Ex-Premie Forum 7 Archive
From: Sep 21, 2001 To: Sep 26, 2001 Page: 3 of: 5


Jim -:- This coffee rush is aimed at .... ANTH! -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 14:32:53 (EDT)
__ AJW -:- A cup of tea Jim. -:- Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 08:28:40 (EDT)
__ __ Jim -:- Well, seeing as you're resorting to threats ...... -:- Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 10:30:39 (EDT)
__ __ __ JohnT -:- 'they' -:- Tues, Sep 25, 2001 at 16:11:14 (EDT)
__ Scott T. -:- And here's my decaffinated version. . -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 14:44:10 (EDT)
__ __ AJW -:- Re: And here's my decaffinated version. . -:- Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 08:36:16 (EDT)
__ __ __ Jim -:- It's your own fault, Anth -:- Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 10:55:17 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ AJW -:- Jim, in your example... -:- Tues, Sep 25, 2001 at 10:04:40 (EDT)

Bobby -:- OT: Masters of War -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 13:38:25 (EDT)
__ Suedoula -:- Re: OT: Masters of War -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 18:47:09 (EDT)
__ __ Scott T. -:- Re: OT: Masters of War -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 19:42:09 (EDT)
__ __ __ Suedoula -:- ROFL!!!! -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 20:11:11 (EDT)
__ btdt -:- Re: OT: Masters of War -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 16:49:22 (EDT)
__ __ Robyn -:- Re: OT: Masters of War -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 21:16:07 (EDT)
__ __ __ btdt -:- Re: OT: Masters of War -:- Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 01:19:14 (EDT)
__ Jim -:- Do you EVER escape dumb self-righteousness? -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 14:39:44 (EDT)
__ __ Bobby -:- Re: Do you EVER escape dumb self-righteousness? -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 14:44:41 (EDT)
__ __ __ Jim -:- No! -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 15:07:07 (EDT)
__ silvia -:- Amen nt -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 14:10:53 (EDT)
__ Scott T. -:- Re: OT: Masters of War -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 14:03:47 (EDT)
__ __ Bobby -:- Re: OT: Masters of War -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 14:42:20 (EDT)
__ __ __ Scott T. -:- Re: OT: Masters of War -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 15:24:16 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Jerry -:- Re: OT: Masters of War -:- Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 06:50:27 (EDT)
__ __ __ Jim -:- Fair enough -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 14:44:42 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Re: Fair enough -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 15:29:22 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Francesca -:- Bush did not ask for them ... -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 15:24:25 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Re: Bush did not ask for them ... -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 15:39:02 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Francesca -:- Good insights, Scott -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 20:02:55 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Your post is problematic -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 15:28:23 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Francesca -:- Or you can say you don't agree with me -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 15:32:14 (EDT)

salsa -:- Does anyone knows what this is?? -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 11:55:49 (EDT)
__ btdt -:- correction -:- Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 01:13:55 (EDT)
__ __ silvia -:- No, they haven't -:- Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 02:28:33 (EDT)
__ btdt -:- Re: Does anyone knows what this is? -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 21:49:40 (EDT)
__ __ make that..... -:- 'freaky' -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 21:50:40 (EDT)
__ __ __ Zelda -:- Re:dammit -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 22:11:24 (EDT)
__ Suedoula -:- Re: Does anyone ? -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 18:26:40 (EDT)
__ __ silvia -:- Smoke, -:- Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 02:31:08 (EDT)

Suedoula -:- Did anyone see this? -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 09:56:58 (EDT)

Mr. Dooley -:- The continuing ''Evolution'' of Premies -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 08:46:27 (EDT)
__ Timmi -:- Re: The continuing ''Evolution'' of Premies -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 16:50:15 (EDT)
__ __ Mr. Dooley -:- Re: The continuing ''Evolution'' of Premies -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 16:56:06 (EDT)
__ __ __ Pat:C) -:- Re: The continuing ''Evolution'' of Premies -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 17:06:11 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Disculta -:- Yes, but... -:- Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 01:38:02 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Pat:C) -:- Yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder -:- Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 04:38:14 (EDT)

AJW -:- US Threatened Afghan War Weeks Before Attack. -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 06:54:42 (EDT)
__ Jim -:- What happened to Anth the Clear-Headed? -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 14:42:30 (EDT)
__ __ AJW -:- Re: What happened to Anth the Clear-Headed? -:- Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 06:54:32 (EDT)
__ Katie from the beyond -:- My opinion - from below -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 13:16:24 (EDT)
__ Sir Dave -:- Re: US Threatened Afghan War Weeks Before Attack. -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 07:29:33 (EDT)

Sir Dave }( -:- Your ''Disinformation'' John T -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 06:48:27 (EDT)
__ janet -:- same issue, other article -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 08:03:01 (EDT)
__ __ Sir Dave -:- Re: same issue, other article -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 09:34:48 (EDT)
__ __ __ Scott T. -:- Re: same issue, other article -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 11:27:58 (EDT)
__ Sir Dave -:- and here's the front page -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 06:53:55 (EDT)
__ __ JohnT -:- Yellow Journalism, Crusader -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 09:52:02 (EDT)
__ __ __ Sir Dave -:- Yawn -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 16:19:36 (EDT)

AJW -:- Coke and Pepsi fund Bin Laden? -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 06:31:18 (EDT)
__ Jim -:- Don't be a jerk -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 14:48:28 (EDT)
__ __ AJW -:- Ashamed? -:- Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 06:59:56 (EDT)
__ __ __ Jim -:- No, hardly -:- Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 11:14:30 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ AJW -:- Earth calling Jim. -:- Tues, Sep 25, 2001 at 09:55:12 (EDT)
__ urban legend alert -:- a link for anth -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 10:32:53 (EDT)
__ janet -:- the bin Laden's family fortune -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 08:10:45 (EDT)
__ __ salam -:- and if you read more -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 08:53:47 (EDT)
__ __ Mel Bourne -:- Re: the bin Laden's family fortune -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 08:48:18 (EDT)
__ __ __ janet -:- Re: the bin Laden's family fortune -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 09:07:51 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ AJW -:- Bin Laden's mindset. -:- Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 07:06:33 (EDT)
__ __ __ salam -:- Re: the bin Laden's family fortune -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 08:56:41 (EDT)
__ Mel Bourne -:- Coke (but not Pepsi) fund CIA....den? -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 06:48:28 (EDT)
__ __ Mel Bourne -:- Re: Coke (but not Pepsi) fund CIA...Link.den? -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 06:51:37 (EDT)
__ __ __ AJW -:- Marlborough and Bud. -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 06:57:54 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ btdt -:- Re: Marlborough and Bud. -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 17:41:25 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Mel Bourne -:- Cigarette smuggling -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 08:05:58 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- Re: Cigarette smuggling -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 11:16:31 (EDT)

silvia -:- Just coincidence? -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 01:57:38 (EDT)
__ JohnT -:- Just coincidence? Yes. -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 03:08:35 (EDT)
__ JHB -:- Re: Just coincidence? -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 02:47:33 (EDT)
__ __ silvia -:- I found K's post. Thanks NT -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 11:19:48 (EDT)
__ __ silvia -:- no, I haven't -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 10:33:40 (EDT)

Scott T. -:- Taking back the roads -:- Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 21:40:52 (EDT)
__ Dermot -:- Re: Taking back the roads -:- Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 22:03:10 (EDT)
__ __ janet -:- global warming as usual -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 08:15:59 (EDT)
__ __ __ Scott T. -:- Re: global warming as usual -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 10:04:07 (EDT)
__ __ Scott T. -:- Re: Taking back the roads -:- Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 22:14:46 (EDT)
__ __ __ Dermot -:- Re: Taking back the roads -:- Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 22:31:40 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Pat Moynihan -:- Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 23:03:22 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- Re: Pat Moynihan -:- Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 23:16:10 (EDT)

Mel Bourne -:- Saudis withdraw US support -:- Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 19:55:40 (EDT)
__ Scott T. -:- Jesus you're a horse's ass. -:- Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 20:33:17 (EDT)
__ __ JohnT -:- Wind ups -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 03:24:45 (EDT)
__ __ __ Scott T. -:- I'm sure we'll all get along. -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 11:04:00 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ JohnT -:- Not in a wider war, we won't -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 11:34:34 (EDT)
__ __ Mel Bourne -:- Re: Jesus you're a horse's ass. -:- Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 23:31:01 (EDT)
__ __ __ Pat:C) -:- You're talking funny, Mellie -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 04:11:00 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Mel Bourne -:- Re: You're talking funny, Mellie -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 05:44:17 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Pat:C) -:- Well, gee thanks, Mellie -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 14:42:03 (EDT)
__ Katie -:- Mel - another question -:- Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 19:59:29 (EDT)
__ __ salam -:- Re: Mel - another question -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 10:02:45 (EDT)
__ __ __ Katie from the beyond -:- Thanks, Salam -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 12:52:09 (EDT)
__ __ Mel Bourne -:- Katie - Saudi womens issues links... -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 05:29:47 (EDT)
__ __ JohnT -:- Good point Katie -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 04:01:24 (EDT)
__ __ __ Katie from the beyond -:- JohnT - women's issues -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 13:04:50 (EDT)
__ __ Mel Bourne -:- Re: Mel - another question -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 00:12:58 (EDT)
__ __ __ Katie from the beyond -:- Appreciate the links, Mel -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 12:47:35 (EDT)
__ __ __ Scott T. -:- I apologize -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 03:53:44 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Mel Bourne -:- Apology accepted .... another Saudi link, Reuter -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 04:56:31 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Saudis wiggle. -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 09:59:24 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- Turkey opens airspace to US -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 10:41:40 (EDT)
__ __ Scott T. -:- If you don't mind... -:- Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 20:49:12 (EDT)
__ __ __ Katie from the beyond -:- Re: If you don't mind... -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 12:56:11 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Re: If you don't mind... -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 13:13:05 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Katie from the beyond -:- Forgiven, Scott - more of a 'singe' anyway [nt] -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 13:17:45 (EDT)
__ __ __ Dermot -:- and YOU know Scott ? hahaha [nt] -:- Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 21:23:40 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- I know where to look. -:- Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 21:44:22 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- Re: I know where to look. -:- Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 22:07:47 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Re: I know where to look. -:- Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 22:26:24 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- The saudis -:- Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 22:44:54 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Re: The saudis -:- Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 23:19:16 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- Re: The saudis -:- Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 23:47:41 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Re: The saudis -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 00:01:08 (EDT)
__ __ Jim -:- You're hilarious, Katie -:- Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 20:36:01 (EDT)
__ __ __ Katie -:- Bye, Jim [nt] -:- Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 23:35:30 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Dermot -:- Hey, don't go Katie [nt] -:- Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 23:50:29 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Katie from the beyond -:- Thanks, Dermot, but... -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 13:06:34 (EDT)
__ Mel Bourne -:- Sorry, 1st & last sentences mine...nt -:- Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 19:58:57 (EDT)

Jim -:- How can they say Islam is a peaceful religion? -:- Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 17:04:24 (EDT)
__ Jim -:- Where's the debate? IS there even one? -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 23:00:20 (EDT)
__ Salam -:- Re: How can they say -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 03:19:43 (EDT)
__ __ Jim -:- Wrong argument, Salam -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 14:59:18 (EDT)
__ Sir Dave -:- London atrocity thwarted -:- Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 20:52:30 (EDT)
__ __ JohnT -:- -- disinformation continues -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 05:22:52 (EDT)
__ __ __ Scott T. -:- Re: -- disinformation continues -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 11:33:18 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ JohnT -:- Re: -- disinformation continues -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 11:42:38 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Re: -- disinformation continues -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 12:24:07 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- Cult think -:- Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 06:55:29 (EDT)
__ __ __ Scott T. -:- Oops double post. -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 11:25:12 (EDT)
__ __ __ Sir Dave -:- Not disinformation -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 06:26:59 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ JohnT -:- Joke! [nt] -:- Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 09:55:44 (EDT)
__ __ Scott T. -:- glad you dodged that bullet -:- Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 21:13:49 (EDT)
__ Scott T. -:- Why do they say Islam is a peaceful religion? -:- Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 19:05:45 (EDT)
__ a guy who doesn't want his name on this -:- Jim, you shouldn't mess with these people -:- Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 18:13:34 (EDT)
__ Jim -:- Question for Mickey -:- Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 17:28:17 (EDT)
__ __ Mickey the Pharisee -:- Re: Question for Mickey -:- Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 17:49:09 (EDT)
__ __ __ Dermot -:- Yeah but Mickey -:- Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 18:12:23 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Mickey the Pharisee -:- Yeah Dermot -:- Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 18:45:31 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jorge -:- Re: Yeah Dermot -:- Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 19:55:13 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- Re: Yeah Dermot -:- Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 19:13:58 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Then aren't they simply inherently dangerous? -:- Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 19:01:46 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Re: Then aren't they simply inherently dangerous? -:- Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 21:50:46 (EDT)


Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 14:32:53 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: All
Subject: This coffee rush is aimed at .... ANTH!
Message:
I had to go after someone, Anth, so it might as well be you. :)

No, seriously, in a thread about to die on the vine, you wrote:

There are a couple of points here.

