Ex-Premie Forum 7 Archive
From: Sep 26, 2001 To: Oct 01, 2001 Page: 4 of: 5


Jean-Michel -:- Big shots' meeting in Amaroo next Dec -:- Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 09:15:58 (EDT)
__ moll of mole -:- Re: Big shots' meeting in Amaroo next Dec -:- Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 05:14:02 (EDT)
__ silvanna bin Aladin -:- sure, yeah, I'm Santa and he is the LORD. -:- Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 17:23:22 (EDT)
__ Osana bin Laden -:- Re: Big shots' meeting in Amaroo next Dec -:- Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 16:40:57 (EDT)
__ __ Dermot -:- Duh, thought you were the real OBL [nt] -:- Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 00:46:17 (EDT)
__ __ Ivanna bin Laden by Trump -:- What should I wear for darshan? -:- Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 19:40:57 (EDT)
__ __ __ Ben Lurking -:- Re: What should I wear for darshan? -:- Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 20:26:31 (EDT)
__ Salam -:- Another CACA? -:- Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 13:36:02 (EDT)
__ Dermot -:- Ah,the innocent days of K bashing -:- Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 09:27:27 (EDT)

Dermot -:- Muslim failure -:- Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 09:00:09 (EDT)
__ Dear -:- Hers the link again, I hope -:- Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 09:02:23 (EDT)
__ __ silvia -:- good article -:- Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 17:25:01 (EDT)

Mr.Dooley -:- Spread this K to every land, I dare you -:- Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 06:16:48 (EDT)

Salam -:- what will happen if the Talibans win? -:- Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 02:50:26 (EDT)
__ Pat:C) -:- Careful, Salam or -:- Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 19:38:22 (EDT)
__ Stonor -:- Thanks for the laugh, Salam! :) -:- Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 15:08:13 (EDT)
__ __ Sir Dave }( -:- The right man but the wrong date, Stonor -:- Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 16:40:46 (EDT)
__ __ __ Stonor -:- Thanks for the correction, Sir Dave! -:- Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 19:22:33 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Sir Dave -:- Yep and the proof's here -:- Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 21:24:56 (EDT)
__ cq -:- HaaaaaaaHaaahahahhaaaa!!!! Good 'un, Salam(nt) -:- Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 13:52:54 (EDT)
__ [Blank] -:- Bush for Dummies -:- Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 03:04:08 (EDT)

Sir Dave -:- Francesca, I think it's a media war -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 22:39:09 (EDT)
__ Katie -:- Yes and no, Sir Dave -:- Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 08:16:09 (EDT)
__ __ Katie -:- PS - sort of unrelated, but interesting -:- Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 08:20:21 (EDT)
__ Jerry -:- World News -:- Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 06:41:17 (EDT)
__ __ Sir Dave -:- Re: World News -:- Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 07:01:12 (EDT)
__ Francesca :C) -:- But I don't watch TV! -:- Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 00:35:07 (EDT)
__ __ Sir Dave -:- Re: But I don't watch TV! -:- Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 07:10:02 (EDT)
__ __ __ Francesca :C) -:- Re: TV! -:- Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 11:51:56 (EDT)
__ __ Pat:C) -:- Don't watch much TV! Me neither. -:- Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 03:43:46 (EDT)
__ Scott T. -:- Media War -:- Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 00:20:22 (EDT)
__ Jim -:- Excellent point, Dave -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 23:17:35 (EDT)
__ __ Sir Dave }( -:- My Mother used to say -:- Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 07:12:06 (EDT)
__ __ Pat:C) -:- We could send MADD after Osama -:- Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 03:52:12 (EDT)
__ __ Scott T. -:- Due South. -:- Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 00:40:53 (EDT)

Jim -:- Evolution tonight is on Mind and God -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 20:20:41 (EDT)
__ Jim -:- Boy, did PBS ever wimp out! -:- Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 18:06:03 (EDT)
__ __ Dermot -:- First sign of senility Jim -:- Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 18:25:53 (EDT)
__ a0aji -:- Re: Evolution tonight is on Mind and God -:- Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 00:26:03 (EDT)
__ __ Jerry -:- Re: Evolution tonight is on Mind and God -:- Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 10:13:10 (EDT)
__ __ __ G -:- Interesting but biased -:- Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 18:05:30 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- Typical religious bullshit -:- Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 20:03:04 (EDT)

PatD -:- The New Ghenghis Khan -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 20:13:43 (EDT)
__ Scott T. -:- Not very likely. -:- Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 00:53:32 (EDT)
__ __ PatD -:- Thanks Scott , paranoia attack on my part [nt] -:- Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 18:11:10 (EDT)

