha ha ha ha ha
Message:
Me too. I talked with Selene today and laughed some more. Life is so much better than what BiGHeaD said it is!!

WE WON!!!YUPPIE!!! THE BEST IS YET TO COME....eVEN FOR xxxx
Read your mail.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 16:31:28 (EDT)
From: Miss PWK
Email: None
To: Tim Matheson
Subject: Thank you, Tim
Message:
Exactly! We are not ashamed of our perfect living master whose purity we never doubt.

No wonder the bitter, angry hateful exes call those PWKs ''apologists.'' They just sound so apologetic and snivelling about His Holeyness, His Perfect Rotundity.

It's time to stand up and be proud of kissing the Holey Lotus Feet and sing the praises of the Master without whom we ''cannot come home.''

Jai Sat Chit Anand, brother premie ji.

With you at the Lotus Feet,

Miss Pussy Weasel Kitty (channeled by PatC)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 20:56:12 (EDT)
From: Miss Piggybai
Email: None
To: Miss PWK
Subject: To Ms PWK
Message:
Dear Lord, those 'humans formerly known as premies' (hufkaps) are surely missing the point, don't you see?

Was it not our holy Lord's Lord, Shri Hans Himself who said that Knowledge without devotion is dry? I am thinking they are in the desert, so dry they are becoming, thirsty is not the word for it.

Bali Shree Rawrat Ki Jai!

Miss Piggybai (channeled by Disculta)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 15:40:28 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: All
Subject: Why didn't M send in DUO?
Message:
Scientologists accused of misrepresenting selves during crisis

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- The National Mental Health Association accused the Church of Scientology of attempting to recruit members under the guise of providing mental health counseling after last week's terrorist attacks.

'This is a very important and sensitive time,' Michael M. Faenza, president and chief executive of the Alexandria, Va.-based NMHA said Monday. 'I urge the Church of Scientology to stay out of mental health. The public needs to understand that the Scientologists are using this tragedy to recruit new members. They are not providing mental health assistance.'

Scientology spokeswoman Janet Weiland said church volunteers who offered assistance to people following last week's attacks at the Pentagon and in New York City were upfront about their affiliation. The church added in a statement issued Monday night that all of its volunteers wore bright yellow t-shirts or jackets with 'Scientology Volunteer Minister' printed in 4-inch letters on them.

'We reject and, indeed, are outraged by the NMHA's attempt to use false statements to create controversy in the midst of this tragedy,' the statement said. 'While thousands of people of good will are uniting to alleviate the suffering, NMHA officials are sowing discord.'

The church, which said it has sent 759 volunteer ministers to New York since the attack, promised to deliver a letter to the NMHA on Tuesday protesting what it called 'petty turf wars.'

NMHA spokesman Mark Helmke said at least one television outlet, Fox News, publicized a toll-free number for the church last week as one to call for people seeking mental health counseling. A Fox official in New York confirmed the number was on the screen for about two hours.

'Someone who called that number found out what it was and then they called us immediately and then we took it down immediately,' said the official, who declined to be quoted by name.

A press release sent to Fox identified the number as belonging to the National Mental Health Assistance crisis hot line.

'The National Mental Health Hot Line is open and available to anyone in need of help -- or anyone who would like to assist the victims,' the release said. It made no mention of Scientology.

'Here they create a National Mental Health Assistance organization, with the same initials as our organization's and convince one major news outlet to post their mental health number, and what does it go to? It goes to a place where they are trying to get people to join Scientology,' said Helmke.

'It's clear they aren't trying to help people with mental health but to get them to join their cult,' he said.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 23:11:22 (EDT)
From: salam
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: Why didn't M send in DUO?
Message:
how much did fox news charge them for having the phone listed for 2 hours?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 16:05:29 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: More opportunists
Message:

[ Terror Financers use Put Options ]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 22:10:45 (EDT)
From: Deborah
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: Re: More opportunists
Message:
I'm an opportunist. I saw the link to Comics and put it in bookmarks. But all joking aside, that is very interesting. No stone is unturned. interesting how they beat us at the game they condemn us of playing.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 22:20:39 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Deborah
Subject: But not that clever
Message:
Following the money trail back to the punters may be very interesting. I bet the terror financers are shitting themselves right now and trying to cover their tracks.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 22:43:25 (EDT)
From: Deborah
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: Re: But not that clever
Message:
Keep us posted on that one, will you. I also appreciate the funny pages. Not that the EPO funny pages aren't welcomed.

I know, we need our own comic strip. Anyone good at drawing RawRat funnies?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 15:55:01 (EDT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: DUO's Mental Health Work.
Message:
Hi Jim,

DUO did indeed do work with the mentally ill in the 80s in London.

We toured Mental hospitals, doing plays for the residential patients. We started out with 245 volunteers, but after only 6 performances, we only had 4 left. 239 of the participants were detained inside the institutions. Friends and relatives had to work hard to get their loved ones out. Apparently some are still there, telling folk they are disciples of Jesus or channels for aliens or something.

The other two ran off to the South of France together to make babies.

Anth the social historian with a certificate of sanity. (They wouldn't let me out without it.)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 16:33:57 (EDT)
From: ulf
Email: None
To: AJW
Subject: Re: DUO's Mental Health Work.
Message:
Hi Anth
I was on a team, that toured the mental hospitals also

One women , i still know about, went out , became a premie
and have never been in the hospital since.
She is now married , got 2 kids , and have a job , a life
for 25 years, still a premie .

Who is going to tell her about e.p.o.

Ulf

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 14:46:09 (EDT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: All
Subject: Pundit Watch re 'the War'
Message:
In the wake of the devastating attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, many media pundits focused on one theme: retaliation, which I guess is understandable, but some of it is frightening. For some, it did not matter who bears the brunt of an American attack:

'There is only one way to begin to deal with people like this, and that is you have to kill some of them even if they are not immediately directly involved in this thing.'
--former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger (CNN, 9/11/01)

'The response to this unimaginable 21st-century Pearl Harbor should be as simple as it is swift-- kill the bastards. A gunshot between the eyes, blow them to smithereens, poison them if you have to. As for cities or countries that host these worms, bomb them into basketball courts.'
--Steve Dunleavy (New York Post, 9/12/01)
[Although this paper has about as much credibility as the National Enquirer]

'America roused to a righteous anger has always been a force for good. States that have been supporting if not Osama bin Laden, people like him need to feel pain. If we flatten part of Damascus or Tehran or whatever it takes, that is part of the solution.'
--Rich Lowry, National Review editor, to Howard Kurtz (Washington Post,9/13/01)

'At a bare minimum, tactical nuclear capabilites should be used against the bin Laden camps in the desert of Afghanistan. To do less would be rightly seen by the poisoned minds that orchestrated these attacks as cowardice on the part of the United States and the current administration.'
--Former Defense Intelligence Agency officer Thomas Woodrow, 'Time to Use the Nuclear Option' (Washington Times, 9/14/01)

[Yikes!]

Bill O'Reilly: 'If the Taliban government of Afghanistan does not cooperate, then we will damage that government with air power, probably. All right? We will blast them, because...'

Sam Husseini, Institute for Public Accuracy: 'Who will you kill in the process?'

O'Reilly: 'Doesn't make any difference.'
--('The O'Reilly Factor,' Fox News Channel, 9/13/01)

'This is no time to be precious about locating the exact individuals directly involved in this particular terrorist attack.... We should invade
their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war.'

--Syndicated columnist Ann Coulter (New York Daily News, 9/12/01)

As conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer (Washington Post, 9/12/01)
wrote: 'One of the reasons there are enough terrorists out there capable and deadly enough to carry out the deadliest attack on the United States in its history is that, while they have declared war on us, we have in the past responded (with the exception of a few useless cruise missile attacks on empty tents in the desert) by issuing subpoenas.'

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman wondered (9/13/01):
'Surely Islam, a grand religion that never perpetrated the sort of Holocaust against the Jews in its midst that Europe did, is being distorted when it is treated as a guidebook for suicide bombing. How is it that not a single
Muslim leader will say that?'

Of course, many Muslims would-- and did-- say just that. Political and civil leaders throughout the Muslim world have condemned the attacks, and Muslim clerics throughout the Middle East have given sermons refuting the idea that targeting civilians is a tenet of Islam (BBC, 9/14/01; Washington
Post 9/17/01).

Why They Hate Us

As the media investigation focused on Osama bin Laden, news outlets still provided little information about what fuels his fanaticism. Instead of a serious inquiry into anti-U.S. sentiment in the Middle East and elsewhere, many commentators media offered little more than self-congratulatory rhetoric, or that the attackers 'hate freedom':

This nation symbolizes freedom, strength, tolerance, and democratic principles dedicated to both liberty and peace. To the tyrants, the despots, the closed societies, there are no alterations to the policies, no gestures we can make, no words we can say that will convince those determined to continue their hate.'
--Charles G. Boyd (Washington Post, 9/12/01)

'Are Americans afraid to face the reality that there is a significant portion of this world's population that hates America, hates what freedom represents, hates the fact that we fight for freedom worldwide, hates our prosperity, hates our way of life? Have we been unwilling to face that very difficult reality?'
--Sean Hannity (Fox News Channel, 9/13/01)

One exception was ABC's Jim Wooten (World News Tonight, 9/12/01), who tried to shed some light on what might motivate some anti-U.S. sentiment in the Middle East, reporting that 'Arabs see the U.S. as an accomplice of Israel, a partner in what they believe is the ruthless repression of Palestinian aspirations for land and independence.' Wooten continued: 'The most
provocative issues: Israel's control over Islamic holy sites in Jerusalem; the stationing of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia near some of Islam's holiest sites; and economic sanctions against Iraq, which have been seen to deprive
children there of medicine and food.'

Stories like Wooten's, which examine the U.S.'s highly contentious role in the Middle East and illuminate some of the forces that can give rise to violent extremism, contribute far more to public security than do pundits calling for indiscriminate revenge.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 21:48:24 (EDT)
From: Nigel
Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk
To: Joe
Subject: Evil and ugly beyond belief..
Message:
Are heart and brain no longer even minimum requirements for a journalist over there?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 20:44:45 (EDT)
From: bill
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: egad, the pundits are crazy [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 16:23:00 (EDT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: bill
Subject: What really freaked me....
Message:
I saw Dan Rather on Letterman the other night, and Letterman said that whatever George W. Bush did was fine, and he was his president and he would cooperate and do whatever is necessary for him to do what he needs to do.

This scares me, because Dan Rather, who has been attacked by right wing groups as being too 'liberal,' is a journalist, a news commentator. It's his job to reveal what's going on and present all sides, not just fall in line behind his leader. What he said kind of shocked me, although I'm sure it's very popular at the moment.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 17:48:43 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Re: Pundit Watch re 'the War'
Message:
Joe:

The only one of those 'pundits' that I've seen is Eagleburger, and I didn't think he was particularly knowledgable. Anyway, all of that is understandable anger. On my rowing group one normally sedate individual expressed the opinion that we treat Afghanistan the way Rome dealt with Carthage, wondering where we'd find enough salt. It wasn't hard for him to understand that Afghanistan was already pretty barrenBut what I've seen from the people actually capable of *doing something* is pretty much the right thing: a multi-level multi-target, multi-focussed long term *campaign* that seems to contain most of the policy elements you espouse: some accomodation of the Palestinians, increased aid to the Moslem world, and willingness to target despotic regimes without wholesale war on their populations. What are you worried about, exactly? I mean exactly? I don't see it.
Not that there isn't a lot to be worried about.

If you stand looking at El Capitan it's pretty easy to be overwhelmed with the difficulty, or even possibility, of the climb. The handholds are invisible at that distance and it just looks like a wall. Climbing it is a one step hand over hand process, where each step could send you crashing. But lots of people have climbed El Capitan over the years. If you *have* to do something, it becomes possible.