Killing innocent human beings is not acceptable. Killing one innocent human being is not acceptable. Human life is the most valuable thing there is.

Dropping bombs on civlians, which has been part of our military strategy since WW2, is genocide. People who do that are war criminals.

So, how many innocent casualties are acceptable to you Jim? What's the ratio, one to one?

And if everyone thought the same way I do, there wouldn't have been any attack in the first place. (I don't get where the handcuffs come into it.)

Anth, All We Are Saying...

Anth, we've given peace a chance; it didn't work. Anyway, I think you're being simplistic here and that's bad because it allows you to distinguish yourself morally but unfairly from your fellow man. I want to save you from that fate.

Anth, what if the U.S. authorities learned beyond question that one of the hijacked planes was bound for the WTC and had a chance to shoot it down beforehand? No time evacuate the building, just enough to blow up the plane over the water. According to your guideline above, I take it you would not have authorized shooting the plane down if you were in charge on account of all the innocent people aboard. Of course, many, many more innocent people would die as a result. You stand by this?

Also, while we're at it, I just have to follow up on this. I questioned who you meant by 'they' as in 'they already knew'. Your answer today:

I wasn't suggesting anybody other than the terrorists and their backers knew in advance. You are putting stuff into what I wrote that wasn't intended.

troubles me greatly. In other words, it doesn't make sense. Of course the terrorists and their backers knew! Like, DUH. I'm sorry, but that subject line coupled with your post:

Hi Mel,

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

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

suggests that you were talking about someone other than the terrorists and friends. I've never questioned your honesty before, Anth, and it pains me to do so, coffee or no coffee. However, I think you're dissembling here. Please, if I'm wrong, don't get uncharacteristically defensive. Rather, show me, give me some reason to believe you. On the other hand, if I'm right, admit it ....

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 08:28:40 (EDT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: A cup of tea Jim.
Message:
Okay Jim,

Here goes. First, your first hypothetical example. Of course I'd shoot the fucking plane down. Where I'm coming from, is trying to find a place where these things don't happen in the first place.

Now, your second bit, which I don't think is such a big deal Jim.

I really, honestly, didn't think that there was a plot by anyone other than the terrorists 'friends' or 'backers' to make money out of the tragedy.

However, here's the rub. Here's what pisses me off, and probably prompted the sentiment in my post which I think you misinterpreted. (This could be my own fault for not expressing myself clearly. But I also get the sense people read things into my posts that aren't there at the moment. I satisfy their image of a leftie, romantic, fuzzy-brained, European, intellectual, pampered idealist, unwittingly supporting the terrorists, and somehow sullying the memory of the dead.)

Anyway Jim, what I'm getting at here is that this magnificent capitalist, freedom loving system that we all live in seems to be protecting Bin Laden and his pals.

This is what pisses me off. Why haven't the beneficiaries of these financial deals, making millions out of the airlines and insurance companies, been named? Why isn't the hunt for them being reported?

It looks to me like they are being protected by European governments, via their banking laws. What's the problem here? Where's the will to get to the bottom of it?

I was criticising the Western financial institutions for protecting the terrorists Jim. Not an unusual target for a loony leftie such as myself, when you think about it.

Jim, can we put this one to bed please? I'm okay with the handcuff, can't kill innocents debate, but this one seems to be disappearing up it's own arse.

For the record:

I try not to waste my lies. They are precious weapons which I only use in absolute emergency to prevent real suffering.

I don't support the terrorists.

I do think the banks are protecting them. (Prove me wrong.)

Are we there yet?

Anth, who wouldn't hurt a fly, unless it was annoying him.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 10:30:39 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: AJW
Subject: Well, seeing as you're resorting to threats ......
Message:
Anth, who wouldn't hurt a fly, unless it was annoying him.

Don't shoot! Don't shoot!

Sure, Anth, we can retire it. It does appear as if your 'they' shifts a bit from time to time but whatever .... Let's go argue in some other thread.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 25, 2001 at 16:11:14 (EDT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: 'they'
Message:
The 'they' could have been easily taken the way you feared Anth meant it, but it's now clear he meant, well, you know, 'they', as in they say we're going to have a hot summer, you know. I certainly hope so.

The serious point (for me) is that 'they' are or will be asking us to give up some civil rights but it seems likely that 'they' will want to keep 'their' finacial secrecy which enabled some wealthy types who back al Qaeda or work with it to profit from the murders.

That various measures are proposed which affect ordinary people (ID cards; attacks on other sorts of privacy) leaves me with an uneasy feeling that 'they' have interests in common while 'we' pay the price.

But perhaps it really is the end of banking secrecy as we know it. We'll see. I think it far more likely that ordinary people will have to adjust to a less liberal climate than will the very wealthy, but we'll see.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 14:44:10 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: And here's my decaffinated version. .
Message:
Anth:
There are a couple of points here.

Killing innocent human beings is not acceptable. Killing one innocent human being is not acceptable. Human life is the most valuable thing there is.

Dropping bombs on civlians, which has been part of our military strategy since WW2, is genocide. People who do that are war criminals.

So, how many innocent casualties are acceptable to you Jim? What's the ratio, one to one?

And if everyone thought the same way I do, there wouldn't have been any attack in the first place. (I don't get where the handcuffs come into it.)

Well, if almost all of us thought like you then sooner or later there'd be no one left but the Bin Laden cult. (He'd obviously kill the hostage last.) So what's your plan for converting them before that happens, and how many of the folks who think like you are you willing to sacrifice before deciding he's incorrigible? Fair question?

[Hint: Anyone who murders 7000 people at a pop is pretty much on the outs in my book. That's even beyond the 'seventy times seven' advised in the Bible.]

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 08:36:16 (EDT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: And here's my decaffinated version. .
Message:
Anth:
There are a couple of points here.

Killing innocent human beings is not acceptable. Killing one innocent human being is not acceptable. Human life is the most valuable thing there is.

Dropping bombs on civlians, which has been part of our military strategy since WW2, is genocide. People who do that are war criminals.

So, how many innocent casualties are acceptable to you Jim? What's the ratio, one to one?

And if everyone thought the same way I do, there wouldn't have been any attack in the first place. (I don't get where the handcuffs come into it.)

Well, if almost all of us thought like you then sooner or later there'd be no one left but the Bin Laden cult. (He'd obviously kill the hostage last.) So what's your plan for converting them before that happens, and how many of the folks who think like you are you willing to sacrifice before deciding he's incorrigible? Fair question?

[Hint: Anyone who murders 7000 people at a pop is pretty much on the outs in my book. That's even beyond the 'seventy times seven' advised in the Bible.]

--Scott


---

Hi Scott,

I'll stick my neck out here, and say, already the massive majority of people in the world agree with my statement, 'It is wrong to kill innocent civilians.' I think that's a pretty normal ideal to hold on to, in our long journey away from being animals.

Do you really believe Bin Laden wants to kill everyone on Earth Scott?

Far more people were 'murdered at a pop' in Dresden. Was that pretty much an out in your book too? And what about Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

And while we're quoting the Bible, doesn't it say, 'Thou shalt not kill.'

Anth the born again Christian...ah...it's gone again.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 10:55:17 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: AJW
Subject: It's your own fault, Anth
Message:
Anth:
There are a couple of points here.

Killing innocent human beings is not acceptable. Killing one innocent human being is not acceptable. Human life is the most valuable thing there is.

Dropping bombs on civlians, which has been part of our military strategy since WW2, is genocide. People who do that are war criminals.

So, how many innocent casualties are acceptable to you Jim? What's the ratio, one to one?

And if everyone thought the same way I do, there wouldn't have been any attack in the first place. (I don't get where the handcuffs come into it.)

Well, if almost all of us thought like you then sooner or later there'd be no one left but the Bin Laden cult. (He'd obviously kill the hostage last.) So what's your plan for converting them before that happens, and how many of the folks who think like you are you willing to sacrifice before deciding he's incorrigible? Fair question?

[Hint: Anyone who murders 7000 people at a pop is pretty much on the outs in my book. That's even beyond the 'seventy times seven' advised in the Bible.]

--Scott


---

Hi Scott,

I'll stick my neck out here, and say, already the massive majority of people in the world agree with my statement, 'It is wrong to kill innocent civilians.' I think that's a pretty normal ideal to hold on to, in our long journey away from being animals.

Do you really believe Bin Laden wants to kill everyone on Earth Scott?

Far more people were 'murdered at a pop' in Dresden. Was that pretty much an out in your book too? And what about Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

And while we're quoting the Bible, doesn't it say, 'Thou shalt not kill.'

Anth the born again Christian...ah...it's gone again.


---

Anth,

Why do you make such sweeping statements in the first place? I asked you about the dilemna of shooting down a plane-full of innocent hijacking victims to save a much larger number of innocent people only because you'd made such a point of implying that you wouldn't agree:

Killing innocent human beings is not acceptable. Killing one innocent human being is not acceptable. Human life is the most valuable thing there is.

But then you reply:

Of course I'd shoot the fucking plane down. Where I'm coming from, is trying to find a place where these things don't happen in the first place.

Anth, maybe we'd all like to find a place where these things don't happen in the first place. Why would you ever think otherwise? The point, though, is that you revert back to these broad generalities that even you know don't work in tough situations. This, Anth, is a tough situation.

Everyone's going to say that -- in the abstract -- killing innocent people is wrong. This isn't the abstract, though.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 25, 2001 at 10:04:40 (EDT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Jim, in your example...
Message:
Jim,

In your example above, where you said it was certain the plane would hit the tower unless it was shot down, the people in the plane were already under sentence of imminent death. So for me to say it's OK to shoot them down, isn't really a good example of me justifying killing innocent civilians.

We could argue that they would be dead a few seconds earlier, but I don't think this is a strong argument.

Anth taking a chainsaw to a hair.

See you upstairs Jim.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 13:38:25 (EDT)
From: Bobby
Email: None
To: All
Subject: OT: Masters of War
Message:
Here's the best article I've seen yet on the current crisis. Just arrived in my mailbox.
...

Masters of War
by Ralph Melcher

Come you masters of war
You that build all the guns
You that build the death planes
You that build the big bombs
You that hide behind walls
You that hide behind desks
I just want you to know
I can see through your masks

You that never done nothin'
But build to destroy
You play with my world
Like it's your little toy
You put a gun in my hand
And you hide from my eyes
And you turn and run farther
When the fast bullets fly

Like Judas of old
You lie and deceive
A world war can be won
You want me to believe
But I see through your eyes
And I see through your brain
Like I see through the water
That runs down my drain

You fasten the triggers
For the others to fire
Then you set back and watch
When the death count gets higher
You hide in your mansion
As young people's blood
Flows out of their bodies
And is buried in the mud

You've thrown the worst fear
That can ever be hurled
Fear to bring children
Into the world
For threatening my baby
Unborn and unnamed
You ain't worth the blood
That runs in your veins
How much do I know
To talk out of turn
You might say that I'm young
You might say I'm unlearned
But there's one thing I know
Though I'm younger than you
Even Jesus would never
Forgive what you do

Let me ask you one question
Is your money that good
Will it buy you forgiveness
Do you think that it could
I think you will find
When your death takes its toll
All the money you made
Will never buy back your soul

And I hope that you die
And your death'll come soon
I will follow your casket
In the pale afternoon
And I'll watch while you're lowered
Down to your deathbed
And I'll stand o'er your grave
'Til I'm sure that you're dead

Bob Dylan
Masters of War

These words were sung when the great powers held the threat of nuclear annihilation over everyone. It was a time when our nation was at war with another country of the poor. We tried to bomb and terrorize that country into submission because they stood in the way of our illusions and lost much of our youth and most of our innocence in that struggle. It has taken a whole generation to forget the lessons we should have learned there. Again we may be willing to condemn our children to repeat those lessons.

Those who have taken charge tell us that we must stand united against the common foe. We are told that when the greatest nation on earth is threatened by evil, both inside and outside of our borders, we must set aside all other priorities and gird ourselves for battle. Before we let go of all higher aims however, we should take at least a moment to consider the consequences.

Why should I trust these leaders? I didn't trust them before the World Trade Center was bombed. Did this horrendous act somehow purify them of their sins? These are people who got where they are by appealing to the lowest common denominator ofwhat they call patriotism ? American greed and American fear. To them the essence of freedom means the unbounded freedom for they and their associates to gather as much power as possible. They are like the Aztec priests who declared war on their neighbors so that they could have victims for their sacrifices.

At this moment there are thousands of frightened people huddled against the borders of Pakistan, waiting in fear for U.S. bombs and missiles to take revenge for all those lost in New York. At this moment the Taliban are telling our military to 'bring it on!' There is rumor that the administration is divided into two factions; those who want to make war on the entire middle east and those who believe we should wait to act until we have a quorum in our pocket. At this moment the world is poised on the edges of holocaust. Who can say where the collateral damage will end?

This administration is from Texas. Have you ever been to Texas? They execute people at an alarming rate in Texas. This president has personally shown willingness to exact fatal retribution on the flimsiest of evidence.

The most eloquent statement I heard this past week was from a woman whose brother was killed in the World Trade Center, who told us that the event is a mirror, and we must look hard into the mirror and understand what we see before exporting our wrath to others. When the nation is busy beating drums of war it becomes even more difficult to take stock of our own shadows.