Pat:C) -:- Email from disgruntled premie -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 14:47:05 (EDT)
__ don condom -:- Re: Email from disgruntled premie -:- Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 06:27:11 (EDT)
__ Francesca :) -:- Another one for 'the premie collection' -:- Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 01:15:18 (EDT)
__ __ Pat:C) -:- Re: Another one for IPECAC -:- Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 04:02:55 (EDT)
__ __ __ Francesca ()) -:- I like it! [nt] -:- Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 11:55:59 (EDT)
__ salam -:- Re: Email from disgruntled premie -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 21:24:22 (EDT)
__ __ Pat:C) -:- I don't know Salam -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 22:59:09 (EDT)
__ __ __ salam -:- u r becoming wise. -:- Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 02:59:52 (EDT)
__ such -:- belongs at ELK site:diverse premie poems! [nt] -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 16:52:33 (EDT)
__ bill -:- knowledge works wonders [nt] -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 16:35:09 (EDT)

Francesca -:- A small view of the Taliban -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 12:54:11 (EDT)
__ bill -:- Re: A small view of the Taliban -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 17:35:53 (EDT)
__ suchabanana -:- Afghanistan:a wasteland bereft of music's joys -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 16:45:05 (EDT)
__ G -:- RAWA (anti-Taliban Afghan women) -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 16:18:32 (EDT)
__ Chuck S. -:- How horrible... -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 14:07:14 (EDT)
__ __ gerry -:- Re: How horrible... -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 15:44:05 (EDT)
__ __ Fundamentalist Fun -:- ''Why can't I own Canadians?'' -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 14:17:18 (EDT)
__ __ __ Francesca :C) -:- This is a hoot! -:- Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 00:39:51 (EDT)