--Scott

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 18:17:30 (EDT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Multiple Scott
Message:
What are you worried about, exactly? I mean exactly? I don't see it. Not that there isn't a lot to be worried about.

Right....I guess....in your otherwise inscrutible post, I think you hit the nail on the head. You don't see it and then you do. There is indeed a lot to be worried about, I agree with you on that.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 18:41:05 (EDT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: I'll have a double Scott on the Rocks, please
Message:
I was a little worried about Patty's brother-in-law and my friend Jim who worked right across the street from WTC in the Merril Lynch building. I was a little worried about his sweet wife Christine and his three girls who were all in Lower Manhattan last Tuesday. I was a little worried about Scott and his partner in Brooklyn, where they witnessed the attack first hand. I was a little worried about Moe and Noel in Tribeca.

On second thought, make that a triple. I'm still shaking...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 20:53:27 (EDT)
From: bill
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: The Bush/Cheney plan.
Message:
There is plenty of spin about Afganistan and targeting specific terrorists, but Rumsfeld said it on sunday, I cant quote at the moment, but the way I read him was that America will be invading Iraq,
Iran, Afganistan and Sudan and who knows who else.

The target is any countries with Clerics running the show, and of course Saddam has to go, and Sudan will come under the gun.

Call me delusional, but I truly believe that is what we will all be seeing.
The mission is cloaked in secrecy, the blabber is all about bin laden,
but the 5 men at the top of the usa really feel that this is thier only chance to stop the islamic attempt to rule the world.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 23:42:23 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: bill
Subject: Re: The Bush/Cheney plan.
Message:
bill:

It's a little ambitious isn't it? I mean, all at once? Hope they hit Saddam though. Saddam has the best propaganda machine of any of them. Bin Laden certainly doesn't have very much in the way of propaganda, by comparison. He's essentially a scribbler. We have one piece of evidence connecting the suicide pilot to Iraqi intelligence. Not conclusive proof that Saddam was involved, but a bit more and they'll have enough to go after him.

More Americans killed on Sept. 11, 2001 than on the D-Day Normandy Invasion, and more than the *total* Americans killed in the American Revolution. Also more than the Spanish/American War, the War of 1812, and a number of others.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 20:57:02 (EDT)
From: bill
Email: None
To: bill
Subject: I think you should read the above post. [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 18:51:59 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: But hopefully worry turned to relief.
Message:
Gerry:

Not what we're talking about, but I gather everything turned out alright? I think the time for worry about the victims is passed. It's now the time for grief. The uncertainty is gone.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 18:35:11 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Multi-Scott
Message:
Joe:

I mean, I don't see what *you're' worried about. I'm worried (or perhaps I should call it 'concerned') that we won't react with appropriate force, or that we'll allow the seeds of hatred to flourish, or that we'll make a strategic mistake in establishing this coalition, or that we'll leave some virulent terrorist cell in place, or that we won't treat the 'undecideds' with adequate respect and lose them. But I don't see any evidence of that yet. On the contrary, I haven't seen this administration make a single significant mistake since the crisis started. Yeah, there are lots of things to 'worry' about, but is there reason to worry right now, beyond the mere fact of uncertainty? I really don't think so. I really don't.

-Scott Shot

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 16:14:15 (EDT)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Thanks, Joe (nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 15:46:11 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Who cares why they hate us?
Message:
What's it really matter, why they hate us? People are talking about, lots, but perhaps not with the attention you'd like. But I wonder, what difference does it make? Are you suggesting that maybe it's time for the U.S. to change something, make itself more acceptable to these Islamic extremists? Perhaps extend a few heartfelt apologies and say we won't do it again?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 09:11:31 (EDT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: Who cares why they hate us?
Message:
I think quite a few New Yorkers wonder.

I remember just a week ago seeing a New Yorker on TV saying (words to the effect) 'I didn't know we were hated so much. Why do they hate us so much? What am I going to tell my son?'

Dealing with questions that start with Why ... is OK. It is often highly useful in coming to an understanding of the world.

The idea is not to make the West more acceptable to 'Islamic' extremists, but to ensure than our reactions do not squander the immense sympathy for the States that is presently felt throughout the world.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 19:20:41 (EDT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: They hate us because we're not Muslim
Message:
Well, I don't know any New Yorkers who feel that way about it, including myself. All the New Yorkers I've spoken to (which is pretty much everybody, seeing as I live in New York) pretty much agree that we are hated because we are not Islam. You just can't wrap your mind around that, can you, that we would be hated because we're not of the Islamic faith. Remember the Crusades back in the 10th century where Christians went off to fight bloody battles to recapture the Holy City, Jerusalem? Why did they do that if not because they thought it an abomination that infidels (Moslems, in that case) should be in control of it? Well, now it's a reversal of that. Now, it's the Muslims who think we're the infidels and must be wiped off the face of the planet, for no other reason than we're not Muslims ourselves. Ask them. They'll tell you.

Seriously.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 06:56:42 (EDT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: hmmmmm
Message:
it's the Muslims who think we're the infidels and must be wiped off the face of the planet, for no other reason than we're not Muslims ourselves.

I have no doubt Mr bin Laden would be delighted to hear that Americans are coming to see the Muslims as the enemy. Try to find out a little more about Islam. There was nothing Islamic about the attack on the WTC.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 18:22:23 (EDT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: John, John, John
Message:
I'm not taking about Muslims in general. I'm talking about the fundamentalists. Please don't misunderstand me, and please learn more about Islamic Fundamentalism. I think when you do more pieces will fall into place how it is that the terrorists could do what they did and will continue to do.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 15:37:35 (EDT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Thanks for the clarification
Message:
I'm not taking about Muslims in general. I'm talking about the fundamentalists. Please don't misunderstand me, and please learn more about Islamic Fundamentalism. I think when you do more pieces will fall into place how it is that the terrorists could do what they did and will continue to do.


---

You did say ... it's the Muslims who think we're the infidels and must be wiped off the face of the planet, for no other reason than we're not Muslims ourselves. Ask them. They'll tell you. Seriously.

I'm glad you didn't mean all Muslims. Thanks for making that clear. But I'm not naive or ignorant about this stuff. London is, as you will soon be hearing in the media, something of a centre for 'Islamic' fundamentalism.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 16:10:13 (EDT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: Good point, John
Message:
The idea is not to make the West more acceptable to 'Islamic' extremists, but to ensure than our reactions do not squander the immense sympathy for the States that is presently felt throughout the world.

That's a very good point.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 17:57:13 (EDT)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Jim, are you serious??
Message:
The reason it matters why people hate America is that if the conditions for that hatred remain, then Bush's war is doomed to failure. You're a rational man, so apply reason to this. America can either wipe out all the people who could possibly hate America, or can try to understand why people hate America, deal with the causes, be vigilant in defense, and of course apprehend or kill those whose hatred has gone too far.

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 19:02:09 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: Now, I agree with THAT!
Message:
Good reasons, to be concerned about why people in the Middle East hate or dislike us; but I thought the issue was why the *terrorists* hate us. Whether they do or not is irrelevant, because that's not why they acted. Not essentially anyway.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 16:49:41 (EDT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Ever heard of 'know your enemy?'
Message:
That's one good reason.

Another is just what Anth said. Plus, it just isn't helpful at all for the US to see itself as pure and the hatred towards it completely unjustified. I think we ought to be informed about how we are perceived. And I completely disagree with you if you mean 'people' are the media, because they aren't 'talking about it lots.'

Moreover, they should have been talking lots about it long before this ever happened.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 18:40:27 (EDT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Re: Ever heard of 'know your enemy?'
Message:
Joe, the only reasons you've given why Arabs hate us is becasue we support Israel (as if we've never supported Arab nations as well), and that the war on Iraq and subsequent sanctions has got all of the Arab world in a tizzy. Conveniently, you forget that there wasn't a single Arab nation that wasn't part of the coalition that invaded Iraq during the Gulf war. If you want to know your enemy maybe you should consider the remarks made by bin Laden that it is the sacred duty of Muslims to kill Americans. It's a religious obligation to this guy. And remember, this Arab who's heart is so overflowing from grief over what is being done to his fellow Arabs (not) heads an organization called Al Quadia (sp) that's the equivalent of Murder, Inc. In return for sanctuary from the Taliban, he launches terrorist attacks on their beloved Arab brethren, the Northern Alliance who themselves have made it clearly known that anytime the USA calls they will gladly kill their fellow Arabs, as well. So, this argument that Arabs are a united front against the Great Satan from the west doesn't really hold up to scrutiny, Joe. Islamic Fundamentalists, not Arabs, are united in their cause against the Great Satan. A distinction needs to be made here. Not all Arabs hate Americans and not all Arabs love Arabs.

Islam does not allow peace between a Moslem and an infidel --Ayatollal Khomeini

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 14:22:15 (EDT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Huh?
Message:
God Jerry, I never suggested that whatever grievances these terrorists had justified what they did. Of course they don't.

Conveniently, you forget that there wasn't a single Arab nation that wasn't part of the coalition that invaded Iraq during the Gulf war

Jerry, I think I said that bin Laden also hates the governments in the Middle East that supported the West, not only in the Gulf War, but otherwise, including his home country of Saudi Arabia.

So, this argument that Arabs are a united front against the Great Satan from the west doesn't really hold up to scrutiny, Joe.

Hello? Earth to Jerry? I don't know where you got the stupid idea that I said that Arabs were 'united against the Great Satan?' That's just a ridiculous idea, completely false, and I never even suggested it.

My point was, an perhaps I need to spell it out more clearly, is that we need to understand how we are perceived, how our actions in the Middle East and elsewhere are perceived. It just isn't very helpful to have a completey black and white 'we good - they bad' mentality, which is what the US media is mainly espousing at the moment.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 19:40:03 (EDT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Re: Huh?
Message:
Joe, I'm just paraphrasing your agreement with Wooten why we're so hated by Arabs, as if there is a united front in that region against us.

'Arabs see the U.S. as an accomplice of Israel, a partner in what they believe is the ruthless repression of Palestinian aspirations for land and independence.' Wooten continued: 'The most
provocative issues: Israel's control over Islamic holy sites in Jerusalem; the stationing of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia near some of Islam's holiest sites; and economic sanctions against Iraq, which have been seen to deprive children there of medicine and food.'

My argument against this, in the case of explaining the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, (outside of Wooten's observations on holy sites) is that there isn't a fundamentalist in the world who gives a rat's ass about freedom or independence, or liberation from human suffering. The only thing they care about is their own twisted version of Islamic law. Who suffers under that, they couldn't care less. How many infidels that must die for the law to cover the land, they couldn't care less about that either. Islamic fundamentalism is not about social justice. It's about law, Islamic law, as they see it. That's all it's about.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 18:22:15 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Yeah, know your enemy.
Message:
Joe:

Plus, it just isn't helpful at all for the US to see itself as pure and the hatred towards it completely unjustified.

Largely unjustified, maybe. I don't know how to make this any plainer. They didn't do this *because* they have a reason to hate us. They don't need a reason. But if you want to get into that, they hate us because we accept homosexuality as 'normal,' because we have strip clubs, because we allow women to have careers, because we're more successful than they are, because we're the big dog on the block, because we elevate acquisition over being devout and because we do it better than they; because they long for the glory days of Islam.

It would be useful if we were cognizant of why some people in the Middle East hate us, but not that group. They're in it for the glory. Know your enemy, for heaven sake! Jesus, you'd think you'd never seen a cult!

Why don't they hate us? Because we're just, forgiving, generous, fair, wise. Ah, but you don't think we *are* any of those things. I can't imagine how you deal with this. Really. No wonder you're trying to strike a match on the surface of a puddle.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 14:33:24 (EDT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: That's just absurd, Scott
Message:
I'm sorry you tire in your efforts to educate me, but you might need to get some rest because you completely miss my point, and as is often your wont, you want to argue what you think I said and not what I actually did. That's your right, but it will likely make you tired.