You may say to me that I should be grateful that only in America can I speak with such freedom. True, it's fortunate that I am not a wage slave in India or Mexico or Saudi Arabia, or another country where our corporate partners hold absolute sway. True, we have managed to export most of our misery to foreign lands. I wonder, now that we are at war, how long this remaining freedom will last. This past week Clear Channel Communications, the owner of 1,107 radio stations across the country banned the John Lennon song, 'Imagine' from all of its playlists. Apparently it is no longer patriotic to imagine anything but war.

I'm hearing dozens of voices raised in anger, telling us why THIS war is a good and righteous one. We've been attacked and those attacks are horrible. We are, after all, the beacon of the world's freedoms. We are also the source of the world's television diet, and we constantly flaunt our wealth and superficiality in the faces of those we or our business partners oppress. As the worlds only superpower we have inherited the responsibility to enforce the Imperial rule of law and order. It isn't our fault that we've inherited the oppressions of these ages of empire. Do you think, however, that this may be why a growing part of the world hates us? The world has watched as we've sacrificed what was left of our democracy on the altars of commerce. They see the American dream of freedom and the rights of man given to the pirates, the colonials and the oil barons. They see a nation growing fat and arrogant on the resources of the world, increasingly less willing to take responsibility for the world's well being. Not if it will interfere with the holy pursuit of 'the American lifestyle.'

The real reasons for this war can be found in the Gross National Product. Our leaders want us to fight for our freedoms even as they take them away (only the young and the poor will die). They want us to spend faster, consume faster, investmore of our future so that the wheels of commerce can begin turning briskly again. We hear everyday in the hollow speeches of our leaders that we must go on as if nothing has changed in the face of the terrorist threat, as if it were only a nuisance that can be eradicated so that we can return to business as usual. Our enemies with their outdated tribalisms and obsolete religions have disturbed the blanket of commerce, and we will make them pay.

Thankfully I've heard voices raised in caution, and a few in protest. Very few of those around me are willing to follow their leaders without question. This gives me some hope. Still, there is a fear in the land, born as much out of fear to go against the tides of war as it is out of the acts of our enemies. Our representatives in congress have been caught in the fever and appear willing to make all of our national priorities subservient to those of the military. The climate has changed, as it must do in war, and we have all entered a twilit zone of transition in which we will all be transformed for better or for worse. The war we need to make is not on the world but on what we may become.

Who are the masters of war?
I don't buy their rap.
It doesn't matter what flag it comes wrapped in.

I've witnessed atrocities for years.
I've listened to the voices and the anger, the sadness and despair, the honoring and the grieving.
I've watched a mayor who passionately cares for his city.
I've seen the tragedy and spoken to the walking wounded.
I've listened to the miraculous stories of survivors.
I need to hear them, and be reminded again and again that we are human beings.

There are voices of compassion and vengeance, anger and honesty, violence and hatred.
There is the best and the worst in us, heroes and cowards, war and peace.
Some want life and some want to kill.

The first week I spent in silence, writing what I thought people wanted or needed to hear.
My feelings snaked among obstacles and tall obstructions.
In the end I set aside what I'd written and listened to the voice inside.

The other day I heard the man they call mr. president.
He can read a good speech.
He can shout through bullhorns and intone solemn slogans.
I've heard these words in the movies and tv commercials.
Get'um dead or alive!
Evildoers beware!
Pass the War and bring on the ammunition!
For Dubya this is a cartoon war.
Our team right or wrong and victory through superiority is guaranteed.

We will pretend that war isn't organized terror and murderer.We will assume that it will cleanse and redeem us.
We will take revenge as if it were no more than a bloody game.

Dubya says a war will save us.
Dubya says it will save our way of life.
Dubya's father armed and trained our attackers.
This is blowback.

Our way of life destroys the land, our communities, and our sanity.
It destroyed those in the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.
It has blown up in our faces.

Will you die for the GNP?
Should I drop my morals and beliefs because of the GNP?
Should I send my son to war for the goddamned GNP?

I will think hard before I follow this man into battle.
I will think hard before I follow him anywhere.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 18:47:09 (EDT)
From: Suedoula
Email: None
To: Bobby
Subject: Re: OT: Masters of War
Message:
But you do gotta admit that there is a certain amount of irony here. George W having to fight the Taliban who will certainly be fighting back with weaponry and training they got from his Daddy. Hmmmm.

Best,
Susan

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 19:42:09 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Suedoula
Subject: Re: OT: Masters of War
Message:
Geez Susan, I thought you were talking about George Washington and I was trying to remember who his dad was. :-)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 20:11:11 (EDT)
From: Suedoula
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: ROFL!!!!
Message:
I probably shouldn't admit this (but I will) Around election time my dh referred to Jeb and George as Tweedledum and Tweedle W. Ooops -- there I go, I know I've offended someone.

Crawling back into my left wing liberal corner!

Best,
Susan

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 16:49:22 (EDT)
From: btdt
Email: None
To: Bobby
Subject: Re: OT: Masters of War
Message:
Too bad this couldn't have been sung on that Hollywood rootin' tootin'
sing song fest that was aired on every regular tv station.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 21:16:07 (EDT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: btdt
Subject: Re: OT: Masters of War
Message:
Dear btdt,
At least Neil sang, Imagie.
Love,
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 01:19:14 (EDT)
From: btdt
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: Re: OT: Masters of War
Message:
Oh, I didn't watch long enough then. I'm glad to hear that. Thanks for telling me. I was hoping there would be more songs like that.
But ....'maybe I'm a dreamer.....' I'm so glad I'm not the only one!
My husband pointed out that they wouldn't get much money if it was a love and peace fest.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 14:39:44 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Bobby
Subject: Do you EVER escape dumb self-righteousness?
Message:
You ever once get out of that box, Bobby? Like, once? I'm not going to argue with you about America's faults, Bush's faults, blah, blah, blah. I'll just ask you one simple question. What do you think the U.S. should do in response to the attack? Apologize?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 14:44:41 (EDT)
From: Bobby
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: Do you EVER escape dumb self-righteousness?
Message:
Don't read my posts Jim.
I won't respond to yours.

I think you're an ass.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 15:07:07 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Bobby
Subject: No!
Message:
I won't do that. Ha ha ah!

I'm here for this discussion too, Bobby. I know you just want a smarmy love-fest with others who feel they so much better people than the evil U.S. Government but this isn't yet the 'Anti-American Forum'. Maybe soon, but not yet.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 14:10:53 (EDT)
From: silvia
Email: None
To: Bobby
Subject: Amen nt
Message:
y
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 14:03:47 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Bobby
Subject: Re: OT: Masters of War
Message:
Bobby:

Didn't have time to read the whole thing yet. I get the gist though.

We don't have any choice but to trust them, now. You can thank Bin Laden for that. On the upside, there are lots of unintended consequences to war, not all of which are bad. Unlike you, I'm not philosophically opposed to war, so I'm not above thinking about the up side.

1. Better conditions for Arabs in the Middle East. Possible democratic reforms in some repressive regimes.
2. More considered thought regarding implications of world government, and some large steps it that direction.
3. Greater sense of interconnectedness, and consequently better, and more fair, environmental and trade policies.
4. Greater acceptance of economic programs involving 'government intervention' through NIST and other agencies, as well as social welfare reforms.
5. Technological breakthroughs spurred by the exigencies of war. The modern computer was designed during WWII as a way to unravel the German Enigma code.

Hope you are doing well.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 14:42:20 (EDT)
From: Bobby
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: OT: Masters of War
Message:
We don't have any choice but to trust them, now. You can thank Bin Laden for that. On the upside, there are lots of unintended consequences to war, not all of which are bad. Unlike you, I'm not philosophically opposed to war, so I'm not above thinking about the up side

Bin Laden or no Bin Laden, I don't trust Bush or many of his aides at all.

Should we look at the upside of the inevitable mass killings?

Actually positive outcomes can ensue for all sorts of horrible circumstances or situations. As one example, critical illness can bring radical change of life for the better. Doesn't mean we should invite these circumstances in.

I think the violence visited on America was horrible, but I also think America has already visited or supported great violence against others. Hatred does not fix hatred. Enough is enough.

The perpetrators should be sought out and tried in the arena of a world court. Instead, the leaders of America choose the way of incredible arrogance -- military power and mass destruction.

Thanks for the positive wishes. I'm doing really well.


---

---
Bobby

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 15:24:16 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Bobby
Subject: Re: OT: Masters of War
Message:
Bin Laden or no Bin Laden, I don't trust Bush or many of his aides at all.

Well, I guess you don't have to. My mistrust is obviously not as all-encompassing as yours. He's a Republican... but still raised in and influenced by the Lockean principles of the country.

Should we look at the upside of the inevitable mass killings?

Well, if they're inevitable I guess we'll have to.

Actually positive outcomes can ensue for all sort of horrible circumstances or situations. As one example, critical illness can bring radical change of life for the better. Doesn't mean we should invite these circumstances in.

We have no choice about the invitation. You think we do [did]. I don't agree.

I think the violence visited on America was horrible, but I also think America has already visited or supported great violence against others. Hatred does not fix hatred. Enough is enough.

You should know that it's not hate for hate. That isn't the equation. If there were a way to reform hate with love I'd be right behind you, but wanting it and seeing it as practical or even possible are different things.

The perpetrators should be sought out and tried in the arena of a world court. Instead, the leaders of America choose the way of incredible arrogance -- military power and mass destruction.

Read Moritmer Adler on a world court and supranational justice. It's a self-delusion to believe that's even possible now. But I invite you to think it through with Adler.

Thanks for the positive wishes. I'm doing really well.

Excellent. I wish I were. I'm just 'pretty good.'

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 06:50:27 (EDT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: OT: Masters of War
Message:
Read Moritmer Adler on a world court and supranational justice. It's a self-delusion to believe that's even possible now. But I invite you to think it through with Adler.

If nations can unite in war, they can unite in bringing criminals to justice. My own pesonal opinion is that we are not at 'war'; we are the subject of crimes against humanity from a murderous, fanatical element of Islam engaged in some holy war that they think/hope will rid their world of the Great Satan. Not all Muslims feel this way and, actually, if would be wise to know just how many Muslims symapthize with the terrorists and how many with the US before we proceed too deeply into that part of the world with our military machine. But as it stands now, I think the best course of action is to treat terrorist acts as criminal ones, not acts of war. It frightens me that the Bush administration is proceeding without really knowing what the consequences of their actions are going to be. Right now it looks like they think they've got it all under control. If that was the case, what we're those terrorists doing in our country for years with nobody knowing about them or what their plans were? This was an intelligence failure, not a military one. How are you going to fix intelligence failures with military solutions? We just need to increase funding and resources in intelligence to fix this problem. If Bush thinks that he's going to solve the problem by wiping out 'states' that harbor and support terrorists groups, he's got another think coming. His arrogance frightens me to be quite honest with you.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 14:44:42 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Bobby
Subject: Fair enough
Message:
The perpetrators should be sought out and tried in the arena of a world court.

There's your anwwer to my question above -- what should be done? But what if the perpetrators are aligned with and protected by a 'government' like the Taliban who won't hand them over?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 15:29:22 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: Fair enough
Message:
Jim:

Not to mention that Bin Laden is far from the whole of the problem, or anywhere close to being the only dangerous mass horrorist out there.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 15:24:25 (EDT)
From: Francesca
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Bush did not ask for them ...
Message:
... to be handed over to a world court. Nor did he try to convene a world court with EITHER the UN or NATO. Nor did he offer any proof to the Taliban. I'm not saying we don't know who did it. We most certainly do. But to a country that was not likely to turn him over anyway, the US Government made unacceptable terms. It almost seems like the US government wanted to make sure there was no chance the Talbian would turn him over. Then we would have an excuse to bomb the hell out of the Afghanis, I suppose.

I'm afraid that the reason the US does not want a world court is the same reason it didn't want to participate fairly in the talks on global warming, the recent talks on racism, etc. The US, which is more powerful than many other countries, does not want to put itself on an equal playing field with countries that aren't. World coalitions or tribunals of all sorts are places where we could get taken to task for actions that support our way of life at the expenses of other peoples. The ecological footprint of an American-born child for example, used to be 9 times that of a child in a developing country. I don't know the statistics now. I hate the energy crisis in California because it is due to a bipartisan effort at deregulation and other political shenanigans, but as my friend pointed out -- we are now FORCED to conserve. My bills are, ouch!, but not a bad thing, in one sense.

I'm not here to debate, and that's why I haven't been putting any of my views up here and have avoided responding to many of the inflammatory posts. I am a pacifist, and it runs in my blood. But I am not going to debate with you or anyone else and try to come up with detailed solutions so you can argue with me about this. That's why I've kept my mouth shut on here. I don't agree with every word Bobby said, but he had some good thoughts in there, and I haven't heard from him for a while, so I'm glad to see his presence.