Dermot -:- Am I stupid or what ?? -:- Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 18:49:22 (EDT)
__ Scott T. -:- Re: Am I stupid or what ? -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 11:02:43 (EDT)
__ salsa -:- SMOKE THEM -:- Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 23:31:21 (EDT)
__ __ Pat:C) -:- Do they have to be hung out to dry -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 16:39:00 (EDT)
__ __ __ salam -:- Re: Do they have to be hung out to dry -:- Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 13:38:52 (EDT)
__ __ The Rev Bud Green -:- You'll need alot of papers! -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 10:48:10 (EDT)
__ __ Dermot -:- Re: SMOKE THEM....and ???? -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 05:45:51 (EDT)
__ Joe -:- You are definitely NOT stupid -:- Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 22:09:18 (EDT)
__ Bob -:- Hey Joe, I'm with you -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 14:13:56 (EDT)
__ __ Scott T. -:- So, you're basically against... -:- Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 19:35:46 (EDT)
__ __ Bob -:- Re: Hey Joe, I'm with you -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 14:22:26 (EDT)
__ __ __ Bob -:- 2 bobs -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 16:31:07 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Pat:C) -:- I dub thee BobS. -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 16:37:17 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ bobo bob oh! bobb -:- Re: I dub thee BobS. -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 17:27:08 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Pat:C) -:- Why not Bobb)? -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 19:04:42 (EDT)
__ __ Jim -:- Why don't you just say 'I told you so' -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 13:02:55 (EDT)
__ __ __ Joe -:- Criticism of the US in the Third World -:- Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 13:24:44 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Criticism of the US in the Third World -:- Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 19:04:48 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Pat:C) -:- wealth redistribution vs free market -:- Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 19:29:25 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Re: wealth redistribution vs free market -:- Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 00:34:54 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pat:C) -:- You lost me. Scott -:- Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 04:14:00 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- My fault, sorry. -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 00:39:26 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pat:C) -:- Thanks, Scott -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 14:11:50 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- I hope you're not referring to me Pat:) -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 14:33:18 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pat:C) -:- Re: I hope you're not referring to me Pat:) -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 15:06:03 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- AND -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 07:36:22 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- Japan 'unique' ? -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 07:18:11 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Re: Japan 'unique' ? -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 14:48:30 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- Loses me too -:- Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 10:12:56 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- How simplistic! -:- Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 14:12:04 (EDT)
__ __ __ Joe -:- Quick reponse to LOOOOOOONG post -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 20:02:45 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Joe -:- One of the problems -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 21:22:51 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Rick -:- Re: One of the problems -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 21:56:36 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Right -:- Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 12:50:04 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- I'm taking a short nap -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 20:09:32 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Who they are... -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 21:08:58 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- Watch those short Jim posts, Joe -:- Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 07:58:55 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Thanks, Dermot -:- Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 12:38:23 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- What the hell ....? -:- Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 13:44:24 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- Sorry Jim, couldn't resist :) [nt] -:- Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 14:34:50 (EDT)
__ __ __ Scott T. -:- Disengagement -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 14:32:18 (EDT)
__ __ __ Dermot -:- Thanks for some answers Jim -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 13:56:03 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- Re: Thanks for some answers Jim -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 14:38:14 (EDT)
__ __ Scott T. -:- Treading on Thin Water -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 10:56:22 (EDT)
__ __ Bob -:- War against fundamentalism -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 07:37:04 (EDT)
__ __ Dermot -:- PS Joe -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 07:19:16 (EDT)
__ __ Dermot -:- Only YOU could say that, Joe -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 05:39:43 (EDT)
__ __ __ Sir Dave -:- An even greater tragedy unfolding -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 07:18:45 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Re: An even greater tragedy unfolding -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 11:28:56 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Francesca -:- Scott, Dave, everyone, thanks -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 13:16:46 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Dermot -:- So true, Dave. [nt] -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 07:22:59 (EDT)
__ __ Francesca -:- You GO! Joe. Great post! [nt] -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 01:03:09 (EDT)
__ __ __ Salam -:- Re: You GO! Joe. Great post! -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 02:50:45 (EDT)
__ __ Rick -:- Joe -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 00:49:14 (EDT)
__ __ __ Joe -:- The Nothern Alliance.... -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 12:22:09 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Dermot -:- The ex-King of Afghanistan -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 12:37:13 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Re: The ex-King of Afghanistan -:- Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 00:44:57 (EDT)
__ __ __ Salam -:- Re: Joe -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 02:41:37 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Jerry -:- What do you know? -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 07:27:59 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ salam}) -:- Re: What do you know? -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 11:42:04 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ salam -:- correction -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 21:10:25 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Come on, Salam -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 11:49:06 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ salam -:- either with you or against you policy. -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 12:28:05 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Re: either with you or against you policy. -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 13:36:35 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ salam -:- Re: either with you or against you policy. -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 21:13:13 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- 'terrorist' -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 09:08:36 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- 'terrorist' in dictionary -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 19:17:14 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Pat:C) -:- But you have to first stop the Taliban -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 03:48:47 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ salam -:- Re: But you have to first stop the Taliban -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 10:43:21 (EDT)
__ Pat:C) -:- These are the new Nazis, Dermot -:- Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 21:11:09 (EDT)
__ __ Dermot -:- Re: These are the new Nazis, Dermot -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 05:46:51 (EDT)
__ Robyn -:- This from the SF Chronical Sept 16, 2001 -:- Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 20:31:05 (EDT)
__ __ Scott T. -:- Re: This from the SF Chronical Sept 16, 2001 -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 08:00:18 (EDT)
__ __ __ cq -:- anti-American sentiment? -:- Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 13:43:31 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Yeah, you've misread me, as usual. -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 00:24:31 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Dermot -:- Good points Cq,esp.Opposition etc [nt] -:- Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 14:29:08 (EDT)
__ __ dERMOT -:- Re: This from the SF Chronical Sept 16, 2001 -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 05:51:17 (EDT)
__ __ Salam -:- Re: This from the SF Chronical Sept 16, 2001 -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 02:11:13 (EDT)
__ __ __ JohnT -:- Robert Fisk -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 05:07:41 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ salam -:- Re: Robert Fisk -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 10:46:52 (EDT)
__ __ __ JohnT -:- Robert Fisk -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 05:07:21 (EDT)
__ Rick -:- Re: Am I stupid or what ? -:- Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 19:50:32 (EDT)
__ __ Dermot -:- Re: Am I stupid or what ? -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 05:53:35 (EDT)
__ __ Jerry -:- Re: Am I stupid or what ? -:- Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 20:01:36 (EDT)
__ __ __ salam -:- Re: Am I stupid or what ? -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 02:31:05 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ JohnT -:- Living in a dream world -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 07:51:42 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Pat:C) -:- Re: Am I stupid or what ? -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 03:45:23 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ salam -:- Re: Am I stupid or what ? -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 11:35:53 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- congratulations, Pat -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 10:44:45 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Pat:C) -:- Thanks, Gerry -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 13:54:26 (EDT)
__ __ __ Rick -:- Re: Am I stupid or what ? -:- Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 20:41:04 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ salsa -:- PR with bin? -:- Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 23:34:29 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Rick -:- Re: PR with bin? -:- Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 00:29:07 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ hamzen -:- Genuine coalitions would do it -:- Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 20:52:59 (EDT)
__ Jerry -:- Re: Am I stupid or what ? -:- Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 19:03:15 (EDT)


Date: Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 09:15:58 (EDT)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: All
Subject: Big shots' meeting in Amaroo next Dec
Message:
according to one of my moles .....