Largely unjustified, maybe. I don't know how to make this any plainer. They didn't do this *because* they have a reason to hate us. They don't need a reason.

People don't just hate for no reason. It might be a nutty reason, it might be legitimate or completely misinformed, but people have their reasons and we are in the best position if we understand what they are.

In interviews with Alan Fisk and others, bin Laden has stated, with lots of venom, but quite cogently, why he hates the USA, and the reasons for hating us are largely what I said they are. Maybe he also hates for the reasons you state, but I don't know that. If it's so true that equality of women and acceptance of homosexuality were reasons, you would think the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden, where women are even more independent, which have higher standards of living than the US and which allow gays to marry, would be in big trouble. No, it's other things that have made that ground fertile for extremism.

And the other point you completely miss is that we aren't just talking about these so-called 'terrorists.' If they didn't have popular support among the population of the Middle East, they wouldn't be able to exist, and the reason they have some measure of popular support is because of how the USA is perceived, and not just culturally or economically.

It's also how we are perceived as imperialist, one-sided in foreign policy, and in supporting regimes in the Middle East that repress their people, not to mention that we have dropped bombs on civilians, and contributed to the deaths of 500,000 children in Iraq. bin Laden says he is pissed by that, but so are the people who support him, who join his cult of terrorists, and who lie about, and distort Islam to support their views. They are a murderous, hateful group, but they didn't just arise from nowhere, and it's absurd to say they just hate for the hell of it.

That's why, to me, it just isn't at all helpful for Bush to say that these people did this because they 'hate freedom.' That might be a nice sound bite, a nice, simple, easy thing for the American public to digest without getting into the complications, but I think somebody has got to talk about the fact that it just isn't that simple. And if we do, I think we are better off.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 20:06:50 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: I love you, Joe.
Message:
And I'm doing my best not to offend you. Bear with me.

People don't just hate for no reason. It might be a nutty reason, it might be legitimate or completely misinformed, but people have their reasons and we are in the best position if we understand what they are.

What I'm saying is that there is no *rational* reason for whatever they feel, which is partly hate but mostly something else (something more akin to lust). You're assuming that 'reason' infers some sort of logical causal chain. I know you won't cop to this, so reach for it. There is another class of 'reasons' that fail the test of rationality not because they're outrageous, but because you can't *predict* consequences from them. You seem to have 'conflated' reason and rationality. It's that simple. Tell me you don't understand the difference or don't want to and I'll quit trying to inform, enlighten, or discuss the issue with you. I'll say it again, there is no *rational* cause for them to do this, and I don't just mean rational in the sense of 'acceptable.' However perversely you allow the logic to be defined, or however far you allow it to wander from reality, you must lose the track or connection with the act; not in hindsight but in foresight. Even a perverse logic can be tracked. There is a disconnect between the precursors and the results. If you think you're tracking them, you're deluding yourself.

In interviews with Alan Fisk and others, bin Laden has stated, with lots of venom, but quite cogently, why he hates the USA, and the reasons for hating us are largely what I said they are.

Maybe he's telling the truth or maybe he's not. He has also stated that he hates the United States because we are the temptors. We 'distract' the followers of Muhammed from True Islam. I don't think he regards the Dutch as in the same category of temptation. I don't know whether he hates them as much, but they certainly don't represent the same threat. Joe, I like you. I'm really being sincere here. You see my point, right? It seems to shatter yours. Tell me you understand, or something. I won't gloat. Not even close. I'm scared.

But to make my position even more clear, your position must be that we can ameliorate 'the problem' by acceding to his demands to some degree? What else could be meant by the term 'reason?' What does the reason matter if it offers no levers? Not to put too fine a point on it, but how does this differ from Chamberlain's attitude toward Hitler? You are wrong Joe. I'm not happy about it at all. Not even a smidgeon.

And the other point you completely miss is that we aren't just talking about these so-called 'terrorists.' If they didn't have popular support among the population of the Middle East, they wouldn't be able to exist, and the reason they have some measure of popular support is because of how the USA is perceived, and not just culturally or economically.

Well, we don't have a disagreement about this. We place this in a different order of priority because we differ on the first point though.

It's also how we are perceived as imperialist, one-sided in foreign policy, and in supporting regimes in the Middle East that repress their people, not to mention that we have dropped bombs on civilians, and contributed to the deaths of 500,000 children in Iraq. bin Laden says he is pissed by that, but so are the people who support him, who join his cult of terrorists, and who lie about, and distort Islam to support their views. They are a murderous, hateful group, but they didn't just arise from nowhere, and it's absurd to say they just hate for the hell of it.

I think you know by now that's not what I'm saying. But their 'hate' (or more appropriately 'lust') is absurd, in the precise meaning of that term, yes. That's what I'm a sayin'. Completely absurd. And therein lies it's vulnerability.

That's why, to me, it just isn't at all helpful for Bush to say that these people did this because they 'hate freedom.'

Well, they hate freedom too. Afghans (Afghanis?) are forbidden to watch TV (on pain of death?), must wear the veil (women), are forbidden to work (women), etc. etc. Yes, they hate freedom. And they hate us because we are free, and because we are unapologetic about it. We agree that's not why the attacked the WTC though. He's wrong about that.

...but I think somebody has got to talk about the fact that it just isn't that simple. And if we do, I think we are better off.

It's not simple, but it's not ambiguous either.

--Scott Squared

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 00:30:40 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Addendum
Message:
I may have misunderstood you on one point. Suppose we acknowledge that his primary beef is that he wants us out of Saudi Arabia, or out of the Middle East in general. How does that differ from Chamberlain's conclusion that Hitler just wanted access to a little piece of Eastern Europe and the Baltic? (I think that's what he told Chamberlain he wanted, but can't recall for sure.) How would you use that information? Is that *all* he wants? I see only two possible interpretations to what you're saying: 1. That you believe his demands are limited and that if we either change his mind (or his followers') or give him what he wants then we'll appease him; or 2. that his demands are limited and that they provide information on what he might do next, or how he might prosecute his cause. Well, If what you mean is the latter then, yeah, it's useful. if only because he has to appear to be consistent. But it could also be misleading if you're wrong, and that's not his only or his primary reason. I don't think his motivations are limited that way. I don't think it tells us everything we need to know about him, or his followers... any more than knowing Jim Jones wanted a place in the wilderness to build his 'community' told us what *he'd* ultimately do. We're missing one vital piece of information about the man and his following. '1' has absolutely no credibility with me at all. Does it to you?

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 18:47:53 (EDT)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: fucking brilliant, Joe (nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 16:17:55 (EDT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Why it matters.
Message:
What's it really matter, why they hate us? People are talking about, lots, but perhaps not with the attention you'd like. But I wonder, what difference does it make? Are you suggesting that maybe it's time for the U.S. to change something, make itself more acceptable to these Islamic extremists? Perhaps extend a few heartfelt apologies and say we won't do it again?


---

Hi Jim,

It matters why they hate us because, if know the reason, maybe we can do something about stopping it at source, instead of simply reacting to it once it's manifest itself.

It is time for the US to change something in its foreign policy, which is seen, not just by extremists, as being anti Arab and anti Moslem. It wouldn't hurt the US to support democracy in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Algeria etc. Not to mention- in fact, let's not mention it Jim.

Criticising US Foreign Policy doesn't mean you support terrorism.

Anth watching the ships sail out to war.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 18:51:54 (EDT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: AJW
Subject: Re: Why it matters.
Message:
It wouldn't hurt the US to support democracy in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Algeria etc.

Yeah, that's what bin Laden is interested in. All we have to do is promote democracy in those nations and he'll cool it, along with all those other freedom loving fundamentalists, like the Taliban and Khomeini. Don't make me laugh. In fact, it's to late, you already have.

LOL

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 20:05:19 (EDT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Terrorists don't grow on trees.
Message:
It wouldn't hurt the US to support democracy in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Algeria etc.

Yeah, that's what bin Laden is interested in. All we have to do is promote democracy in those nations and he'll cool it, along with all those other freedom loving fundamentalists, like the Taliban and Khomeini. Don't make me laugh. In fact, it's to late, you already have.

LOL


---

Hey Jerry,

Where do you think terrorists come from? They don't drop off trees. They are reacting against something. It doesn't come out of thin air. Or do you agree with Tony Blair, and tbink they are simply 'evil'?

Anth Lots Of Love to you too.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 16:12:13 (EDT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: AJW
Subject: Or is it that they 'hate freedom?'
Message:
Like George W. Bush has been repeating the past few days. Some people just 'hate freedom' and so they blow up buildings and kill thousands of people. Right. Real simple.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 21:00:45 (EDT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: AJW
Subject: Re: Terrorists don't grow on trees.
Message:
Anth,

Let's put it this way. Maybe some people are natural born pychopaths who just need an outlet for their psychosis. In the Arab world, Islamic Fundamentalism provides such an outlet. Mind you, I'm not saying all Muslims are fundamentalists. There's an estimated 2 billion Muslims in the world. That's more than Christians and Jews combined. But there's only an estimated 100 million fundamentalists in that bunch. Most Muslims are peace loving individuals. How come they're not mostly hate driven 'holy warriors'. I think it's because they don't have the temperament for that, just as most laid-off employees don't show up on the job with automatic weapons to kill their former boss and associates, or most kids aren't psychopaths who gun down their classmates in a rage, or just as most people are hardworking law abiding citizens and not criminals. Different types of people emerge from similar circumstances in different ways depending on their makeup. Saints and sinners come from the same mix. It all depends on what you're made of.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 09:31:49 (EDT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: making enemies
Message:
most laid-off employees don't show up on the job with automatic weapons to kill their former boss and associates, or most kids aren't psychopaths who gun down their classmates in a rage

These events seem to happen more in the States than in other countries. That raises the possibility that there is something in the social conditions that favours the emergence of this kind of behaviour. It may be as simple as the ready availability of guns -- or it may be more involved.

Terrorism is not (usually) an isolated act by an isolated individual, but is much more a group phenomena, so the enquiry into Why ... may look more at social circumstances and less at individual psychpathology. Bluntly, for every active terrorist combatant, you are likely to find dozens of non-combatant supporters; many more passive supporters; and vast numbers of sympathisers for the cause who decry the terrorists methods.

This hard core surrounded by increasingly softer layers of support is what makes a guerilla campaign hard to defeat with merely bombs and bullets. Actions need to avoid moving folk from soft to hardline support, even as they neutralise the combatants.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 17:46:56 (EDT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: Guns
Message:
These events seem to happen more in the States than in other countries. That raises the possibility that there is something in the social conditions that favours the emergence of this kind of behaviour. It may be as simple as the ready availability of guns -- or it may be more involved.

John, the ready availability of guns in the USA, even very sophisticated automatic weapons, cannot be underestimated. I agree that American culture is more violent, but I think if guns were as available elsewhere, there would be much of the same happening in other countries.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 18:52:56 (EDT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: PS
Message:
I bet even Khomeini is rolling in his grave, Anth.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 18:35:01 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: AJW
Subject: Boy do I ever disagree with THAT!
Message:
It is time for the US to change something in its foreign policy, which is seen, not just by extremists, as being anti Arab and anti Moslem. It wouldn't hurt the US to support democracy in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Algeria etc. Not to mention- in fact, let's not mention it Jim.

It is not time to do anything but get these bastards and their supporters. The U.S. is damned by these guys no matter what it does in the countries you've mentioned. 'Support democracy' more than it does and it's an intrusive, arrogant bully. Accept and work with the local governments and the Muslim extremists have just one more reason to blast it -- literally, unfortunately -- as an evil support for the regimes they'd like to topple.