I am also afraid that if the US acts in anger, rather than with intelligence and reason, we are walking into a trap set for our 'boys' by bin Laden and other global terrorists. If the US really chooses to work for the greater good of all people on this planet, instead of just the greater good of the American government and the American people, perhaps there would be some real gobal unity on this thing and a united effort on all fronts to try to stop terrorism. I am not saying that we should not look out for our own interests -- some one has to -- but on this issue at least, we are going to need cooperation.

I don't wish to US-bash per se, because the things I don't like about the US Government I don't like about any government. But these cowboy platitudes such as 'Infinite Justice' (the audacity!), and saying we are going to end terrorism, yeah right, are way over the top. If you want to get in an ugly fight, the best way to start is by shooting one's mouth off and issuing threats. As you well know from working in law, there is a legal term of art: 'fighting words.' A war on terrorism without a lot of help from other nations is going to be a war that could go on for decades, at much unnecessary loss of human life.

Respectfully,

Francesca

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 15:39:02 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Francesca
Subject: Re: Bush did not ask for them ...
Message:
Francesca:

If you mean that the US is not prepared to surrender it's national sovereignty to a supra-national organization, no matter how constituted, I'd agree. I see that problem as insurmountable at the moment, but surely the long term solution lies on the other side. It's instructive to ask what would have to happen before the US relinquished sovereignty.

Perhaps part of your outrage is related to the fact that the proportion of power held by the US is intuitively unjust. But it would be even more unjust were the power distributed the other way 'round (or even equally). Justice requires a monopoly of power held by an extra-national organization. So, when the pundits start talking about a 'just war' you might bring that up.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 20:02:55 (EDT)
From: Francesca
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Good insights, Scott
Message:
Dear Scott,

Yes, there are some thorny problems here. I do agree that there is little chance of a supra-national tribunal or organization being whipped up on a short schedule in response to this crisis. No black-and-white, easy answers. And I would shudder to think what the world would be like if the balance of power were on some loony radical fundamentalists' side. I don't like wearing veils with mesh breathing holes, for one thing.

I am old enough to have grown up with that scary image of Nikita Kruschev banging his shoe on the table and saying, 'We will bury you!' At the time it seemed like a real threat, and maybe it was. It was enough to scare me, that's for certain. I'm also from the east coast (where there are a lot of Jews) and am old enough to have smelled the stench of the holocast still hanging over people's lives. The father of a close friend (a German Jew) lost his entire immediate family. Democracy and freedom are not a joke.

Bests,

Francesca

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 15:28:23 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Francesca
Subject: Your post is problematic
Message:
Your post is problematic, Francesca, mainly because you've laced it with 'I don't want to argue about this' stuff. Hadly makes one comfortable doing anything but agreeing with you as you could quite easily accuse anyone who disagrees with you of avoiding your request. So let me just say I agree with you entirely.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 15:32:14 (EDT)
From: Francesca
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Or you can say you don't agree with me
Message:
I just don't want to argue with people. Religion and politics are the two biggest bones of contention going, and really, we've argued the religion thing to death on here.

I don't think all these posts are OT though -- I am glad to read them. I was frankly sick of having every post have to be about Miragey, and the anything goes approach often leads to utter nonsense.

Francesca

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 11:55:49 (EDT)
From: salsa
Email: None
To: All
Subject: Does anyone knows what this is??
Message:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,34238,00.html

Go to the section videos (on the column with white background) and chose the • • 9/11/01: East Angle - Second Plane Hits Tower
What was that????

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 01:13:55 (EDT)
From: btdt
Email: None
To: salsa
Subject: correction
Message:
That little slide bar allows the video to be stopped and restarted at any particular place. Doing this over and over it almost looks like the first plane came out of the tower and then down after the second hit. I wonder why no one on the news has discussed this?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 02:28:33 (EDT)
From: silvia
Email: None
To: btdt
Subject: No, they haven't
Message:
I'm sending an e-mail to Fox but I doubt I'll get answer.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 21:49:40 (EDT)
From: btdt
Email: None
To: salsa
Subject: Re: Does anyone knows what this is?
Message:
Geeze, that is THE weirdest thing. I slowed it down, constantly hitting the pause button....it looks like a missle or something. Could they possibly have been trying to shoot the plane down and missed? That is just feaky.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 21:50:40 (EDT)
From: make that.....
Email: None
To: btdt
Subject: 'freaky'
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 22:11:24 (EDT)
From: Zelda
Email: None
To: make that.....
Subject: Re:dammit
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 18:26:40 (EDT)
From: Suedoula
Email: None
To: salsa
Subject: Re: Does anyone ?
Message:
I think I watched it a dozen times - truly bizarre. Can't tell what direction the thing came from -- it just appears almost out of thin air. I kept watching to see if it was just a piece of debris from the impact and explosion but it just seems to appear out of nowhere and then travel across the screen. Weird.

Best,
Susan

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 02:31:08 (EDT)
From: silvia
Email: None
To: Suedoula
Subject: Smoke,
Message:
Did you all noticd how it can be seen through the smoke,, following a perfect path?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 09:56:58 (EDT)
From: Suedoula
Email: None
To: All
Subject: Did anyone see this?
Message:
This is from along time ago (1988?)but someone I worked with had a cartoon from The New Yorker magazine over his desk. If I remember correctly it was entitled: How to Identify a Terrorist. The picture was of a man with a beard and a turban with a big smile (my memory is sketchy, sorry) holding a card in his hand that read 'Terrorist ID Card' and then on the following line said, 'Hi, I'm Shiite' (sp?)

For some reason I can't get that out of my head. Wish I had a copy of that now and I also wish it was that easy.

Best to all,
Susan (who's DH is leaving this evening and heading to Budapest)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 08:46:27 (EDT)
From: Mr. Dooley
Email: None
To: All
Subject: The continuing ''Evolution'' of Premies
Message:
The vast majority of these unfortunates have been trying to 'get it right'(aka Practicing Knowledge) for over 20 years. Does the LUV shine through? Are they able to communicate to their fellow man the value of the special gift given to them by Maharaji? Why aren't they ready to march out and propogate now? One would think that this would be the time that many people would be primed to go within and escape the madness. Does this K really work? I mean REALLY not because you think it's working for someone else and it's only your personal inadequacies that have prevented you from fully experiencing it these last 20 + years?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 16:50:15 (EDT)
From: Timmi
Email: None
To: Mr. Dooley
Subject: Re: The continuing ''Evolution'' of Premies
Message:
I like your message. Most premies don't seem to be getting the experience they think they should be, but it's always for some reason. And then they say, 'but when it happens, it is so beautiful.' or words to that effect. It sounds as though it rarely 'happens' like they want it to. Let me get this straight. They do this for at least an hour a day, or longer, and for 20 to 30 years, and it still doesn't 'happen' for them regularly? Only once in awhile they have this 'beautiful experience'? Sorry, kids. That just isn't good enough. Could it be because they are constantly being told they 'need a master', and therefore couldn't possibly manage to get along without one? You can cripple absolutely anybody in absolutely any manner by telling them often enough they can't do something, or they need you for something, or they 'should' do or be something. Rawat has crippled thousands of people and he should be accountable. He is a despicable creature and I hold him in utter contempt.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 16:56:06 (EDT)
From: Mr. Dooley
Email: None
To: Timmi
Subject: Re: The continuing ''Evolution'' of Premies
Message:
Yeah, you pretty well summed it up. Most of them keep going because they think others are really having the constant experience. These are not the ones they know well just the ones they see only at cult gatherings.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 17:06:11 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Mr. Dooley
Subject: Re: The continuing ''Evolution'' of Premies
Message:
On the nose, Timmi (and Mr Dooley.) The only experience most of the premies I know have is when they watch videos or go to see Rev Rawat. Having an external source of happiness has made them reliant on it and they seldom make any effort to find their own inner strength.

So much for the experience being inside each person. And so much for Rawat's criticism of ''duality.'' He has driven them all nuts with his contradcitions. Actually the very idea of a master is the most glaring contradiction.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 01:38:02 (EDT)
From: Disculta
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: Yes, but...
Message:
Quoting Pat: 'Having an external source of happiness has made them reliant on it...'

Hell, if he had really been an effective external source of happiness i'd still be there. Know what I mean?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 04:38:14 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Disculta
Subject: Yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder
Message:
Oh, yes, Disculta, that's it in a nutshell. The current premies seem to find his chintzy, tawdry circus beautiful. Maybe we just outgrew the cheap Hindu tinsel and fake philosophy.

In our less discriminating youth we were dazzled by an interesting young boy with a lot of cheek. Now the chutzpah is no longer charming (and the dimpled cheeks have turned to debauched jowels.) He just seems like a crass, nouveau riche, tasteless show-offy snake-oil salesman.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 06:54:42 (EDT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: All
Subject: US Threatened Afghan War Weeks Before Attack.
Message:
Hi,

Another interesting bit of news emerged yesterday. It seems that the US had a meeting in July, two months before the attack on the WTC, with the Pakistanis, Russians and Iranians, and passed a message to the Taliban, via Pakistan, threatening them with military action if they didn't behave. The US specifically raised the issue of an attack using with helicopter gunships.

The threat was passed to the Taliban, and raises the question of Bin Laden making a pre-emptive strike, rather than an attack 'out of the blue', on September 11th.

This information is making me wonder if the massive military exercise planned in Oman (very near Afghanistan) for a week or two's time, involving about 25.000 British troops, was planned as part of the same package.

Please, somebody tell me I've got it all wrong. I don't like what I'm finding out here.

I am not trying to justify the WTC attack. I am merely trying to understand what is going on.

'The first casualty of War is Truth.'

When Bush said, 'If you don't support the military action that means you support the terrorists', he was talking shite.

If you don't support War, it is perfectly legitimate to support Peace.

Anth, All We Are Saying...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 14:42:30 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: AJW
Subject: What happened to Anth the Clear-Headed?
Message:
I know this has been said below but I'll repeat it. What in the world could you possibly mean by a 'pre-emptive strike'? And how in the world could you think anything the states was doing a few weeks ago could have triggered an attack that took months, if not longer, to execute?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 06:54:32 (EDT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: What happened to Anth the Clear-Headed?
Message:
Hi Jim,

It goes like this. In July, the Taliban are told, unless they hand over Bin Laden, they will be attacked by the US. The Taliban refuse. Bin Laden responds by striking first.

British Guardian, 22.9, 'The threats of war unless the Taliban surrendered Osama Bin Laden, were passed to the regime in Afghanistan by the Pakistani gevernment, senior diplomatic sources revealed yesterday. The Taliban refuses to comment, but the serious nature of what they were told raises the possibility that Bin Laden, far from launching the attacks on the World Trade Centre in New York and the Pentagon out of the blue 10 days ago, was launching a pre-emptive strike in what he saw as a response to US threats'.

Maybe he knew the troops were already on the way.

Anth the Clear Headed.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 13:16:24 (EDT)
From: Katie from the beyond
Email: None
To: AJW
Subject: My opinion - from below
Message:
Hi Anth -
Dermot started a thread about this - here is an edited repost of what I said there.

The US media is reporting that the plans for the whole operation had been in place for at LEAST a year (including pilot training time, airport surveillance, and so forth) - and this sounds reasonable to me. Also, I cannot see why they thought they would achieve anything 'pre-emptive' re the US military by attacking the World Trade Towers rather than attacking military targets.

Although they did attack the Pentagon, I might point out that they also hit the wrong side of the Pentagon - if they had wanted to take out all the military leaders, they would have hit the other side. So, no, I don't think it was 'pre-emptive' - that word assumes that one wants to reduce the capability of the US for military action, which they did not do.

Take care, and bye,
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 07:29:33 (EDT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: AJW
Subject: Re: US Threatened Afghan War Weeks Before Attack.
Message:
I dunno too much about this but the WTC and Pentagon attacks were planned long term and not just in the last two months. When the WTC was bombed back in 1993(?) the US police found plans for a hijack to crash campaign involving as many as a dozen planes.

If a finger needs to be pointed at anyone it needs to be pointed at intellegence and anti-terrorist security services who have demonstrated a complete lack of competence and forethought.

By the way, Wild Bill Hiccup also invaded Afghanistan (not personally) with a number of crack troops in order to help the Northern Alliance kill off bin Liner and topple the Talibun. Unfortunately the attack failed. That was on the BBC World Service (radio) last night.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 06:48:27 (EDT)
From: Sir Dave }(
Email: None
To: All
Subject: Your ''Disinformation'' John T
Message:
I don't give out disinformation. It's in today's ''Sunday Mirror''. I gave the news here before the newspaper was out in the shops. If you don't like my posts you can stick them up your arse.
[ Foiled plot to crash plane in London ]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 08:03:01 (EDT)
From: janet
Email: None
To: Sir Dave }(
Subject: same issue, other article
Message:
woo hoo-- ID cards to be issued .
Mark of the Beast, anyone??
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 09:34:48 (EDT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: janet
Subject: Re: same issue, other article
Message:
Considering all the fake passports the terrorists had, I think watertight ID cards are a necessary evil.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 11:27:58 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: Re: same issue, other article
Message:
I agree. Going to piss off the home grown terrorists in the US though.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 06:53:55 (EDT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: Sir Dave }(
Subject: and here's the front page
Message:
This is the front page of today's UK ''Sunday Mirror''.
[ Graphic Link ]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 09:52:02 (EDT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: Yellow Journalism, Crusader
Message:
That's from one of the down market tabloids, tho admittedly not the worst of that bunch.

CNN? BBC? Independant? Guardian? Telegraph?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 16:19:36 (EDT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: Yawn
Message:
It's also on Sky News now. It was an exclusive.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 06:31:18 (EDT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: All
Subject: Coke and Pepsi fund Bin Laden?
Message:
Hi,

The lilly-livered-liberal investigation into the terrorist attackers continues. It appears that two of Bin Laden's big financial backers are Coca Cola and Pepsi.

(The mad commie is ranting again I hear you mutter.)

Bin Laden is apparently worth £200,000,000. The source of his money is a business that sells a special gum that is an essential ingredient in soft drinks.

So every time we buy a Coke, or Dr Pepper, or can of Iron-Bru, we are indirectly making a tiny financial donation to Bin Ladens cause.

Anth, Pop Goes the Weasel.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 14:48:28 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: AJW
Subject: Don't be a jerk
Message:
You're really getting carried away with this self-righteousness, Anth. Just because bL's money derives from that business it's hardly the case that Coke and Pepsi are 'backing' him. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 06:59:56 (EDT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Ashamed?
Message:
Duh,

You do get my point don't you Jim?

And financing Bin Laden, directly or indirectly, through his business, is 'financially backing him' isn't it Jim?

Anth a shamen

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 11:14:30 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: AJW
Subject: No, hardly
Message:
And financing Bin Laden, directly or indirectly, through his business, is 'financially backing him' isn't it Jim?

They're hardly 'financing' him. What's wrong with you? Can't you control your rhetoric? Or is it fun to find to look out on a world of evil, a world you're somehow better than?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 25, 2001 at 09:55:12 (EDT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Earth calling Jim.
Message:
If Coca-Cola, or any other company, write out a $10,000,000 cheque to the company owned by Bin Laden, and he then uses that money to finance his violence, it's not being too rhetorical to say they are funding his terrorist activities, albeit unwittingly. Is it Jim?

And Jim, would you mind pointing out where I've said, or inferred, or tried to give the impression that I'm better than anybody else? Because I really don't think I am.

Anth the most fantastic person in the whole wide Universe, including heaven. I wish I had two bodies so I could have...no forget that one.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 10:32:53 (EDT)
From: urban legend alert
Email: None
To: AJW
Subject: a link for anth
Message:
www.snopes2.com/business/alliance/arabic.htm
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 08:10:45 (EDT)
From: janet
Email: None
To: AJW
Subject: the bin Laden's family fortune
Message:
if you would do some reading, you would find out that the bin Laden family is the exclusive construction contractor to the royal saudi arabian family, and is given all the contracts to rebuild their holy places. it is a discreet affair that neither side speaks about, perhaps out of humility to Allah, perhaps for other reasons. We are talking here of a family considered so high that they alone are allowed to rebuild Mecca, Medina, the highway between the two, and have sole custody of the plans to the city, including its subterranean passageways.

Are you getting the picture now?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 08:53:47 (EDT)
From: salam
Email: None
To: janet
Subject: and if you read more
Message:
you will find that Bin laden was a poor street porter in Yamen. Eventually he started a construction buzinez. at one stage, the Saudi goverment put a tender out to refurbish the Al-Sauds palaces. Bin Laden applied for the tender and was the lowest bidder, so he got the job. when the work was finished, the king was very impressed by the work and ordered that all goverment tenders go through Bin Laden. Their highest achievement was is to re-build Mecca after the 1969 fire, since then blah blah blah. Usama Bin laden was not handed $300 million dollers on a plate, the exact figure varies from few millions to few tens of millions, the rest of the money was given to him by the CIA [silly them]. He is happy about it.

So what am trying to say my dear is that the media is portraying Bin Laden as some rich arab brat that has nothing else to do but to blow up tall buildings. He is not. Bin Laden is clever, an organiser, a leader and a religious person and he is doing whatever he is doing because of his conviction that it is correct, though I don't not agree with him.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 08:48:18 (EDT)
From: Mel Bourne
Email: None
To: janet
Subject: Re: the bin Laden's family fortune
Message:
Janet

Your quite correct about this (the construction business anyway), but Osama Bin Laden was apparently was the 17th child out of 50 odd to old man bin Laden who owns the company. Our Osama was booted out of the family at the time of the Gulf War and kicked out of Suadi Arabia.

I can't quite get the drift of your post. Are you implying that Osama has now been restored in his family and the family are aiding and abetting his Jihad? If so, what do you base your information on?

Mel

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 09:07:51 (EDT)
From: janet
Email: None
To: Mel Bourne
Subject: Re: the bin Laden's family fortune
Message:
no, the opposite. as I understand it, osama did the kind of thing we all did, in deciding to become cult extremeists, in our early 20's. and he alienated his family likewise by becoming fanatically convinced of his religious and political 'conversion'.
he is still very much an alien to his own dynasty, and is no more troubled about it than we were when we were brainwashed premies at the height of our belief.

i can understand his mindset all too well.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 07:06:33 (EDT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: janet
Subject: Bin Laden's mindset.
Message:
Hi Janet,

I agree with you. As ex-cult members, we are in a good position to understand the motivation of Bin Laden, and particularly his followers. We know only too well what happnes when you hand over your discrimination and will to another person. Scott pointed this out last week, and it gave me an insight into the terrorists motivation.

Anth the ex-fanatical follower

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 08:56:41 (EDT)
From: salam
Email: None
To: Mel Bourne
Subject: Re: the bin Laden's family fortune
Message:
according to a recent press release, Bin Laden family has reiterated the fact that they do not have any relation what so ever with their son. this has been the case since 1993.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 06:48:28 (EDT)
From: Mel Bourne
Email: None
To: AJW
Subject: Coke (but not Pepsi) fund CIA....den?
Message:
Anth

Don't worry you 'old red under the bed' you, if you enjoy certain other recreational substances, you will be supporting the current effort (formerly known as 'Infinite Justice') by contacting your friendly < a href ='http://www.ciadrugs.com/'>CIA operative

Mel

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 06:51:37 (EDT)
From: Mel Bourne
Email: None
To: Mel Bourne
Subject: Re: Coke (but not Pepsi) fund CIA...Link.den?
Message:

[ Anth's personal suuply link ]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 06:57:54 (EDT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: Mel Bourne
Subject: Marlborough and Bud.
Message:

---

Hi Mel,

Drug companies have been funding politicians for years through donations from the tobacco and alcohol giants- not to mention the legitimate pharmacuetical industry, which has millions of mainly women hooked on very dangerous barbiturates.

Anth, who always denied he was a homeopath.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 17:41:25 (EDT)
From: btdt
Email: None
To: AJW
Subject: Re: Marlborough and Bud.
Message:
It gets worse. The CDC here in the U.S. mandates which vaccinations are required for America's children. During Bush Sr.'s time, he gave special dispensation for anyone on the CDC board with a conflict of interest to vote, which they aren't supposed to do. What conflict would these be? Patents on vaccines, stock in the pharmaceutical companies, you know, minor things like that. These same CDC guys got their new vaccines through Food and Drug in record time, and they ended up causing death or permanent damage to users. Retired military people have companies, or stock in companies, that supply the military with the vaccines they require. A serviceman at Travis AFB in California was court marshalled for refusing the vaccine that caused all the problems for the Gulf War Syndrome soldiers.

Unless you've been involved in corporate life in the U.S., in its bowels, you have absoulutely no idea what these greedy people are capable of. It defies what America the Beautiful stands for.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 08:05:58 (EDT)
From: Mel Bourne
Email: None
To: AJW
Subject: Cigarette smuggling
Message:
Anth

I saw a program recently that documented a leading Conservative Party memmber's involvement in maasive tobacco and cigarette smuggling into Vietnam. Have you heard about it?

Mel

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 11:16:31 (EDT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Mel Bourne
Subject: Re: Cigarette smuggling
Message:
Search on 'British American Tobacco' and 'Kenneth Clarke'

BAT was supplying ciggies to smugglers (allegedly), Ken was a Director in charge of Internal Audit. He was recently in a tussle for the Tory leadership (and lost) which is why something was made of these two facts. (To sell newspapers and damage Ken, you understand.)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 01:57:38 (EDT)
From: silvia
Email: None
To: All
Subject: Just coincidence?
Message:
> This is freaky....
>
> Open Microsoft Word, or Word Perfect then type in the flight code
> of the plane that crashed into the world trade center.
> Q33 NY
>
> Then highlight the flight code Change the font to 36 and change the
> text type to Wingdings
>
> UN REAL !!! auggghhhhhhh....I'm losing my head again....
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 03:08:35 (EDT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: silvia
Subject: Just coincidence? Yes.
Message:
You mean you get symbols for an aeroplane, two sheets of paper (that could be seen to look like towers), a skull and crossbones and the Star of David?

Not all wing-ding font sets are the same, but that's what I get. I don't imagine it is anything other than happenstance. If it were a hijacked flight number (as seems to be widely but incorrectly asserted!) and if all the hijacked flight numbers gave similar graphic 'messages' then that would be freaky.

As they say, Once is happenstance, twice co-incidence, three times is enemy action.

There are so many wierd 'co-incidences' that could happen. To tell whether one is looking at something odd, one would need first to consider all the possible odd things that could happen (given human ingenuity, that might be a rather long list), and then look to see if a disproportionate number of odd events had in fact occured.

It's kind of impossible, for what constitutes a wierd happenstance or co-incidence is surely in the eye of the beholder!

But this one doesn't even get that far. It isn't odd as it wasn't a flight number.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 02:47:33 (EDT)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: silvia
Subject: Re: Just coincidence?
Message:
Q33 NY is not a flight number of any of the planes. Didn't you read Katies posted link about WTC urban myths?

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 11:19:48 (EDT)
From: silvia
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: I found K's post. Thanks NT
Message:
b
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 10:33:40 (EDT)
From: silvia
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: no, I haven't
Message:
to be honest I only read but a few posts a day lately for lack of free time...

I know, the subject of my post is stupid, as usual, careless. I am not supertitious by any means but thought it was spooky neverthelsess.

Thanks J. :)

Where is Katie's post, which thread?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 21:40:52 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: All
Subject: Taking back the roads
Message:
The roads and highways in the DC Metro area today, on the first day of Fall, were clogged with vehicles. This has not been the case for awhile. I got by laydown bike out the door and puttered with it most of the day, taking care of brakes, lubing, and all the details I've been too 'tired' to attack. I didn't have much time for a ride, but went out for about 12 miles, which is the first time I'd been on the bike since Sept. 11. Huffing and puffing up the hills I normally power up, I was a bit out of cycling trim (although I've been rowing almost every day). I'm normally sort of inconvenienced by all the SUVs, and kid-filled Camaros, but to tell the truth it was nice to see them on the roads and have them around me. Stores were full and people were shopping everywhere with their kids, and doing a lot of hugging of the adorable creatures.

We be mobile!

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 22:03:10 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: Taking back the roads
Message:
Glad to hear it. You redneck :) ....no, glad to hear things are normalising over there.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 08:15:59 (EDT)
From: janet
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: global warming as usual
Message:
how nice. the greenhouse effect resumes with a vengeance.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 10:04:07 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: janet
Subject: Re: global warming as usual
Message:
Minor problem, right now. Perhaps pressure to reduce oil dependence will move the congress to some action on that eventually. Right now I'd rather not see the economy sink like a stone.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 22:14:46 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Re: Taking back the roads
Message:
I'm a moderate pragmatist, Dermot. Pat Moynihan once decribed his 6-year-old daughter's reaction to seeing a cobra at that National Zoo rise up in an attack position. 'He likes me, Daddy,' she said. 'Yes dear he does, in his fashion.' You're very fortunate you have a few 'rednecks' of Pat Moynihan's ilk making sure those adorable snakes don't like *you* too much.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 22:31:40 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: Taking back the roads
Message:
I'm a pragmatist too .....then how come we see things from such different viewpoints ?

My pragmatism tells me that of all the 200 odd governments in this world .....you'd be hard pushed to find one that'd tell you anything other than what they want to 'spin' at any given time, for the sake of Political expediency.

That's not to say they are all of the same ilk obviously.Generally the western, liberal democracies tend to care more about the people they govern and regimes such as the Taliban only care about their fanatical ideology.

Bottom line though, i think you trust the established order more than I do.

BTW ....excuse my ignorance but who is Pat Moynihan ......or is that irrelevant?
I

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 23:03:22 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Pat Moynihan
Message:
Pat Moynihan, originally the 'token Democrat' in the Nixon administration wrote the first articles warning of the dire consequences of the callapse of the family in the inner cities of the US. He also pushed for auto safety devices and was the first to argue of an 'epidemiological' approach to auto safety. After the Nixon administration he spent some time as an educator at Harvard, and was eventually elected to the US Senate (D) from New York (the seat now occupied by Hillary Clinton). He has also been instrumental in reducing and eliminating much of the secrecy around so-called 'top secret' documents, and has sponsored legislation to make more of this secret information part of public knowledge. He championed legislation aimed at making all working class Americans economically independent by the time they retire, a goal he feels will be achieved in the next 20 years. He was described by George Will as 'the greatest Senator in US History.'