This is religious extremism spawning deadly fanaticism. There's nothing to negotiate, as far as I can tell. And if by democracy in places like Algeria you're talking about a system that would allow an Islamic theocracy to trample the rights of the population, no, I don't think the U.S. need support that at all. It's a god damned mess over there and right now all we need to do is figure out how to strike back as fairly and effectively as possible. It's not a time for self-criticism for the states much as so many people would love to make it so.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 19:22:53 (EDT)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Jim how would you do that?
Message:
It is time for the US to change something in its foreign policy, which is seen, not just by extremists, as being anti Arab and anti Moslem. It wouldn't hurt the US to support democracy in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Algeria etc. Not to mention- in fact, let's not mention it Jim.

It is not time to do anything but get these bastards and their supporters. The U.S. is damned by these guys no matter what it does in the countries you've mentioned. 'Support democracy' more than it does and it's an intrusive, arrogant bully. Accept and work with the local governments and the Muslim extremists have just one more reason to blast it -- literally, unfortunately -- as an evil support for the regimes they'd like to topple.

This is religious extremism spawning deadly fanaticism. There's nothing to negotiate, as far as I can tell. And if by democracy in places like Algeria you're talking about a system that would allow an Islamic theocracy to trample the rights of the population, no, I don't think the U.S. need support that at all. It's a god damned mess over there and right now all we need to do is figure out how to strike back as fairly and effectively as possible. It's not a time for self-criticism for the states much as so many people would love to make it so.


---

How exactly will you get 'these bastards and their supporters'? Do you have their addresses? Does the US government? As far as I can tell, 'these bastards' died when the planes disintegrated. Are you refering to some other bastards? But seriously, tell me your plans. Has the US been sleeping since the last attack on WTC? I think not. Did the US intelligence services predict or prevent this attack? No. So what makes you think they can accurately target the guilty people? And if they can't then any military attack will kill innocent people, just like those working in the WTC last Tuesday morning. Do you support that?

So what are your plans to get the bastards?

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 18:46:32 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: Boy do I ever disagree with THAT!
Message:
It's not a time for self-criticism for the states much as so many people would love to make it so.

And I would add that there's good reason to believe we're exercising pretty good judgment at the moment. We're winning over the right people and groups, frustrating the fuck out of UBL, and dealing with our own grief like grownups, not to mention having inspired and witnessed absolutely phenomenal courage by our citizens. Don't know what the hell we could be doing better, under the circumstances. But I always did prefer a jig to wailing and gnashing of teeth. Character defect.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 19:05:18 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: I think Tom Clancy's got it right
Message:
How We Got Here:
First we crippled the CIA. Then we blamed it.

BY TOM CLANCY
Tuesday, September 18, 2001 12:01 a.m. EDT

We know now that America has been the victim of a large, well-planned, and well-executed terrorist act. The parameters are yet to be fully explored, but that won't stop the usual suspects from pontificating (and, yes, that includes me) on what happened and what needs to be done as a result. A few modest observations:

• As I write this we only know the rough outlines of what has taken place. We do not know exactly who the perpetrators were, though we have heard from Vice President Dick Cheney that there is 'no question' that Osama bin Laden had a role. But many groups may have been involved, and we do not know their motivation, or for whom or for what particular objective they worked.

• 'Don't know' means 'don't know' and nothing more. Absent hard information, talking about who it must have been and what we need to do about it is a waste of air and energy. To discern the important facts, we have the Federal Bureau of Investigation as our principal investigative agency, and the Central Intelligence Agency (along with National Security Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency) as our principal foreign-intelligence services. Getting the most important information is their job, not the job of the news media, which will only repeat what they are told. Gathering this information will take time, because we need to get it right.

• Terrorism is a political act, performed for political objectives. The general aim of terrorism is to force changes in the targeted society through the shock value of the crime committed. Therefore, if we make radical changes in how our country operates, the bad guys win. We do not want that to happen. Whoever planned this operation is watching us right now, and they are probably having a pretty good laugh. We can't stop that. What we can do is to maintain that which they most hate, which is a free society. We've worked too hard to become what we are, and we can't allow a few savages to change it for us.

Next, our job is to take a step back, take a deep breath and get to work finding out who it was, where they are, and what to do about it.

Terrorism is a crime under the civil law when committed by domestic terrorists; it can be an act of war when committed by foreigners. For domestic criminals we have the FBI and police. For acts of war we have our intelligence community and the military. In either case we have well-trained people to do the work. If we let them do their job, and give them the support they need, the job will get done as reliably as gravity.
The foreign-source option seems the most likely at this time. The first line of defense in such a case is the intelligence community. The CIA is an agency of about 18,000 employees, of whom perhaps 800 are field-intelligence officers--that is, the people who go out on the street and learn what people are thinking, not how many tanks they have parked outside (we have satellites to photograph those).

I've been saying for a lot of years that this number is too small. American society doesn't love its CIA, for the same reason that it doesn't always love its cops. We too often regard them as a threat to ourselves rather than our enemies. Perhaps these incidents will make us rethink that.

The best defense against terrorist incidents is to prevent them from happening. You do that by finding out what a potential enemy is thinking before he is able to act. What the field intelligence officers do is no different from what Special Agent Joe Pistone of the FBI did when he infiltrated the mafia under the cover name of Donnie Brasco. The purpose of these operations is to find out what people are thinking and talking about. However good your satellites are, they cannot see inside a human head. Only people can go and do that.

But America, and especially the American news media, does not love the CIA in general and the field spooks in particular. As recently as two weeks ago, CBS's '60 Minutes' regaled us with the hoary old chestnut about how the CIA undermined the leftist government of Chile three decades ago. The effect of this media coverage, always solicitous to leftist governments, is to brand the CIA an antiprogressive agency that does Bad Things.

In fact, the CIA is a government agency, subject to the political whims of whoever sits in the White House and Congress. The CIA does what the government of which it is a part tells it to do. Whatever evil the CIA may have done was the result of orders from above.

The Chilean event and others (for example, attempts to remove Fidel Castro from the land of the living, undertaken during the presidency of JFK, rather more rarely reported because only good came from Camelot) caused the late Sen. Frank Church to help gut the CIA's Directorate of Operations in the 1970s. What he carelessly left undisturbed then fell afoul of the Carter administration's hit man, Stansfield Turner. That capability has never been replaced.

It is a lamentably common practice in Washington and elsewhere to shoot people in the back and then complain when they fail to win the race. The loss of so many lives in New York and Washington is now called an 'intelligence failure,' mostly by those who crippled the CIA in the first place, and by those who celebrated the loss of its invaluable capabilities.
What a pity that they cannot stand up like adults now and say: 'See, we gutted our intelligence agencies because we don't much like them, and now we can bury thousands of American citizens as an indirect result.' This, of course, will not happen, because those who inflict their aesthetic on the rest of us are never around to clean up the resulting mess, though they seem to enjoy further assaulting those whom they crippled to begin with.

Call it the law of unintended consequences. The intelligence community was successfully assaulted for actions taken under constitutionally mandated orders, and with nothing left to replace what was smashed, warnings we might have had to prevent this horrid event never came. Of course, neither I nor anyone else can prove that the warnings would have come, and I will not invoke the rhetoric of the political left on so sad an occasion as this.

But the next time America is in a fight, it is well to remember that tying one's own arm is unlikely to assist in preserving, protecting and defending what is ours.

Mr. Clancy is a novelist.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 16:53:13 (EDT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: He's mostly right
Message:
I pretty much agree with everything Clancy said, especially at the beginning, and I also agree that the key to all this is better intelligence, although I disagree with his historical perceptions of what happened to the CIA.

But the CIA's failures are legendary, including that they didn't even figure out that the Soviet Union was falling apart until it happened. Of course, this failure enabled us to spend billions more on the military and weapon systems in the 80s than we needed to, so maybe that was intentional.

The CIA is an agency of about 18,000 employees, of whom perhaps 800 are field-intelligence officers--that is, the people who go out on the street and learn what people are thinking, not how many tanks they have parked outside (we have satellites to photograph those).

The decision to rely on technology instead of spies on the ground, did not come from anywhere besides the CIA itself. This was not due to lack of funding, or due to any limitations put on the CIA by Presidents or Congress, although it was with their complicity. I agree completely that this is the problem, and it will take years to get the resources to do what they need to do, and what they have frittered away. The love affair with technology, instead of the "dirty" kind of spying, is really a hold-over from the Cold War.

No, the CIA has always been a lilly-white ivy-league run organization, that has never done a very good job, partly because it isn't open to public scrutiny, doesn't have any competition, and especially during the Cold War, was considered sacrosanct. So, it really doesn't need to be effective to ensure its survival.

It became an organization mired in the Cold War, and has never figured out how to operate in a changed world. It was also riddled with spies, like Aldrich Ames, with no effective means to root them out, and lost its effectiveness, and morale, and many of its spies, that way. True, the presidents and Congress should have been giving direction about this, so the failures are all around. The public can't be blamed, because it basically has no idea what the CIA is doing or not doing. All we see are the results. In fact, the CIA's entire budget isn't even public information, but part of the "black budget."

In fact, the CIA is a government agency, subject to the political whims of whoever sits in the White House and Congress. The CIA does what the government of which it is a part tells it to do. Whatever evil the CIA may have done was the result of orders from above.

This is true, although much less so than it used to be. Kennedy did use the CIA to go after Castro, and even used the CIA to pretend that the USA military wasn't involved in the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion. And as we know, using the CIA to overthrow Allende, and using the CIA to thwart the Watergate investigation, were part of the Kissenger/Nixon regime and transgressions that should have been exposed, and actions taken to prevent them from occurring again. This is what the "reforms" were about -- to make it harder for the leaders to use the CIA for their own purposes, or to assassinate the elected leaders of other countries.

Reforms to the CIA in the 70s under Ford after the Church hearings, including the prohibition against assassinating leaders of other countries (the CIA is only prohibited from assassinating the LEADER of the country, not anyone else, contrary to what Clancy is suggesting and what the media implies, and even only has had that limitation since 1976. I heard Bill Clinton remind people of this on TV last night, and in fact Clinton put out a directive on bin Laden's life three years ago, citing the exception to the rule, since he isn't the leader of a country.) This was the result of the Allende assassination and some others, successful and unsuccessful. The failure to ever kill Castro, despite numerous opportunities, if that was indeed the directive, speaks for itself, as did the disastrous failure of the CIA at the Bay of Pigs, initiated by Eisenhower, and carried through by Kennedy.

The other thing that was a 'reform' of the CIA after the Church hearings, that Clancy apparently doesn't like, is that the CIA was supposed to confine its activities overseas, and let the FBI handle domestic operations.

The Church hearings revealed, for example, that the CIA and the FBI tapped phones of American citizens simply on the suspicion of a neighbor that somebody was suspicious, (aka a "communist" during the red-baiting era in the USA, etc).

That was outlawed by the reforms of the 70s, but to suggest that the CIA has been crippled because of regulations just isn't true. True, it's a moribund, bureaucratic, inefficient, and perhaps not very well run agency, but an organization like that is very hard to reform. I mean, it isn't like they have a competitor or something like that. They don't even have to show efficiency, profitability, or even, apparently, effectiveness.

The truth is, the two agencies, (FBI and CIA, and also ATF and the military intelligence services) being the macho cowboys they can be, have often been in direct competition and often at cross purposes with each other, and the various major embarrassing failures of the FBI in the past few years might arise from that, too. There has been a tremendous lack of coordination, and any number of books written by former agents say just that.

Plus, there are the intelligence services of the Pentagon like the NSA, the ATF department, and other, decentralized intelligence operations of the US Government, that just aren't coordinated very well. It's more a matter of disorganization and cross-purposes than anything else and isn't due to lack of funding.

It's kind of in the same vein of why do you have an Air Force, plus another Air Force as part of the Navy, plus the Army Air Corps, plus the Airborne divisions of the Marines, plus, god knows what, all with separate "air forces?" In the private sector you would never get away with such inefficiency, but then there's politics and government, and such things happen. But again, the military is a very difficult institution to reform, although Rumsfeld says he is going to do it, but we will see about that.

One good thing about all this, is that the enormity of the terrorist events will likely result in a lot more cooperation between the FBI and the CIA and the other intelligence services.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 22:37:08 (EDT)
From: Deborah
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: So do I
Message:
I spoke with a professor who uncovered incredible information for the gov't regarding computer cyberstalking and crimes wrote a book about it. He is friends with Tom Clancy.

I also met Daniel Sheehan, the General Council of the Christic Institute, the guy who investigated the LaPenca Bombing of Nicauraguan Commadante Eden Pastora when he was getting ready to 'announce the CIA involvement' at an International Press Conference in 1980(?) Three journalists were killed (LaPenca didn't die, the bomb exploded before he got to the podium).

More covert crime is done by Ex-CIA agents. Many of these agents were amongst those mentioned by Clancy's referral to Sen. Frank Church to help gut the CIA's Directorate of Operations in the 1970s.
Not only that, but the same ex-CIA operators were involved in the debacle known as the 'Iran-Contra Case' which Daniel Sheehan discovered as a result of following the trail from the LaPenca bombing.

However, the orders also come from the top, Clancy is absolutely right. And who was President during the Iran-contra case? Reagan and VP was Bush. Bush was the one who gave the orders.

The web is difficult to untangle. A lot the American people don't know. But power is used and abused. Many members of the CIA who want to do their job right are also stopped in their tracks when their are in the path of covert business dealings.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 20:11:58 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: I think Tom Clancy's got it right
Message:
Terrorism is a crime under the civil law when committed by domestic terrorists; it can be an act of war when committed by foreigners. For domestic criminals we have the FBI and police. For acts of war we have our intelligence community and the military.

I heard Dick Gephart on CNN Townhall mumble with great conviction about 'bringing the perpertrators to justice' and wanted to ask: 'Just what justice would be appropriate? Should they be drawn and quartered, hung by their testacles, skinned alive?' We have absolutely no obligation to seek justice in the courts, and I can scarcely imagine a reason for doing so. If anyone has a better imagination than I, speak up. Apart from obligation or reason, I'm not sure there are legal grounds for a trial within the US. If we did that wouldn't it be violating the principle of national sovereignty? (Not that there's anything wrong with that.) Don't we try war criminals in an international tribunal? Or are we just making up the rules as we go along? And would the UN be willing to make an exception to it's rule against capital punishment?

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 17:43:37 (EDT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: That would be one of the best things
Message:
If the perpetrators were captured and tried in the international war crimes tribunal, like the trials of perpetrators of genocide in Yugoslavia, I think that would be the very best result. It would have the advantage of bringing everything out in the open, letting the whole world condem and punish the perpetrators.

I doubt there is any chance it will occur, however.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 20:30:16 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Dead or Alive
Message:
Joe:

I doubt there is any chance it will occur, however.

There's a chance. I don't know that I care all that much. Didn't we discuss this before? The problem is that his sympathizers wouldn't see the trial as legitimate, while those that despise him don't need a trial. It also presents them with a dilemma, should they happen to want to harbor a n'er-do-well of the same ilk. (I'm primarily talking about China.) If we take the issue of National Sovereignty head on though, I agree it would be the best 'result.' As far as retribution, I'd just as soon see him humiliated as killed. The death of such a perverse ego would be a beautiful thing to watch. But I see a danger in becoming bound to such a result. That's why I like the shrug-appeal of 'dead or alive.'

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 17:35:48 (EDT)
From: Gregg
Email: None
To: AJW
Subject: our foreign policy
Message:
Agreed, Anth, and thanks for posting punditry from all over, Joe.

America has saved many lives through foreign aid and timely military intervention in the last hundred years. America has also been responsible (with others) for hundreds of thousands of deaths in places like Nicaragua, Guatemala, Chile, Indonesia etc. (And, although this is less clearcut: the Mideast.) American people have been generally ignorant about much of this (kept in the dark or willfully ignorant; take your pick).

Americans should be able to point out our government's shortcomings - everybody else is, for God's sakes - plus, it's OUR government. However, it's going to be even harder than it has been to criticize our foreign policy. Such criticism will bring on the charge that we want to change foreign policy to appease the terrorists.

No, some of us have always criticized the cruelest actions of our government. And some of our stances have led us to being so hated, so it is certainly relevant.

I am no longer a hippie Gandhi-wannabe, and wouldn't mind if we killed a bunch of people who want to kill us. (And have begun killing us!) But let's keep talking about how things got this way.

By the way, some of the punditry has been better than I expected. The commentators realize (for the most part) the futility of simply bombing the fuck out of Afghanistan. There is nothing easy about trying to get to these terrorists. Unfortunately, there is nothing hard about them trying to get to us, especially living in this free and multicutural land.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 20:50:43 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Gregg
Subject: Sorry Gregg
Message:
I had no right to brand you as more incompetent than the rest of us. Lord knows I make lapses of judgment too. All I had to say was that I thought you were wrong. Guess things are getting to me... But, I believe we can do something to make the world safe, and I don't believe we've killed 'hundreds of thousands of innocent people' either. Jesus, Delta wouldn't even kill Pablo Escobar directly. They let the Columbians do it themselves.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 23:02:54 (EDT)
From: gregg
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: Sorry Gregg
Message:
Scott: the point I made about how easy it is for bad guys to kill Americans was that we are a free and open society; and our multicultural population makes it easy for anybody to blend in and do what they want to do. Our strength is also our weakness.

This is in contrast to cultures like Afghanistan...and most others...where a foreigner could not blithely live and work amongst 'the enemy' while plotting against 'the enemy.'

Imagine you or me moving to Afghanistan.

About your second point...did the U.S. government not order or sanction all the killings in Indonesia, Nicaragua, Guatemala or Chile? I think the record is pretty clear on this. You could argue that the Cold War absolved us of our guilt, but we did kill those people.

These deaths are not DIRECTLY relevant to the terrorist's attacks, of course. They don't care about the Contras.

Our works in the Mideast, though , have similar fingerprints. It's a long story, and debateable, but please don't deny that we've killed many people in the defense of our ideology. Not soldiers; but families.

Still, you and I are basically on the same page. I know that because I've loved your postings all these years. I hope Westerners don't get too polarized in the upcoming days and years. We have to work and love together, even more than we have.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 00:21:49 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: gregg
Subject: A few 'good' men.
Message:
Gregg:

the point I made about how easy it is for bad guys to kill Americans was that we are a free and open society; and our multicultural population makes it easy for anybody to blend in and do what they want to do. Our strength is also our weakness.

That's also true of them. They have money and a secret organization. Deplete either of those and they have a handful of air.

This is in contrast to cultures like Afghanistan...and most others...where a foreigner could not blithely live and work amongst 'the enemy' while plotting against 'the enemy.'

You mean all you'd need to do to infiltrate is to *look* like them? Convenient. We don't have any Americans that look like them? I dunno. There's an Afghan Restaurant on a corner near my house.

did the U.S. government not order or sanction all the killings in Indonesia, Nicaragua, Guatemala or Chile? I think the record is pretty clear on this.

What record? All the killings? We looked the other way. In some cases trained their officers, but I don't know of cases of American secret ops being responsible for actual assassination. There certainly wasn't any of that from the Ford administration on. Hundreds of thousands? Nonesense.

but please don't deny that we've killed many people in the defense of our ideology. Not soldiers; but families.

Well, I can't deny it because I've never even heard of it, unless you mean some of the wartime atrocities. Yeah, we did that. So did they. But what does that have to do with ANYTHING? Shitheads in war commit atrocities.

I am quite disturbed by what I perceive as a tendancy to want to 'justify' the WTC attack. I'm sure the people working this angle don't see it that way, being basically good folks, but I think they are deluding themselves. There's an enormous compulsion to find some logical *reason* for this, some provocation. Why? Because you just remove the provocation and problem solved. But don't enter that trap. I suggest to you that the reason is not rational, but non-rational. It's a lust for power at the top, even to the point of self destruction (ala Jim Jones, David Koresh, etc.) only in this case they have a far more susceptible population to work with. A population not steeped in freedom and doubt of authority, and without even much of a tradition of discourse and argumentation. It's a population steeped in superstition, and often without even an adequate understanding of its *own* religion, let alone that of others.

And I'll tell you something else. The predominant emotion of those radical Islamists left in the Bin Laden cells is jealousy. Not jealousy of the West, primarily, but jealousy of the suicide attackers. Those attackers are assured a place in the Garden of Earthly Delights, even though they weren't even competent to fly a plane solo in 'real life' after hundreds of hours. They're 'made men' according to the cult thinking, and all those young men are saying 'me next.' But that will fade. It's the spur of the moment. And if we can keep them from acting by pressuring their leaders and resources they'll eventually become disillusioned. As their earthly delights begin to look more barren they won't be so enamored of their leader. Not all of course, but the Achilles heel, remember. Just a few 'good' men, is all we need.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 20:43:18 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Gregg
Subject: You're incompetent.
Message:
There is nothing easy about trying to get to these terrorists. Unfortunately, there is nothing hard about them trying to get to us, especially living in this free and multicutural land.

Oh horseshit. If it were that easy why haven't they done it before? You make it sound like all they have to do is make a few calls. It's hard as it is (the FBI nearly caught up with these guys), and we can make it a lot tougher. Of course if you believe there are nefarious conspiracies around every corner then I guess the world *does* look pretty daunting. You remind me of this nerd we had in a startup company I worked for in the 80s named Andy. One fine day Andy come in to the office smiling about what he considered some really exciting news. 'They've discovered an airborne version of the AIDS virus,' he anounced. The President of the company looked at him incredulously and said 'Andy, if that's true we're all dead.' Andy also thought 'Zelig' was a real documentary. Bad judgment is bad judgment. It does as much harm to overemphasize the danger as to underemphasize it.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 17:55:15 (EDT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: No, he's not.
Message:
Oh horseshit. If it were that easy why haven't they done it before?

They bombed WTC in 1993, and came very close to blowing up the Holland Tunnel and the United Nations, as well as some other sites. The only reason they were unsuccessful is because somebody turned informant. The FBI paid him $1,000,000. Despite his supposed religious, cult-like, fanaticism this guy succombed to money and was pissed because bin Laden had underpaid him. They actually arrested the guys as they were making the bombs in a warehouse in Queens. We are very, very vulnerable.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 21:21:12 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: He's not. Just wrong.
Message:
They actually arrested the guys as they were making the bombs in a warehouse in Queens. We are very, very vulnerable.

But the point is that we don't have to be. What Gregg was saying is that there's an inevitability to it. I don't agree.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 21:40:28 (EDT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: You're kidding yourself
Message:
Oh horseshit. If it were that easy why haven't they done it before?

They've done it before, plenty of times, just never on this scale.

You make it sound like all they have to do is make a few calls.

You know, Scott, the terrorists who took down the WTC were 'sleepers' who lived in our country for years, free to come and go like you and me. What guarantee do you have that there aren't more such 'sleepers'? There could be hundreds, thousands even. They might be in the process of doing some horrendous deed, even now, that's going to make what happenned at the WTC look tame in comparison. How are you so sure they aren't? For all anybody knows, the WTC incident was just the first of a hundred that are going to happen that we can't do anything about simply because we don't know who these guys are, where they are or what they have planned.

Time to face reality, Scott. We have no idea how bad this shit could get. Don't mean to scare anybody, but there you have it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 11:24:46 (EDT)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: true
Message:
Hi Jerry,
One of the 'experts' interviewed on CNN or MSNBC said last night, there are 5,000 of these terrorists in dozens of countries.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 22:52:21 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: Re: true
Message:
One of the 'experts' interviewed on CNN or MSNBC said last night, there are 5,000 of these terrorists in dozens of countries.