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 23:16:10 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: Pat Moynihan
Message:
Sounds quite an industrious and effective guy.

One bit of your domestic politics I wasn't aware of.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 19:55:40 (EDT)
From: Mel Bourne
Email: None
To: All
Subject: Saudis withdraw US support
Message:
This from Debka

US Bereft of Arab Coalition After Saudi Arabia Backs out

22 September: The United States has delayed the start of its offensive against Afghanistan and Osama Bin Laden, in retaliation for the terrorist strikes in New York and Washington, because of a dramatic turnaround of Arab support in the Middle East, DEBKAfile ’s Gulf and Washington sources report.

Saturday afternoon, it became clear that events in Riyadh had dealt the final deathblow to the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell’s failed efforts to create an Arab front to bolster the Bush administration’s world war on terror.
The reason for King Fahd secret exit from Saudi Arabia, followed by a large royal party (see earlier DEBKAfile World Exclusive on this page), is believed by our most reliable sources to be a palace revolution sparked by differences in the royal family over support for the US offensive against Afghanistan, Osama Bin Laden’s terror network and other rogue targets. King Fahd and his Sudeiri faction, including defense minister Sultan, were in favor of letting the US place assault forces in forward bases on Saudi soil; the conservative, religious Crown Prince Abdullah, who runs the kingdom since King Fahd became ill, overruled him, backed by the religious establishment.
As a result, Saudi Arabia refused to let the US use the kingdom’s new combined air operations command center at Prince Sultan Air Base near Riyadh, after Air Force Lt. Gen Charles Wald had been dispatched to the base earlier this week, to take command of US air forces assigned to the Middle East and Southwest Asia.

His mission was to run the air war from the new, sophisticated air base opened this summer, a base linked to Al Dhafra in the United Arab Emirates and Seeb in the Sultanate of Oman. The Saudi base was also to have been the central command post not only for the 175 aircraft already based in the region for patrolling south Iraq’s no-flight zone, but also for directing attacks from other bases in the region in the new war offensive.

When General Wald landed in Saudi Arabia with his top aides on Tuesday, September 18, he was told he had no command base. That was when the feuding inside the royal house over its role in the American war against terrorism reached its climax. The monarch’s defeat in the argument inside the palace was apparently the main reason for his abrupt departure the next day, Wednesday, September 19.

The Pentagon has since then been casting about for replacement bases of operation and holding up the onset of the scheduled US campaign.

DEBKAfile ’s military sources believe that one of General Wald’s options for his command post is the Bahrain. Some of the fighter craft due to have been based in Saudi Arabia have been moved to Incerlik, the big air base in South Turkey, after Anakara made all its bases available for the American war effort, and the Uzbek military airport of Tuzel, 15 km. from Tashkent. Large-scale air and commando forces also landed Saturday in Tadjikistan, on the border of Afghanistan.

The American forces are now laboring to catch up with their schedule for the operation.

The upset in Riydah also sent the Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat racing to Riydah to meet Crown Prince Abdullah and update his own strategy with the turn of events in the royal house. DEBKAfile ’s Palestinian experts expect Arafat to turn tail and back out of the accommodations he broached under US and European pressure – including his commitment to a ceasefire.

According to DEBKAfile ’s Washington sources, the Bush administration realizes it has been let down by the Arab world, chiefly the Saudis and President Mubarak of Egypt, in its first steps to launch an international campaign to defeat world terrorism. It will go ahead, but not forget in a hurry.

Obviously, according to the Bush Doctrine, being anti US ( sorry, 'with the terrorists' - must watch the politically correct phrasing of 'anti - US!)they now deserve the 'or esle...'

Mel

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 20:33:17 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Mel Bourne
Subject: Jesus you're a horse's ass.
Message:
You pervese jerk. You post news that could mean a regional thermonuclear war with apparent glee. God, what an unmitigated idiot. Hope it's not true. Probably isn't.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 03:24:45 (EDT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Wind ups
Message:
He's winding you up Scott. The only question is why he bothers. There is really no need, in view of your self-winding mechanism.

Who is going to start a regional thermo-nuclear war, Pakistan or America? I don't see how even your equivalents in Pakistan would see that as a Good Move, so that leaves you and your fellow 'thinkers'.

That would make the original 6000 deaths look like small beer, even if we kept deaths down to the 100,000 Americans and 100,000 others you were talking of killing earlier.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 11:04:00 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: I'm sure we'll all get along.
Message:
Winding me up, I suppose, in the sense that he never seems to find information suggesting the administration may be successful? Yeah, I'm aware of that. No one here does, oddly, even though their way of life may depend on it. I regard that as a little perverse, yes. And it's not as though there isn't any disinformation going on in this forum. The bogus article from the Guardian posted as 'fact,' etc. And of course Salam's marvelously balanced analysis. Mel's wonderfully researched post about how this must have all an Israeli plot, based on an article from a Pakistani news source. Etc., etc. I'm a little skeptical, yeah.

So you're voting against a wider war? And just don't give the 'thinkers' too much credibility? There's a plan. I said 'could' lead to a regional thermonuclear war. Reason enough to be rooting for a broad coalition I should think. Anyway, failure to quell terrorism now will lead to some sort of massive disaster somewhere eventually. You guys are convincing me that's more likely than I had thought. The memory of the WTC attack seems to have faded before the rubble stopped bouncing, to judge by attitudes here. Keep Saddam in power, grinding out his biological agents. Hamstring the US from acting with conventional weapons. Leave Bin Laden ensconced within his protective totalitarian cocoon. This is basically the ex-premie forum program, save a few folks like Dave, Pat Dorrity, Jim and myself. But don't let the thinkers get you confused.

Colin Powell is the voice in this administration cautioning against the use of nuclear weapons, but in the absence of any other means for taking out Saddam and the threat he represents Powell may lose the argument. More likely we can pressure Saudis or Turkey to give us the staging area, in spite of the present baulking. (It's a long flight from Turkish bases to Baghdad though.) And I imagine Powell's argument is to let the enemy use weapons of mass destruction first, and hope it's small in scale. I agree with that. See how reasonable I am?

Yeah, I'm wound up. But I know the folks in charge have generally the right idea. It took us 55 days to respond after Pearl Harbor, and we're not even two weeks out yet. Things are pretty much back to normal around here, although there's a forced quality to it. People bracing for a possible second wave of terrorist strikes, either here or in an allied country. Maybe England or Israel. But given Dave's report about the quelled hijack attempt on London this group may be a one trick pony, for awhile.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 11:34:34 (EDT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Not in a wider war, we won't
Message:
failure to quell terrorism now will lead to some sort of massive disaster somewhere eventually

That could have been said after the East African Embassy bombings with equal truth, so chill. This is the massive disaster, and yes, there will be more unless the right people are killed (or arrested) first.

But kill the wrong people, or fail to understand the world we live in (!) and the disaster will eclipse the Manhattan massacre.

I can do no better than to repeat ...

...
One can only hope that Western governments recognise this watershed for what it is: the culmination of developments that have been in train for a decade and longer. Somehow the free world as a whole, not just the US alone, has to develop a common strategy of response that goes beyond mere retaliation. That strategy must encompass the defence of our way of life and punishment for those who violate it. But it must also embrace a co-ordinated attack on the underlying injustices, the consequences of which are visible at the Channel Tunnel and in the waters around Australia as well as in New York and in Washington, that fuel and will continue to fuel a war under way for some time but now becoming hideously obvious.

Sir MICHAEL ALEXANDER
British ambassador to Nato, 1986-92
Published in the UK by 'The Independent' newspaper, 14 Sept 2001

Chill bud, you want to make sure people stay or get onside. I do not think your efforts are achieving that right now, ya dig?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 23:31:01 (EDT)
From: Mel Bourne
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: Jesus you're a horse's ass.
Message:
C'mon Scott, this is from DEPKA, an Israeli source of disinformation. I merely posted the link, and have no idea as to it's veracity.....

....Meanwhile, o Unbeliever, feast your eyes on the latest picture of the 'Scourge of Allah' published in the Iranian press and let your infidel limbs quake with fear.....
[ Scourge of Allah ]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 04:11:00 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Mel Bourne
Subject: You're talking funny, Mellie
Message:
Such flowery language! You anonymous Australians sure have a way with words.

''...veracity'' ?????

''Meanwhile, o Unbeliever, feast your eyes...'' !!!!!!!

Do you all take writing lessons from David Roupell, master of pretentious drivel?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 05:44:17 (EDT)
From: Mel Bourne
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: Re: You're talking funny, Mellie
Message:
Hi Pat

For me it's probably a product of the British public school education with an overlay of Aussie polish! I can't comment on David's problem.

BTW, I wasn't impressed with your comment a day or two ago about my post being 'änti semitic', anti US maybe ( sorry - I must learn 'Bush speak' - 'with terrorist'!). I consider your post above as 'anti semantic' and am deeply offended....:)

Don't take me so seriously, I'm no challenger to you or anyone else, here, so relax you've nothing to fear from me.

Pax Americana

Mel

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 14:42:03 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Mel Bourne
Subject: Well, gee thanks, Mellie
Message:
Not another Brit in Oz? That's three we have posting here. And you're all premies but none of you like the cult and you're all anonymous. Wow! What a coincidence.

Perhaps it's time to tell us who you are lest you be lumped in with the other anonymous Aussie cult Borg. We wouldn't like to see a sincere fellow like you unjustly accused.

Thanks for telling me that I have nothing to fear from you but it really wasn't necessary. There is very little that I fear in this world and most of that is a lot more real and dangerous than words on a computer screen.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 19:59:29 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Mel Bourne
Subject: Mel - another question
Message:
I have heard that Saudi Arabia is one of the worst countries in the world for human rights violations (which sure made me uncomfortable about them being a US ally). Do you know anything about this?

Thanks,
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 10:02:45 (EDT)
From: salam
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Re: Mel - another question
Message:
Dear Katie,

I haven't heared from you for a while, I hope you are Ok.

Regarding the plight of woman in Saudia Arabia, you need to know that the Saudie regime is one of the worst run reigems in the ARAb or even the Islamic world. To begin with, and this is unbelievable, their country is in debt. The Saudie royal family spends money like water.

As for women. Well, Islam is split into two factions, the Sunni and the Shi'ai. Each of these is also broaken down into another 4, thus in total there are 8 divisions in Islam. Though both Sunni and Shi'ai belive in the Qou'ran and the saying of the prophet Mohammed, they have a major ideological division between them which is politically biased. This split goes back to the time just after the death of the prophet.

Ok, so am not going to re-write history, but to give you an example, look at inheretance. The Sunnai belive that when a man is dead, his family [ wife, children ] don't inhert, but his brothers, uncles and every single man recieves a bit of dosh. The wife and family have no legal claim on the inheretance. On the other hand, the shi'ai say that if the man of the family dies then all his inheretance goes to his 'wife' and she is to do what she wants to do with it.

another example is woman education. The Sunnai say that woman have no rule in society, she is to stay home, have children, be avaliable to her husband any time and that her husband can devorce anytime by saying the words 'you are divorced' 3 times. While the Shi'ai, all to work, have education [in Iran for example woman can enter universities, and a recent ruling allowed them to travel overseas alone to further their education, where the law stated before that this can only take place if the woman is accompanied by a male family member]. Also between the Shi'ai, a man can't just divorce his wife, if he does want to divorce her then they have to go through a lengthy process of family councilling blah blah blah.

Of the Sunnai sect, the Wahabi'een is the worst of them all. it just so happen that the Saudi Family belong to this sect. It also happen tha Pakistan and the Talaban are Sunnai. It also happens that the Northren Aliance fighting the Talaban are Shia'ai an are supported by Iran. Do you see the where this is going. Well now you can probably find an answer as to why isn't the United State supporting the Northern Aliance in their fight against the Talabans.

Cheers, Islam is a tangled mess.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 12:52:09 (EDT)
From: Katie from the beyond
Email: None
To: salam
Subject: Thanks, Salam
Message:
I am OK - this situation has, and continues to be, very hard for me. I hope you are all right - it is very difficult to be Middle Eastern in the US right now (or even LOOK like you are), and I hope the same is not true in Australia.

Thanks for the information, too - I have got a lot of catching up to do on the Middle East. Brian knows far more than I do, so that's helpful.

Take care -
Love,
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 05:29:47 (EDT)
From: Mel Bourne
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Katie - Saudi womens issues links...
Message:
Hi Katie

The following links maybe useful...

From Cornell Library ....

Probably a better link from Womens Issues which has a few other links.

Mel

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 04:01:24 (EDT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Good point Katie
Message:
It's just another nasty dictatorship hated by its own people and propped up by the West.

It could go pear shaped at anytime, and recent events will be putting a lot of strain in its apparatus of domestic repression (which is pretty stretched at the best of times).