And did he say we had no hope of controlling them?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 00:24:13 (EDT)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: true
Message:
I think it was the retired military guy (Barry McCaffrey), actually on CNBC, and no, he thinks we can put them out of business for good if we take the right action. Unfortunately, this could include war against the countries that are 'harboring' these guys. And also cost a lot of American lives.

Today, Rumsfeld and Powell emphasized there is more than one country harboring the terrorists.

I can't see any way they're even going to make a dent in terrorism without a major war. All the military 'experts' interviewed on TV think terrorism can be controlled with a combination of methods.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 00:34:04 (EDT)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: by the way...
Message:
I think the major fallout on the domestic front is going to a loss of freedom. I saw a report that congress is considering passing a law requiring citizens and non-citizens to carry personal identification. And the media is reporting there is new support for face-recognition software. Even Alan Dershowitz is agreeing there will be a loss of freedom and actually supports it. He offered his services to a potential prosecution against the terrorist network, instead of the defense (which he usually supports). It seems the WTC incidents have inspired the ire of even dyed-in-the-wool civil libertarians.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 23:54:18 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: And you are fantacizing
Message:
I agree with Ollie North about this. UBL shot his wad on this deal. Gave it his best shot. If he had had nukes or gas or biologicals he'd have used them in *this* action, rather than risk being uncovered in the aftermath. (We are detaining or seeking something like 100 individuals who might be connected with this.) Heck, I could be wrong. You're correct, we can't be certain that he doesn't have an echelon holed up in the mountains of northern California ready to to swoop down and nuke SF. But logic and information suggest he doesn't, sleepers or not.

And these aren't cheap operations. They require a lot of organization, money, and most importantly secrecy. That's the Achilles heel of terrorist organizations. Some flunky spills the beans and it's all over. Sure most are gleeful over this, but if just one person was appalled or having doubts the whole plot comes down. It's one thing to spin up fear, but being able to give a realistic assessment of the danger, and potential counter action, is worth it's weight in gold.

--Scott 'not kidding myself' Talkington

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 14:52:51 (EDT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: A Petition I received today ...
Message:
(I received this email petition from a friend today, and have passed it on already to a few friends. Perhaps it will help to soften the extreme attitude of those influenced by irresponsible media as outlined by Joe above. With love, and hope for a better future, Anna)

.

.

Please lend your support to this petition. Copy the body of the message and all the names below into the text of a new message. Add your name to the list and forward to as many people as you know.

If you are person 150 on the list, please forward the entire email to president@whitehouse.gov and then forward a new copy of the email to your friends with your name as number 1.

Thanks

Dear Mr. President,

Dear Mr. Vice President,

We the undersigned are writing to you at this moment to express our profound sadness at the events of September 11th, and to plead with you and those making the very difficult decisions which have to be made at this time for calm and a non-retaliatory stance.

We have all been deeply affected by this tragedy and our hearts and sympathies go to all those who died and to the loved ones they left behind. In the this event there is shock and sadness, and emotions
run very high. It is human to want to respond quickly, to find those responsible and ensure that this cannot happen again anywhere. However, retaliating with more violence only breeds more violence and ensures that future generations will live in fear with mistrust and suffering. We urge you and our fellow citizens to remember that vengeance offers no relief, that retaliation can never guarantee healing and that to meet violence with violence breeds more rage and more senseless deaths. Only love leads to peace with justice.

We believe it is our duty as a civilized nation to
rise above the desire for retaliation and to find a
way of dealing with this tragedy that is peaceful and good. We do not ask that we ignore that this happened or that those who are responsible not be held accountable. Rather we ask that we lead the world as an example of another way, a better way for all mankind. Further violence and the deaths of more innocent people will not resolve this situation or ensure the safety of future generations. This is
truly an opportunity to show the world that leadership
is earned, not imposed through violence and bullying
tactics. Please Mr. President, give us all hope for a
future where good will truly prevail over evil, and
where violence has no place. Our goal should be to
build bridges of love, respect and understanding among
all people. This is the only way to ensure that the
tragedy of September 11th and similar tragedies around
the world do not happen again.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 01:36:45 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Stonor
Subject: Re: A Petition I received today ...
Message:
However, retaliating with more violence only breeds more violence and ensures that future generations will live in fear with mistrust and suffering.

As opposed to what, proximate extinction? In case you haven't noticed the effect has been the opposite, so far. Things might change when the shooting starts, but not much.

We believe it is our duty as a civilized nation to
rise above the desire for retaliation and to find a
way of dealing with this tragedy that is peaceful and good. We do not ask that we ignore that this happened or that those who are responsible not be held accountable. Rather we ask that we lead the world as an example of another way, a better way for all mankind.

What better way? Read the short passage at the link above and see what you think. Yes there's a better way. Are you willing to do what it takes to get there? If not, get real.

I was wrong about Adler's book being out of print. It's in renewed printing, and available at Amazon.com. You won't think about war the same way again.

--Scott
[ Adler on War and Peace ]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 20:47:26 (EDT)
From: salam
Email: None
To: Stonor
Subject: Re: A Petition I received today ...
Message:
I got one the second day. Did not pass to others. Scam mail not my favorite.

I give the people in joe list the benefit of a doubt, they were emotional on the 12/13/14th, bet you they are wondering now how they voiced these words.

Cheers

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 22:19:10 (EDT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: salam
Subject: Thanks for the feedback
Message:
Hi Salam,

Thanks for the feedback, although not all of it is clear to me! ;) I had mixed feelings about it, but after I skimmed the 'pundits' post, I could feel too much bloodlust curdling out there. Fuck it - there's nothing to be done except speculate endlessly like some do about about the next heavyweight fight, or stick with gardening. Guess what I'll do? :)

It aint over 'til Mother Earth vomits us out of here.

(You're not drinking, are you?!!! If you are, have one for me too! Cheers to you too, anyways! ;)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 13:40:51 (EDT)
From: a0aji
Email: and_on_anand@yahoo.com
To: All
Subject: CERT reports increase in Port 80 scanning -OT-
Message:
This morning (September 18th) the CERT/CC started receiving reports of a massive increase in scanning directed at port 80 (HTTP). Reports indicate
that this scanning activity is attempting to exploit systems previously compromised by Code Red II and/or the sadmind/IIS worm.. [follow the link above for the rest of the story]

-a0aji

p.s. If you repeat this story, be sure to direct them the the CERT site (www.cert.org), as the site is know to be authorative in such matters.
[ CERT/CC Current Activity [Port 80] ]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 15:46:17 (EDT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: a0aji
Subject: The email virus.
Message:
Hi,

I wonder if this is the email virus I've been receiving from folk recently as an email attachment. It comes with a message that says something like,

'Hi,

Hope you're doing OK. Would you take a look at this and tell me what you think ? Thanks.'

The attachment is two or three hundred K. I think, if you download it, it gets into your email address book and sends itself to everyone in the book, without you knowing.

Anth, if you've read this message, it's already too late. Your pc will self-destruct in 2 seconds. Boom.

Ah...it was all a dream.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 19:12:24 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: AJW
Subject: TROJ_SIRCAM
Message:
I just dealt with this on a friend's computer. She had infected most of her friends. If you have opened the attachment you may need this the attached link.

There's also a new version of the Code Red worm that apparently attacks through emails and websites. Update your anti-virus software. Don't know much about this though. I just heard about it.

--Scott
[ TROJ_SIRCAM ]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 21:33:38 (EDT)
From: salam
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Ooops
Message:
sorry, got confused, can't remember who i posted too, sheesh.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 21:16:40 (EDT)
From: salam
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: u bloody using NT with IE5.5
Message:
I think you should set an example first, da?

you going to infect us all. Watch out everyone A0aji is a big nasty worm.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 00:29:03 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: salam
Subject: U talkin' to me?
Message:
I'm using Win2000 with IE5.5. I'm not running a server though, and am behind a hardware firewall anyway (a DI-804 D-Link Router). The address you see is not mine. And my Anti-Virus is Trend Micro, and up to date.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 22:00:45 (EDT)
From: a0aji
Email: None
To: salam
Subject: Re: u bloody using NT with IE5.5
Message:
I think you should set an example first, da?

you going to infect us all. Watch out everyone A0aji is a big nasty worm.


---

Good G0d, no, man. I run Linux, straight-up. Netscape 4.73 at the moment (I also use Mozilla 0.9.2).

I don't understand how Hotboards does its detection, but if
it identifies me as such, either Netscape is faking an
IE signature, or something else. I am also running all
this behind an OpenBSD firewall.

You won't often catch me running anything Redmond.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 19:42:15 (EDT)
From: a0aji
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Meet Nimda
Message:
New (More) Annoying Microsoft Worm Hits Net

Posted by CmdrTaco on Tuesday September 18, @10:10AM
from the what-a-pain-in-the-arse dept.
A new worm seems to be running rampant Unlike
Code Red, it attempts to hit boxes with many
different exploits (including what looks like an
attempt to exploit boxes still rooted by Code Red).
[ /. New (More) Annoying Microsoft Worm Hits Net ]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 20:17:14 (EDT)
From: a0aji
Email: None
To: a0aji
Subject: ::Nimda looks quite nasty::
Message:
This thing is a nasty piece of work. I don't run the
affected platform, so it's hard for me to judge by the
write-up on CERT what to think.

I'd recommend reading the CERT incident report carefully
(see above link).
[ CERT Advisory CA-2001-26 Nimda Worm ]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 21:28:13 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: a0aji
Subject: A Q about the email vector.
Message:
I'm not sure I understand the email vector. Supposedly you can launch the 'Readme.exe' file that ensconces the viruse by simply clicking on the subject heading. Does this mean that viewing it in the preview window launches it? You have to click (once) on the subject line just to delete it. So I don't get it. Or does this mean that you have to *doubleclick* the subject heading to actually open the email? I assume that's what is meant, but don't really know. Nasty worm though, huh? Wonder if it's connected to the WTC. If so, what else is it doing to all those compromised servers whose owners are too out-to-lunch to service their boxes? What is this think going to do in the future?

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 19:46:22 (EDT)
From: a0aji
Email: None
To: a0aji
Subject: RTOOS
Message:
New (More) Annoying Microsoft Worm Hits Net

Posted by CmdrTaco on Tuesday September 18, @10:10AM
from the what-a-pain-in-the-arse dept.
A new worm seems to be running rampant Unlike
Code Red, it attempts to hit boxes with many
different exploits (including what looks like an
attempt to exploit boxes still rooted by Code Red).

---

Update:

Web servers compromised by this worm apparently attach a
'readme.eml' to all web pages served... and due to a bug
in IE5, it will automatically execute the file! Yay
Internet Explorer!

RTTOS: Remove The Offending Operating System

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 14:53:30 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: a0aji
Subject: I just updated my virus protection [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 16:05:00 (EDT)
From: a0aji
Email: None
To: AJW
Subject: Re: The email virus.
Message:

Hi,

I wonder if this is the email virus I've been receiving from folk recently as an email attachment. It comes with a message that says something like,

'Hi,

Hope you're doing OK. Would you take a look at this and tell me what you think ? Thanks.'

The attachment is two or three hundred K. I think, if you download it, it gets into your email address book and sends itself to everyone in the book, without you knowing.

Anth, if you've read this message, it's already too late. Your pc will self-destruct in 2 seconds. Boom.

Ah...it was all a dream.


---

That's not quite right. You have to open the attachment.
I think that one is Win32/Sircam, which uses a different
delivery mechanism (it uses e-mail file attaches). I get
them confused, because they (it and Code Red) came out
around the same time.

Let's get it straight:

Code Red - this is a worm that attacks port 80 (http). Once
it compromises the server found on that port, it engages in
malicious activity, including scanning *other* computers'
port 80 (by selecting a random IP address to attack, and
scanning for port 80).

Win32/Sircam - this is an e-mail borne virus, in the form
of a file attach. It uses your address book to find new
victims to propagate to.

People who have access to the Apache web server logs on their
server will notice Code Red signatures; anyone with an e-mail
account will notice Win32/Sircam signatures.

I'm sure www.cert.org will describe the delivery mechanism
responsible for the recent Port 80 activity; it will possibly
be the Win32/Sircam virus -or- the Code Red II worm -- could
be either, I'd think, though I'm leaning toward a Code Red
variant, as my personal guess (so any Win32/Sircam activity
you see is unrelated, essentially).

Win32/Sircam keeps emerging as people who were on extended
vacation check their e-mail and start a new outbreak (among
other possibilities).

I may have some details wrong; an authorative and complete
write-up is available on www.cert.org.

-a0aji

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 15:58:33 (EDT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: AJW
Subject: if it's the new one today
Message:
I've been told:
Do_not open an e-mail message, with the attachment
'README.EXE'. This is a new worm being called w32.nimda.amm.
This message came with the subject line UO.
To remove this worm: Delete it.

Also I can't get to cert either. And SANS is extremely slow.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 14:00:40 (EDT)
From: salam
Email: None
To: a0aji
Subject: Re: CERT reports increase in Port 80 scanning -OT-
Message:
So what do you think it is?

Are we doing to have a massive DOS?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 15:51:58 (EDT)
From: a0aji
Email: None
To: salam
Subject: Re: CERT reports increase in Port 80 scanning -OT-
Message:
So what do you think it is?

Are we going to have a massive DOS?

---

My guess is this is the second wave, and was designed by the
designers of Code Red II. CERT will have the details soon
enough! They're probably using the same delivery mechanism
as Code Red II, with a different payload.

Amusingly, a Code Green worm has also emerged! It .. get
this .. seeks out hosts and *patches* the damage done by
Code Red!

The thing is .. Code Red II was identified and largely
disabled over the summer, so no, I think the new attack is
more of a predestined failure (not a pending success DOS
attack). OTOH if it were launched strategically (as part of
another attack on another front) it could be the leverage
they need, as in the short run, it will certainly add to net
traffic and will compromise a certain number of hosts that
didn't heed the warnings about Code Red II vulnerabilities.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 20:51:25 (EDT)
From: salam
Email: None
To: a0aji
Subject: IIS sucks
Message:
that is interesting, bet you the patch does not work, or a signature file has nor been detected.

I think with all what is happening at present, this looked too sussed.

[no I don't want to think about it]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 13:45:58 (EDT)
From: a0aji
Email: None
To: a0aji
Subject: :: that link is good ::
Message:
It's responding with a 403: Forbidden, but rest assured, it
is the correct link. I'm sure it is a temporary outage; follow the link (above) to go to the root directory of the CERT server (in case the more-specific link was deactivated on purpose).
[ www.cert.org ]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 13:47:33 (EDT)
From: a0aji
Email: None
To: a0aji
Subject: :: root directory also gone 403 Forbidden! :: [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 14:09:23 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: a0aji
Subject: Time for Zone Alarm
Message:
If you use something like Zone Alarm you will see that other computers are always trying to read yours through port 80. That program also tells who is snooping in your computer.

If it is law enforcement they are welcome. I have nothing on my computer which is illegal but criminals also look for credit card numbers and other stuff to steal your indentity.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 10:16:50 (EDT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: All
Subject: Yusuf Islam (f.k.a Cat Stevens) speaks out
Message:
Tuesday September 18, 2001
The Guardian

Faith and the future

Britain's first government-funded Islamic school closed temporarily last week amid a wave of anti-Muslim feeling. Its chairman of governors, Yusuf Islam - formerly the pop star Cat Stevens - explains why his adopted religion is the home of tolerance and not of fanaticism

The playground stands bare and empty. Wind blows across the space where little children until recently chased, skipped and played. The gates of the first government-funded Muslim school in the UK were closed last week for two reasons: respect and caution.

With reports linking the atrocities at the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon to Muslim groups, the parents and children of Islamia primary school in north London have become possible targets of hate and harassment. There was a similar wave of anti-Muslim feeling after the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma in 1995, even though it was later discovered to be the foul work of a son of Uncle Sam himself, a home-grown, disaffected American radical. But media speculation had already pointed the finger at Muslims and the Arab world, and that meant ordinary citizens of the US and other western countries became easy prey for anti-faith hooligans. Shame.

As chairman of the board that runs the small one-form primary school, I decided, in consultation with teachers and parents, to shut the school for a few days, until the dust settles and people can see more clearly. But, sadly, the latest horror to hit the US looks to have been caused by people of Middle Eastern origin, bearing Muslim names. Again, shame. This fuels more hatred for a religion and a people who have nothing to do with these events. This is why I felt it necessary to write and explain some basic facts about this noble way we call Islam, before, God forbid, another disaster occurs - next time probably aimed at Muslims.

I came to Islam in my late 20s, during my searching period as a wandering pop star. I found a religion that blended scientific reason with spiritual reality in a unifying faith far removed from the headlines of violence, destruction and terrorism. One of the first interesting things I learned in the Koran was that the name of the faith comes from the word salam - peace. Far from the kind of Turko-Arab-centric message I expected, the Koran presented a belief in the universal existence of God, one God for all. It does not discriminate against peoples; it says we may be different colours and from different tribes, but we are all human and 'the best of people are the most God-conscious'.

Today, as a Muslim, I have been shattered by the horror of recent events; the display of death and indiscriminate killing we've all witnessed has dented humanity's confidence in itself. Terror on this scale affects everybody on this small planet, and no one is free from the fallout. Yet we should remember that such violence is almost an everyday occurrence in some Muslim lands: it should not be exacerbated by revenge attacks on more innocent families and communities.

Along with most British Muslims, I feel it a duty to make clear that such orchestrated acts of incomprehensible carnage have nothing to do with the beliefs of most Muslims. The Koran specifically declares: 'If anyone murders an [innocent] person, it will be as if he has murdered the whole of humanity. And if anyone saves a person it will be as if he has saved the whole of humanity.' British Muslims feel nothing but sympathy for those families who lost loved ones. I know people who were directly involved in the tragedy; my own brother, who lives in New Jersey, was going to fly out from Newark last week. In that respect we all feel the same.

The Koran that our young pupils learn at Islamia is full of stories and lessons from the history of humanity as a whole. The Gospels and the Torah are referred to; Jesus and Abraham are mentioned. In fact there is more mention in the Koran of the prophet Moses than of any other. It acknowledges the coexistence of other faiths, and in doing so acknowledges that other cultures can live together in peace. 'There is no compulsion in religion,' it states, meaning that people should not be compelled to change their faith. Elsewhere it states, 'To you, your religion; to me mine.' Respect for religious values and justice is at the Koran's core. The Koranic history we teach provides ample examples of interreligious and international relationships; of how to live together.

But some extremists take elements of the sacred scriptures out of context. They act as individuals, and when they can't come together as part of a political structure or consultative process, you find these dissident factions creating their own rules, contrary to the spirit of the Koran - which demands that those recognised as being in charge of Muslims must consult together regarding society's affairs. There is a whole chapter in the Koran entitled Consultation; in Arabic the word for that is Shura.

Communal wellbeing is central to human life, so there is a concept in Islam called Istihsan, which means 'to look for the common good'. Even though the Koran may lay down a diktat, scholars are also supposed to consider the circumstances prevalent at the time. Sometimes that means choosing the lesser of two evils or even suspending legislation if necessary: for instance, a person who steals bread during a famine is not treated as a thief.

Once I wrote in a song, 'Where do the children play?' It is hoped that opening Islamia school's gates this week will herald a new day and a new dawn for children all over the world. Our sympathy and thoughts go out to the families of all those who lost their lives in this tragic act of violence, as well as all those injured. But life must go on. Children still need to play, and people need to live and learn more about their neighbours so that ignorance doesn't breed more blind fanaticism. Moderation is part of faith, so those who accuse Muslim schools of fostering fanaticism should learn a bit more about Islam.

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said, 'Ruined are those who insist on hardship in faith,' and, 'A believer remains within the scope of his religion as long as he doesn't kill another person illegally.' Such knowledge and words of guidance are desperately needed at this time, to separate fact from falsehood, and to recognise the Last Prophet's own definition of that which makes a person representative, or otherwise, of the faith he lived and the one we try to teach.

endquote

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 18:26:41 (EDT)
From: RichMandrake
Email: None
To: cq
Subject: Cat Stevens..Wonderful Poet and Soul
Message:
Thank you for the Quote From Cat Stevens...I have fond memories of sitting on the Porch of a Premie House in Columbus after Satsang..in 1974...listening to Cat Stevens...and sharing our youthful comraderie.

I recently bought the 'Tea for the Tillerman' CD. After all these years, It still stands the Test of Time for its Beauty, Simplicity and Poetry....Im heartened that the Man who created Beautiful Music..Now speaks out in support of the Humanness and Goodness he so powerfully expressed in his Music of Our Youth..

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 13:53:38 (EDT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: RichMandrake
Subject: Re: Cat Stevens..Wonderful Poet and Soul
Message:
...not forgetting 'Teaser and the Firecat', 'Catch Bull at Four', 'I'm gonna get me a gun' ...

... ooops. Better forget that last one.
;)

Yup, there was a passion to Cat Stevens' singing that cut through me like a flaming sword. Maybe I'll dig out the only remaining album of his I've got and play it again tonight. It'll be good to put stylus to vinyl again. (CDs can be so soul-less!)

I must admit I was saddened when I heard that he'd stopped making music. It seemed like Islam had gained a convert, but the world had lost a great singer and songwriter. I wonder why he stopped? - music is integral to culture, isn't it? (the Muslim call to prayer is sung, after all).

By the way, Rich, your style of writing often brings me a warm feeling - what with Capital letters for all the Important Words. It's a style that my late mother always used.

As did A A Milne (author of Winnie the Pooh).

All together now .... aahhhhhhh
:)

Best wishes,

Chris

(PS what's the Mandrake bit of your name all about?)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 19:12:06 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: RichMandrake
Subject: What about the Rushdie fatwa?
Message:
I'm all for acknowledging the current views of people like Cat Stevens or Arafat. But didn't the one publically condone the Rushdie fatwa and didn't the other release a bunch of Hamas terrorists from jail so they could do their thing? What about all that? Forget it?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 23:32:31 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: What about the Rushdie fatwa?
Message:
Jim:

I think Cat Stevens apologized for the rash statement he made about the Rushie affair. Said something about being a new convert, and not really understanding Islam very well.

Arafat's a politician. He'll do whatever is expedient.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 12:44:25 (EDT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: cq
Subject: Israel & Palestine ceasefire
Message:
I just heard the good news that Israel's Sharon has now agreed a ceasefire with Yassir Arafat after the speech Arafat gave today. That's good news.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 14:34:09 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: Today is Rosh Hashannah
Message:
It is the Jewish New Year. There will be a week of celebration followed by Yom Kippur on the 27th.

As long as Sharon is in power there is the risk that the ceasefire will end on the 28th.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 14:15:37 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: Re: Israel & Palestine ceasefire
Message:
David:

That's puting it mildly. Very very very good news. And definitely precisely the opposite of what Bin Laden wanted or thought he'd do. Cultists are dopes, with a crippled understanding of both God and Man. I'll bet he crapped his pants.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 13:34:49 (EDT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: Re: Israel & Palestine ceasefire
Message:
Just about the most positive thing he could have done - short of giving his blood to the Americans. Which he has done.

And this on the Jewish New Year too.

Let's just hope he can keep the likes of Sheik Hamed Bitawi appeased:

'Arafat's emerging shift in policy was likely to renew friction with the
Islamic militant groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Senior Muslim
clergymen linked to Hamas issued a religious edict Tuesday against
participation in the U.S. alliance, saying it would be blasphemous.