The DEPKA site seems OK, but one should remember the interests of the site authors.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 13:04:50 (EDT)
From: Katie from the beyond
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: JohnT - women's issues
Message:
Hi John -
I've pretty much resigned myself to the fact that women's human rights issues aren't a priority for any existing government. Women's groups here in the US have been trying to publicize the human rights abuses of the Taliban (which are probably the worst in the world) for years but it hasn't seemed to change policy very much.

I realize that there are Islamic women who want to live traditionally (although I about puked when I read that a Saudi princess said 'every woman is a princess here' - definitely a 'let them eat cake' attitude.) There are women in the US who want to live very traditionally, and who are willing to give up a lot of autonomy to do so, too. But thank god we aren't FORCED to live like that.

Take care -
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 00:12:58 (EDT)
From: Mel Bourne
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Re: Mel - another question
Message:
Katie

No, I don't have any info on that, but it wouldn't surprise me. Which, if true, means that the US would have had to have turned a blind eye to the situation to suit it's own agenda, wouldn't it?

Anyway, if the DEBKA report is true, then the US will have major problems with the military hardware and the personnel currently stationed in Saudi Arabia. How would they deal with a new, maybe hostile Saudi regime? Would the US put down any insurrection, and 'set up' a US supportive Government? How? They'd then become the 'occupying force' that bin Laden has claimed all along.

BTW, I just saw Newt Gingrich on TV, stating that the countries currently supporting terrorists would have their governments removed by the US and 'replaced' with one that had 'favourable' policies. So much for the US appearing to lead the world in the 'democratic processes' of selecting governments. Looks like it's back to the good ol' days of when Bush senior ran the CIA, doesn't it.

I relation to Scott T's assesmment of my 'reporting', I certainly don't do it with glee, though, some times a wry humour, though, and I certainly don't underestimate the gravity of the current situation. I more interested in researching sites (even 'hostile' ones) that may have useful snippets of info than the pro-US ( sorry 'anti -terrorist') high brow 'think tank' sources that he appears to be accessing for his information from (or is he merely accessing the nether regions of his brain?). Actually, come to think of it, I can't a post where he has put a link to his source, can you? I might be wrong of course!

Anyway I don't have to kowtow to his philosophy on what I do or how I should deal with this situation, not being an American citizen ( unlike him) I don't have to show any particular loyalty in that direction.

Take care, Katie

Mel

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 12:47:35 (EDT)
From: Katie from the beyond
Email: None
To: Mel Bourne
Subject: Appreciate the links, Mel
Message:
Hi Mel -
Thank you for the links. The reason I asked you (in case anyone else here just HAS to know) is because I know you work in a human-rights related capacity, thus might have some knowledge of the subject.

Two things:
1. I don't mind you posting the links - I think they are interesting, if only to show how much disinformation is out there (for example the Pakistani article about Israelis taking 'the day off' at the WTC), or to show how other countries view the US. Please take into account, though, that some of the articles are hard to read, and might make people on here angry or sad.

2. I hope you don't view Newt Gingrich to be an official representative of US policy. Although I believe Mr. Gingrich is quite intelligent, he makes unbelievably off-the-wall statements. He is regarded as a 'loose cannon' type by many in the US. (You should hear what he's said about people in the Democratic party here in the US, for example.)

Take care,
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 03:53:44 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Mel Bourne
Subject: I apologize
Message:
Hard for me to say, but apparently the story about the Saudis may have some legs. Whether just one, or two, or possibly three remains to be seen. Apparently Kissinger wasn't sure exactly what was being revoked, whether the bases themselves or the command control centers. But, I don't think we need to 'set up' a regime in S.A. because I can't see that any new group, composed of the Saudi Royal Family, would have significantly different incentives. They certainly aren't going to placate BL at this point. The logic of the situation dictates how they will behave. If not outright support then something else. But my guess is that we'll get what we want there, if we really want it. They don't appear to be directly opposing the US and the majority of states in the region are at least tentatively on our side. Iraq and Afghanistan are pretty isolated.

As for my 'high brow' sources, I'm not really using any so far. But if I needed to know something about the Saudi regime that's where I'd look. Journalism doesn't have the same checks and balances, but it can usually get current information much better. I saw the documentary 'Beneath [Behind?] the Veil*. Good example of a journalistic approach. One of the possible distortions of that documentary concerns the fact that there seems to be a number of different factions within the Taliban, some of which are more brutal than others. Former Pakistani PM Bhutto mentioned this, as did a French Aid worker who had pulled his staff out of Afghanistan recently.

For policy decisions I'd prefer to stick to some of those 'high brow' sources, if and when I have the time to read them.

Basically, I'm just listening to the same stuff you hear on CNN. Perhaps I should pay more attention to Internet sources, but my training in academe usually emphasizes refereed journals and the most recent articles are often not in electronic form. Here are a few from Brookings, but they seem mostly editorials submitted to major newspapers. Not the sort of stuff with much meat.

www.brook.edu

And here are a couple of sources on Mackinder's 'Heartland Theory' that seems to have played a big role in American Policy from time to time. Don't know whether the theory has much validity, but seems to have guided Brezhinski. Afghanistan plays a key role since it's on a border between the 'World Island' and the 'Pivot Region' or something like that. If you've ever read Rudyard Kipling you might recognize some of the references to the 'Great Game.'

http://www.defencejournal.com/globe/dec98/post-bipolar.htm
http://www.bhc.edu/academics/science/harwoodr/GEOG105I/Reading/HeartRimIntro.htm
http://www.shepherd-inc.com/public_html/PDF/socstudies.pdf

The thing about the heartland theory is that if it has any validity then it's *very* important, and if not then of course it's just a bunch of hooey. According to R.B. Fuller though, Mackinder was why the British and the Russians wanted Afghanistan. It may be why we want it too. But I tend to agree with the CIA report stating that the Heartland Theory is just mumbo jumbo.

Finally you might want to read some stuff by Jerrold Post at George Wahington University. I can't find anything in electronic version though. He's an ex-spook with some great insights about the Bin Laden group, and he interviewed the African bombers shortly after their attack. They refer to Bin Laden as 'our prince.' Sound familiar?

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 04:56:31 (EDT)
From: Mel Bourne
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Apology accepted .... another Saudi link, Reuter
Message:
Thanks Scott, just don't overreact;) Maybe this is a more 'reputable' link

Mel
[ Reuters on Saudi "baulking" ]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 09:59:24 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Mel Bourne
Subject: Saudis wiggle.
Message:
Mel:

Reuters is just re-reporting what was in the Washington Post it seems, so perhaps the story has only one leg. Sounds like they are still 'negotiating' with the Saudis. A lot of tough talk going on I suspect, so no one in the administration is copping to anything yet. One thing I know about Bush. He remembers who was there when he needed them and who wasn't. If they cause him grief they can expect payback. He was his father's 'hatchet man' during the first Bush administration. Hmm.. I wonder if there are any 'Irish style' heroes in the Saudi dissident crowd? Might be time to stand out of the way and allow a democratic regime to take over. It probably wouldn't help us militarily, but could be a thorn in the terrorist's side for propaganda reasons. But Bush might not be the right president to think of this, though he has good advisors.

I can't imagine staging an invasion of Iraq without Saudi Arabia though. Maybe from Turkey? We have a base in Turkey we're using to bomb Iraq now, but the Turks (90% Muslim) seem to want to remain 'neutral' so far. I thought that wasn't allowed?

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 10:41:40 (EDT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Turkey opens airspace to US
Message:
My Sunday Gazette says,'Turkey, meanwhile, offered its assistance by opening its airspace to U.S. warplanes.' I tried to find the on-line version of the story, but it's been abridged.

Anna (glad you got out again on your bicycle! :)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 20:49:12 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: If you don't mind...
Message:
Katie, I'd just as soon not know what this dipshit thinks about the Saudi regime. Why don't you mosie over to AEI, or the Wilson Center, and contact someone who *knows* something. Sheesh.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 12:56:11 (EDT)
From: Katie from the beyond
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: If you don't mind...
Message:
Scott,
I really hate getting flamed for asking a question - so I'm pretty much out of here. If you have to know, the reason I asked Mel is because he works in a human-rights related capacity. And I AM interested to know what he thinks.

Anyway, hope you are OK - glad you went for a bike ride. We watched the Hokies instead - that helped the 'normalizing' process.

Love,
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 13:13:05 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Katie from the beyond
Subject: Re: If you don't mind...
Message:
Sorry I 'flamed' you. Didn't know the history, and it wasn't a very intense flame was it?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 13:17:45 (EDT)
From: Katie from the beyond
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Forgiven, Scott - more of a 'singe' anyway [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 21:23:40 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: and YOU know Scott ? hahaha [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 21:44:22 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: I know where to look.
Message:
But if you feel comfortable trusting Mel, that's your business I guess.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 22:07:47 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: I know where to look.
Message:
I neither trust nor dis-trust Mel .....just try to judge each piece of info on its merits.

The UK media was reporting that the Saudi king moved to his palace in Geneva but there was no mention of a palace 'coup' or anything like that.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 22:26:24 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Re: I know where to look.
Message:
Dermot:

Thanks for the info. I had sort of gleaned that Mel's post was more disinformation he had dredged up, especialy since a collapse of the Saudi government would be fairly momentous news, and isn't reported anywhere in he media. Mel is a raft of disinformation, and I'd say he's a pathological liar given his past performance on the forum, so my view of him is not as neutral as yours.

But my observation had more to do with the details of the Saudi regime, and it's human rights record. I imagine there is some truth to those accusations, and I'd go to some of the people who are well known in the field if I wanted accurate information. Some of those are at AEI and Wilson (for the right and left) but also Brookings and a few others.

In the last few weeks the progressive press has virtually shattered its own credibility. I'm no longer prepared to believe anything they say on face value.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 22:44:54 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: The saudis
Message:
at the moment had a heap of Brits, one Canadian (I think) and another guy confess on Saudi tv to a recent spate of bombings. The confessions looked so contrived (similar to Iraqs displaying of the allied air force prisoners during the Gulf war).They had a couple of other guys do the same a few months ago.

The saudis say the westerners are bombing each other as a result of fighting over illegal alcohol trading.

The Brit people are outraged but the Brit Govt prefers cautious, behind the scenes negotiations. The Brit govt thinks these bobmbings are actually saudi dissidents. The saudis dare not admit it.

All this has been covered extensively on Brit tv.

The Brit govt also thinks that the Saudis will negotiate because the Saudis are always requesting/demanding that Britain jails or at least shuts up the Saudi dissidents living in London.

London is a big Arab centre. More Arab newspapers produced her than anywhere in the gulf or Arab world.

Thousands of Brits work in Saudi ....no doubt Americans too?

The Brit Gov always kowtows to the Saudis for the sake of huge arms deals (billions of pounds) and of course oil.

Mosyt Brits think the Saudis are a bunch of arrogant, repressive, hateful motherfuckers.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 23:19:16 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Re: The saudis
Message:
Mosyt Brits think the Saudis are a bunch of arrogant, repressive, hateful motherfuckers.

This is purely anecdotal, but I had a Jordanian roommate who had been a cadet at Sandhurst. His version of english had a characteristic Scottish lilt, because his drill instructor had been Scottish. He attended at the same time as some Saudis, but expressed nothing but contempt for them. Overweight, lazy, undisciplined and spoiled.

Currently watching 'Behind the Veil'

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 23:47:41 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: The saudis
Message:
Just to change the subject slightly. (I must get to bed it's 4-30 AM)
I've just been listening to the BBC worldservice radio.

Tonight the Algerian president just lashed out at Britain. Accusing Britain (as the Saudis do) of harbouring arab dissidents.
He said Britain was really hypocritical for allowing all these Arabs to reside in London and then hide behind' human rights' as an excuse for not shutting them up.

The thing is, most of the governments complaining about this issue preside over really oppressive regimes.However, under the present climate Britain may even come under pressure from The USA to crack down on these refugees. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 00:01:08 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Re: The saudis
Message:
Well, there are probably dissidents... and then there are dissidents. If Dave is right and someone attempted to do a hijacked plane attack on London I don't think it'll take much pressure from the US to crack down.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 20:36:01 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: You're hilarious, Katie
Message:
What's this now? Mel Bourne the star reporter and middle east expert?

You're too funny.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 23:35:30 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Bye, Jim [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 23:50:29 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Hey, don't go Katie [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 13:06:34 (EDT)
From: Katie from the beyond
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Thanks, Dermot, but...
Message:
Been there, done that, if you know what I mean...

It's been helpful for me to talk to you and others here about the current crisis. But I realize that it is OT on this forum, and I know that there are people here who don't like all the OT posts. I don't have an interest in talking about Maharaji right now, and I also don't need to get flamed or criticized for asking questions, so I do need to go.

Love to you,
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 19:58:57 (EDT)
From: Mel Bourne
Email: None
To: Mel Bourne
Subject: Sorry, 1st & last sentences mine...nt
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 17:04:24 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: All
Subject: How can they say Islam is a peaceful religion?
Message:
Here's a smattering of verses from the Koran:

[48.13] And whoever does not believe in Allah and His Apostle, then surely We have prepared burning fire for the unbelievers.

[3.131] And guard yourselves against the fire which has been prepared for the unbelievers.