Siding with the United States against any Muslim ``will be one of the
biggest crimes, and treason against God, the Prophet Muhammad and the
believers,'' said Sheik Hamed Bitawi'

from http://dailynews.yahoo.com

Full report here

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 12:06:06 (EDT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: cq
Subject: and Richard Stallman
Message:

Thousands dead, millions deprived of civil liberties?

By Richard Stallman

The worst damage from many nerve injuries is secondary -- it happens in the hours after the initial trauma, as the body's reaction to the damage kills more nerve cells. Researchers are beginning to discover ways to prevent this secondary damage and reduce the eventual harm.

If we are not careful, the deadly attacks on New York and Washington will lead to far worse secondary damage, if the U.S. Congress adopts 'preventive measures' that take away the freedom that America stands for.

I'm not talking about searches at airports here. Searches of people or baggage for weapons, as long as they check only for weapons and keep no records about you if you have no weapons, are just an inconvenience; they do not endanger civil liberties. What I am worried about is massive surveillance of all aspects of life: of our phone calls, of our email, and of our physical movements.

These measures are likely to be recommended regardless of whether they would be effective for their stated purpose. An executive of a company developing face recognition software is said to be telling reporters that widespread deployment of face-recognizing computerized cameras would have prevented the attacks. The September 15 New York Times cites a congressman who is advocating this 'solution.' Given that the human face recognition performed by the check-in agents did not keep the hijackers out, there is no reason to think that computer face recognition would help. But that won't stop the agencies that have always wanted to do more surveillance from pushing this plan now, and many other plans like it. To stop them will require public opposition.

Even more ominously, a proposal to require government back doors in encryption software has already appeared.

Meanwhile, Congress hurried to pass a resolution giving Bush unlimited power to use military force in retaliation for the attacks. Retaliation may be justified, if the perpetrators can be identified and carefully targeted, but Congress has a duty to scrutinize specific measures as they are proposed. Handing the president carte blanche in a moment of anger is exactly the mistake that led the United States into the Vietnam War.

Please let your elected representatives, and your unelected president, know that you don't want your civil liberties to become the terrorists' next victim. Don't wait -- the bills are already being written.

Copyright 2001 Richard Stallman
Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are permitted in any medium provided the copyright notice and this notice are preserved.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 14:11:49 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: Who?
Message:
Once again, I haven't any idea what your program or that of your surrogates (whose info you keep posting) might be. What do you want specifically, and why? Or is that beneath you? You know, step A, step B, and the linkages between? Geez, the article doesn't even mention anything specific about what civil liberties are being threatened, how, or to what extent. A little flakey isn't it? What am I missing?

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 17:01:49 (EDT)
From: a0aji
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: Who?
Message:
Once again, I haven't any idea what your program or that of your surrogates (whose info you keep posting) might be. What do you want specifically, and why? Or is that beneath you? You know, step A, step B, and the linkages between? Geez, the article doesn't even mention anything specific about what civil liberties are being threatened, how, or to what extent. A little flakey isn't it? What am I missing?

--Scott

---


Richard M Stallman (RMS) is the author of The GNU Manifesto, which is the basis of the GNU Project.
The organization that furthers this project is the

Free Software Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111, USA

I believe the FSF was the first organization of its kind,
and I believe it produced the first (of several) OpenSource
type of computer software licenses: The GNU General Public License or GPL, as it is sometimes known as.


[ The GNU Manifesto ]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 17:50:11 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: a0aji
Subject: Oh (nt) [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 16:14:11 (EDT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: (sigh) [nt]
Message:
Check it out Scott. Try Google. Are you from this planet or what?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 17:56:50 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: (groan)
Message:
Apparently not. I'm from a planet where a legitimate citation on a topic has to be from someone familiar with that topic. So this guy says we're in danger of losing our civil liberties. Which ones? What legislation? What's the scenario? I repeat, what is it you're driving at? Is there a reason why you're so vague? Do you have something (anything) to say, or are you just trolling?

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 09:45:04 (EDT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: All
Subject: Islamabad's dilemma
Message:
The following briefing is from Stratfor - an intelligence gathering website described as 'a reliable barometer on what the USA thinks.” by Jane's Intelligence Review; and also by The San Francisco Chronicle as 'having no problem setting aside distracting moral issues and going to the heart of ...issues.')

Stratfor describes itself as '…the leading provider of global intelligence. Headquartered in Austin, Texas the company maintains an office in Washington, D.C., as well. Many of the founding employees are still associated with the company, including Dr. George Friedman, the Dickinson professor who went on to become a best-selling author. He still serves as founder and chairman.

The company’s more than 40 employees are composed of business professionals, intelligence professionals with backgrounds in the military, academia and leading think tanks. A variety of journalists also serve on the staff. The company’s president and chief executive officer is Don R. Kuykendall.'

Though I personally find the assertion, repeated throughout the article, that 'Afghanistan must be attacked ' to be (literally) offensive, the piece indicates an overview of the situation and a grasp of US attitudes that could well be a little closer to what Bush's advisers are suggesting.

It's worth a read. Especially regarding the assessment of Pakistan's options at the moment.

Quote:

Pakistan Key for Afghan Attack

2215 GMT, 010916

Summary
The United States is looking increasingly likely to strike Afghanistan for harboring Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden, the prime suspect in this week's terrorist attacks on the United States. But to do so, cooperation with Pakistan will be the key.

Analysis
The United States has, with reason, decided to hold Saudi militant Osama bin Laden responsible for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the United States. Since Afghanistan's ruling Taliban has provided bin Laden with at least refuge, it follows that the United States will hold the Afghani government responsible as well.
Washington clearly intends to punish the Taliban regime, although whether this will directly affect the ability of the attackers to keep operating is moot. Afghanistan must be attacked decisively for both psychological and deterrence reasons.

Psychologically, the U.S. government must assure its citizens it is acting decisively. And from the deterrence standpoint, it is useful to demonstrate the risks that conspirators against the United States face.

But it is not clear that Afghanistan is the only state deliberately providing aid and comfort to the attackers, nor is it clear there is a direct correlation any longer between Afghanistan and the terrorists' war-fighting capabilities. Nevertheless, Afghanistan must be attacked.

Direct attacks on bin Laden depend on accurate, real-time intelligence concerning his location and his infrastructure. Without such intelligence the attacks will fail and become counter-productive. They will appear to be acts of impotence, symbolic strikes designed to cover a lack of resources and commitment, a gesture rather than a strategy.

What is clearly needed is a sustained and devastating attack against Afghanistan, coupled with attempts at killing bin Laden. But here geography conspires against the United States. Afghanistan is a land-locked country and cannot be reached without the cooperation of a third party.

Among the countries whose cooperation is needed, Iran and Pakistan are the only two that can provide naval aviation with access to Afghanistan. One of them must open up their airspace for U.S. aircraft not only transiting the countries but also carrying out mid-air refueling. Whether the attacks come from carrier-based aircraft or long-range bombers from the United States or other bases around the world, they cannot reach Afghanistan without passing through one of these countries.

Iran's internal political dynamics make it an unlikely prospect as a U.S. ally. The thought of U.S. troops on Iranian soil remains unacceptable. Therefore, if the United States is going to throw its forces into a sustainable war, Pakistan is the key.

Washington wants a number of things from Islamabad. First, U.S. forces must have the right to fly over Pakistan to attack Afghanistan. Second, to make the air campaign effective, the United States must have the right to site aircraft and logistical support on Pakistani bases.

Third, Pakistan must permit the basing of American ground troops and allow a massive buildup of air power in the country. The U.S. troop force will probably consist primarily of special operations forces that will be used in strikes inside of Afghanistan, but it will also involve regular Army units whose job will be to protect the approaches to air bases from Afghan ground counterattack.

Fourth, the United States must have the use of Pakistani port and transportation facilities to expedite and support the buildup.

Finally, the United States is asking for intelligence cooperation from Pakistan, including sharing real-time information about targeting and about bin Laden's global capabilities.
The last is the most critical and difficult resource for Pakistan to provide. A U.S. force based in Pakistan will be the target of attacks by forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan. One needs only remember Beirut and Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia to see the vulnerabilities.

Unless Pakistani intelligence is working with the United States, a situation could easily develop in which the Pakistani government is simultaneously a strong ally and a facilitator of attacks on American forces. Pakistani intelligence knows a great deal about what the Taliban and bin Laden are thinking and doing. If agents are not prepared to transfer that knowledge, or worse, if they collaborate with Kabul, the U.S. position in Pakistan could rapidly become untenable.

Islamabad's dilemma is two-fold. First, it is unclear whether it wants or can even survive a massive American presence. Second, even if that were possible, it is not certain that it could impose enough controls on its own intelligence services for them to become part of the American security apparatus.
Because the willingness of Pakistani operatives to help the United States and the ability of the government to force them to do so are highly questionable, America could find its bases under intense attack at the very moment it launches its air campaign. The line of supply from Pakistan's ports to American forward bases will be highly vulnerable, and the Pakistani government's ability to guarantee security is highly dubious even with the best intentions.

The Pakistanis have been under tremendous pressure during the past few days from extremely high-level U.S. officials with long ties to the Pakistani government. The government has indicated a willingness to cooperate with America, but these commitments have contained ambiguities and are of somewhat doubtful value. They are, nevertheless, positive signs.

For example, according to the Pakistani News Service, Islamabad froze the bank accounts of 300 Afghani nationals yesterday, including senior government and military officials. PNS also reported that the government has withdrawn senior diplomatic officials from Kabul, including the ambassador.

According to the Pakistani Foreign Ministry, the action was taken to assure the safety of their officials in Afghanistan, indicating that Pakistan is planning to cooperate with the United States. And meanwhile there is a report out of Islamabad that a Pakistani delegation will be going to Kabul Sept. 17 in a last-ditch attempt to persuade the Taliban to extradite bin Laden. Pakistan is walking a tightrope.

The government has a tremendous opportunity to make itself useful to the United States, but its demands of Washington will be high. At the same time, the military-dominated government is trying to deal with a wave of pro-Islamic sentiment. If the government appears to be the willing puppet of the United States, it could be torn apart in internecine violence between three factions: those who want closer relations with the West for economic relations, those who feel deep affinity for the Taliban, bin Laden and Islamic militants, and those who are primarily opportunistic and looking for safe harbor.

There is one factor binding these factions: They hate India. Their fear that the United States might align with India against Pakistan could be a pressure point. But whether it would tie together the various ministries and intelligence and security services sufficiently to provide the United States with the kind of security it needs is doubtful.

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf is planning diplomatic moves before committing himself. Apart from the delegation to Afghanistan, he is going to visit both China and Saudi Arabia this week. His goal is to inform these two important allies of his intentions, whatever they are, and to enlist them in an effort to get Pakistan off the hook. He knows that the United States is very sensitive to Chinese actions in Asia, and he understands that the United States is dependent on Saudi Arabia for any strategy evolving toward Iraq.

In the meantime, the Times of India is reporting rumors that early contingents of U.S. troops have already landed in Islamabad. There may be some truth to the report, and it would fit into Pakistani strategy. Musharraf is going to cooperate with the United States as far as necessary while searching for a solution that does not require a massive U.S. presence or deep cooperation.

For the United States, this is the essential problem. It badly needs whole-hearted Pakistani cooperation, as anything less may pull U.S. troops into a dangerous trap. Pakistan is the key to the United States strategy against Afghanistan, but it is a very weak reed on which to hang that policy. U.S. pressure to strengthen Pakistan might succeed in winning over the senior leadership in the government, but it might at the same time undermine their ability to deliver what they are promising.

Endquote

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 17:06:14 (EDT)
From: a0aji
Email: None
To: cq
Subject: Interesting read. tnx [nt]
Message:



Copyright 1997 Paradise Web Enahancements


All Rights Reserved

Return to Index -:- Top of Index