[4.140] And indeed He has revealed to you in the Book that when you hear Allah's communications disbelieved in and mocked at do not sit with them until they enter into some other discourse; surely then you would be like them; surely Allah will gather together the hypocrites and the unbelievers all in hell.

[4.18] And repentance is not for those who go on doing evil deeds, until when death comes to one of them, he says: Surely now I repent; nor (for) those who die while they are unbelievers. These are they for whom We have prepared a painful chastisement.

[2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.

9.68] Allah has promised the hypocritical men and the hypocritical women and the unbelievers the fire of hell to abide therein; it is enough for them; and Allah has cursed them and they shall have lasting punishment.

[5.102] A people before you indeed asked such questions, and then became disbelievers on account of them.

[39.71] And those who disbelieve shall be driven to hell in companies; until, when they come to it, its doors shall be opened, and the keepers of it shall say to them: Did not there come to you apostles from among you reciting to you the communications of your Lord and warning you of the meeting of this day of yours? They shall say: Yea! But the sentence of punishment was due against the unbelievers.

[4.144] O you who believe! do not take the unbelievers for friends rather than the believers; do you desire that you should give to Allah a manifest proof against yourselves?

[2.193] And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.

[4.115] And whoever acts hostilely to the Apostle after that guidance has become manifest to him, and follows other than the way of the believers, We will turn him to that to which he has (himself) turned and make him enter hell; and it is an evil resort.

[8.65] O Prophet! urge the believers to war; if there are twenty patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a hundred of you they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they are a people who do not understand.

Now, honestly, who can say with a straight face that this isn't incendiary stuff? I guess there's always the argument that in spite of the so-called prophet's own words Islam has historically been peaceful and tolerant. But isn't it obvious that muslims have to do a lot of fancy foot work to get there from here? And isn't it just as obvious that a lot of muslims aren't interested in doing that fancy footwork?

Really, it almost seems like peaceful, tolerant muslims have to immunize themselves against their own holy book. I can't imagine what arguments they have against fundamentalists who can point to the so-called prophet's words for their authority. Like modern interpretation of most religions, be they classic big ones like Judaism, Christianity or Islam or even weird shit like our own Maharaji's hindu God-man legacy as set out so clearly in Hans Yog Prakash, the current followers must choose between bizarre, dangerous intellectual honesty or fuzzy, vague avoidance of their own doctrine.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 23:00:20 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Where's the debate? IS there even one?
Message:
Today, anyone watching the New York prayer meeting and spirit rally might have seen a wonderful, touching, even inspiring address by a muslim religious leader who specifically decried the terrorists and those who support them as not being muslim and not even being believers. Then I look at an article like the Globe and Mail one linked above and ... hey let's face it. This is not some bizarre, breakaway rogue cult, these guys most definitely represent, or at least think they represent a real, legitimate interpretation of Islam. To say they're not believers seems facile somehow.

So where are the debates? Where, if anywhere, do the so-called 'real' muslims, the peaceful ones, meet the so-called unreal ones and hash out their differing opinions? Or is even that dialogue too dangerous?
[ Why Do They Hate Us So Much? ]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 03:19:43 (EDT)
From: Salam
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: How can they say
Message:
religion a peacfull religion. The jews killed jesus, the christians killed the jew, the cathars and anyone in-between, the hindus slaughter muslims and muslims do it to others.

This is not a theological affair. Plus Your translation of the Q'ouran is not accurate neither and is taken out of context. Remember Context? Some of what the Q'uoran is talking about was about events that sorrounded Mohamed at the time. And which religion does not promise you fire if you are an infidel?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 14:59:18 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Salam
Subject: Wrong argument, Salam
Message:
I'm not talking about other religions. Sure, they could be -- or could not be -- equally dangerous. I'm just saying now that Islam's a powderkeg. Now, you say that my translation's not accurate. Please, direct me to a translation you accept and I'll look it over. Or is that offensive somehow?

Come on, let's face it. These religion's are all filled with dangerous 'agya'. And anyone getting into the religion is going to have to some fancy footwork to avoid it. Frankly, I think it's surprising that an even greater percentage of muslims aren't caught by the clear, threatening message of the Koran. (Oh, sorry, I forgot, bad translation). But then aren't they when the Palestinian religious leaders, for example, urge young men to give themselves to God in jihad and celebrate their 'righteous' deaths as fast-tracks to paradise?

Salam, I am not against muslim people. I'm against dangerous belief systems.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 20:52:30 (EDT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: London atrocity thwarted
Message:
I don't have the full details yet but British intellegence services have thwarted another suicide plane hijacking that aimed to crash a jumbo jet into central London. The story is in some of tomorrows UK newspapers. More details will come to light when the newspapers are out (or when I buy one).
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 05:22:52 (EDT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: -- disinformation continues
Message:
... or so it seems. There was nothing at all about this on the morning news this Sunday in London, and there is nothing about it on the BBC news website, as anyone could find out.

New offence, Sir Dave, but unattributed 'news' items like this are a waste of time and can stoke hysteria. Please could you post URLs or references to your news sources, and remember that we can all find out stuff for ourselves.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 11:33:18 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: Re: -- disinformation continues
Message:
As powerful as the Internet is, there's a lot that isn't published here. For the most part there's a lag of several years for journal articles, and those aren't available to you anyway, unless you're a member of an association or a student or faculty hember somewhere. If you're counting on Google doing all your research for you you're going to be underinformed. Sorry.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 11:42:38 (EDT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: -- disinformation continues
Message:
As powerful as the Internet is, there's a lot that isn't published here. For the most part there's a lag of several years for journal articles, and those aren't available to you anyway, unless you're a member of an association or a student or faculty hember somewhere. If you're counting on Google doing all your research for you you're going to be underinformed. Sorry.

--Scott


---

I know that you fool.

Are you saying you would expect the BBC not to carry the story if it were true, that was published in the British Yellow press?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 12:24:07 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: Re: -- disinformation continues
Message:
I haven't heard it on our press either, and I'd expect it to be reported in the BBC. But you seemed to be saying that Dave has the obligation to post internet sources for whatever he says. And to tell the truth I *don't* think you know much about the lag in information presented on the internet. You certainly don't act like you do, and that's pretty much all I have to go on.

As for being a fool, the comment you made below suggesting the embassy bombing in Africa was the same sort of wakeup as the WTC attack is about the most foolish statement I've seen on the forum, or anywhere for that matter. If that's an example of your level of judgment then I think I was right to post the admonition. I'll repeat it if necessary.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 06:55:29 (EDT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Cult think
Message:
What gave you away was your manifest inability to understand the rather simple point Joe made, that the US military's 'suspension' of its hostility to gays just because of the attack is grossly insulting.

'Hey! we're being attacked. Help us and we'll even stop fucking you over at least until the battle is won!'

Yeah, great offer guys.

Katie got you to (almost) see it in the end, but she must be a Saint. You, Scott, are not. Crazed with bloodlust, you are stuck in some kind of wierd groupthink that, frankly, makes you sound like a member of a military cult of some sort.

So long, and thanks for all the laughs.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 11:25:12 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: Oops double post.
Message:
Sorry. The twins showed up after I re-posted.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 06:26:59 (EDT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: Not disinformation
Message:
Last night on the Sky 1 News TV channel in the tomorrow's newspapers preview it was mentioned.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 09:55:44 (EDT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: Joke! [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 21:13:49 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: glad you dodged that bullet
Message:
David:

I don't know what it'll take to drive home the nature of this crisis to those seeing the world through their Buffy the Vampire Killer lenses. Hoping most of the people posting on this forum are the fringe. Far too much reasonableness. Post more, if you have it.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 19:05:45 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Why do they say Islam is a peaceful religion?
Message:
Jim:

Have to ask the right question. Because if they don't then we have a holy war between Islam and some western alliance (whether Christian, liberal, whatever). Clearly better to say Islam is peaceful and leave the proof to Islam.

But most of the stuff seems to leave the head banging to God or Allah, and not to man. A few exceptions:

[2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.

There's lots of stuff in the Torah that's worse than this, and the second part is actually extolling something like self defense.

[2.193] And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.

Self defense again.

[4.115] And whoever acts hostilely to the Apostle after that guidance has become manifest to him, and follows other than the way of the believers, We will turn him to that to which he has (himself) turned and make him enter hell; and it is an evil resort.

They're clearly talking about sending people to Las Vegas, or possibly Palm Beach.

[8.65] O Prophet! urge the believers to war; if there are twenty patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a hundred of you they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they are a people who do not understand.

I'll grant you that one looks pretty bad. Not something a good lawyer couldn't dance out of though, if there were a will.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 18:13:34 (EDT)
From: a guy who doesn't want his name on this
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Jim, you shouldn't mess with these people
Message:
don't mess with them, man. CAC will seem like a little prank pulled off by some chaps you once thought were your friends if these guys decide to mess with you.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 17:28:17 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Question for Mickey
Message:
Mickey,

In your discussion below with Chris you said this:

I agree with your idea that Islam and Christianity and several other religions have been 'hijacked' with the idea of demonizing one's opponents and have been contaminated with the idea that violence is supported by God.

Don't passages like those above show that Islam actually does a pretty good job right at its source of demonizing its opponents and teaching that some violence is indeed supported by God?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 17:49:09 (EDT)
From: Mickey the Pharisee
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: Question for Mickey
Message:
The first four quotes appear to be about the fate of unbelievers in hell; many religions teach that unbelievers (especially those who don't believe in their particular faith) will end up in eternal torment and fire. Heck, that's what got a lot of people through the past several thousand years, knowing that their oppressors would spend eternity in fiery torment as a result of their nasty behaviour in this world. Even Jesus is supposed to have said that those who do not feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, tend the sick, clothe the naked, visit the prisoner and welcome the stranger would be cast into eternal darkness at the Final Judgment. It seems that the Prophet has all unbelievers and hypocrites headed there. Since those passages deal with hellfire, I guess that they are incendiary.

The passages which urge one to fight the enemies of Allah are not exactly calls for love and peace, are they? The Prophet did have an army and was not exactly loving to those in opposition to him. And he certainly did not teach 'turn the other cheek.'

So, yes, I agree with you; the passages in your first post do show that Islam was pretty good at demonizing its opponents with out being 'hijacked.'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 18:12:23 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Mickey the Pharisee
Subject: Yeah but Mickey
Message:
Many Jews and Christians live by that other weird book .....THE OLD TESTAMENT ...which is also not a 'turn the other cheek book'.

Israels claims (thus clashes with present day Palestinians )to land ARE NOT based on post war land allocation but on stuff mentioned in the old testament.

IMO Christianity, Judaeism and Islam (Sikhism too without exception) are all as blood soaked as each other no matter what a book says or doesn't say.All four slaughter in the name of God when it suits them.

Another big world religion (if you can class it as a religion) HINDUISM is also not averse to the odd bit of slaughter every so often.

Check out the history books ......they are all as violent as each other.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 18:45:31 (EDT)
From: Mickey the Pharisee
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Yeah Dermot
Message:
'IMO Christianity, Judaeism and Islam (Sikhism too without exception) are all as blood soaked as each other no matter what a book says or doesn't say.All four slaughter in the name of God when it suits them.'

Dermot, I think I mentioned that fact way down in the thread in which cq and I discuss this stuff. I was responding to Jim's question regarding the Koran (and I looked up the passages before writing, too, just to make sure that Jim had not made mistakes in his quotes; can't be too careful with this stuff). He was not asking me to go over everything I had said in the other thread. I was comparing the Prophet Muhammed to Jesus. I am well aware of the Hebrew Scriptures or Old Testament.

I am quite aware of the history books. And if you really want to read up on some 'religious slaughters,' read about the Zoroastrians' slaughter of the Nestorian Christians in Persia, starting in the fifth century...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 19:55:13 (EDT)
From: Jorge
Email: None
To: Mickey the Pharisee
Subject: Re: Yeah Dermot
Message:
' read about the Zoroastrians' slaughter of the Nestorian Christians in Persia, starting in the fifth century...

..and whoever was left of the Nestorians were wiped out by other christians in the name of 'stamping out heresy'.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 19:13:58 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Mickey the Pharisee
Subject: Re: Yeah Dermot
Message:
Fair enough Mickey, I wasn't aware of your discussion with CQ (haven't dipped into that thread yet).

...I was just responding because I thought your gist was 'Yeah Islam is violent but Christianity is all'turn the other cheek' * (paraphrase)

To tell you the truth, I'm not aware of the Zoroastrians' slaughter ..I'll check it out one day. Just another Slaughterhouse inc to add to the list I guess.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 19:01:46 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Mickey the Pharisee
Subject: Then aren't they simply inherently dangerous?
Message:
Mickey,

Doesn't it seem that we'd all be better off without any of these religions where all a person has to do is revert to the original text to find support for all sorts of terribls stuff?

I just don't see why we need any of it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 21:50:46 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: Then aren't they simply inherently dangerous?
Message:
You didn't ask, but I'm not going to say yet that we'd be better off without *any* religion, although we might be better off without any of *these*. Before we decide to impose atheism on the world based on Dawkin's theories, however, perhaps we ought to try a few modest pilot programs.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index