In Amaroo ? With the 'master' ?? For 'His Birthday' ? Darshan scheduled ???

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 05:14:02 (EDT)
From: moll of mole
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: Re: Big shots' meeting in Amaroo next Dec
Message:
a bit hot that time of year, better double check that info
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 17:23:22 (EDT)
From: silvanna bin Aladin
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: sure, yeah, I'm Santa and he is the LORD.
Message:
I hear that the premies are 'thirsty' again, ready to endebt themselves further to charge their batteries.

We ex-premies, having crossed to the other side, we know well mahalard doesn't empower people but makes them week and needy of his 'magic potion'. What a waste of time to go all the way there to hear the same exact crap again...losers.

Hi JM. Thanks for the good material you posted lately.

s

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 16:40:57 (EDT)
From: Osana bin Laden
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: Re: Big shots' meeting in Amaroo next Dec
Message:
I will be there to teach true fund raising
OBL
(spoof) not real OBL
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 00:46:17 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Osana bin Laden
Subject: Duh, thought you were the real OBL [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 19:40:57 (EDT)
From: Ivanna bin Laden by Trump
Email: None
To: Osana bin Laden
Subject: What should I wear for darshan?
Message:
You're a blonde, Ivanna. Better wear a nun's habit.

PatC

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 20:26:31 (EDT)
From: Ben Lurking
Email: None
To: Ivanna bin Laden by Trump
Subject: Re: What should I wear for darshan?
Message:
My hope is some inteligence agency picks up on this thread and visits Amaroo.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 13:36:02 (EDT)
From: Salam
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: Another CACA?
Message:
another get together with the boys after their last pathetic result. Cook up spmething new.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 09:27:27 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: Ah,the innocent days of K bashing
Message:
so rudely and cruelly interrupted on September 11th.

Thanks JM.....I wonder how M views everything now? In depth strategy reviews to make K relevant to a world so obviously more complex than putting your tongue up your nasal passage to experience infinity?

What exactly is the meeting about? Does your mole know any details?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 09:00:09 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: All
Subject: Muslim failure
Message:
Myself and others have pointed to the fact that the West in general and America in particular (as the powerful leader of the West) must fundamentally review and change its attitudes, approaches and actions toward the rest of the world including Muslims.

In fairness, I think we've also pointed out that a lot of the Islamic world, politically and socially, are basket cases.

Her's an interesting article focusing on the need for change in the Muslim world.
[ Muslim failure ]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 09:02:23 (EDT)
From: Dear
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Hers the link again, I hope
Message:
x
[ Muslim failure ]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 17:25:01 (EDT)
From: silvia
Email: None
To: Dear
Subject: good article
Message:
is true. Muslims have crossed the line. I hope leaders are understanding the failure and take action.'

Thanks D.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 06:16:48 (EDT)
From: Mr.Dooley
Email: None
To: All
Subject: Spread this K to every land, I dare you
Message:
' Jesse Jackson said he does not want to go(to Afghanistan), but feels obligated, if he can, to try to free two American humanitarian workers, jailed by the Taliban along with six other foreign relief workers on charges of preaching Christianity.'
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 02:50:26 (EDT)
From: Salam
Email: None
To: All
Subject: what will happen if the Talibans win?
Message:
first Case Senario
Second Case Senario

These are the links in case,

http://www.geocities.com/rawatsucks/talibans/case1.html
http://www.geocities.com/rawatsucks/talibans/case1.html

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 19:38:22 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Salam
Subject: Careful, Salam or
Message:
CAC will accuse you of pornograpically altering other peoples' photos.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 15:08:13 (EDT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: Salam
Subject: Thanks for the laugh, Salam! :)
Message:
Her right fore-arm is still exposed, Salam!!!!!

Thanks for the laugh - I've forwarded the links to some friends!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 16:40:46 (EDT)
From: Sir Dave }(
Email: None
To: Stonor
Subject: The right man but the wrong date, Stonor
Message:
I agree and those Bushisms are a laugh. I think America has got the right president. He's not afraid to laugh at himself (he promoted that book himself) and doesn't think he's a great president and contrary to what people thought, he's not a war mongerer but is a good listener and careful man. He's careful because he realises his own shortcomings.

Yes, I like old George W.

And your question way down below Stonor: Rememberence day is on the 11th of November, not October. That was the day that the WW1 Armstice was signed, ending what was then called ''The Great War''. It's at the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month where people all over Britain stop everything and have a few minutes silence in rememberence of all people who have died in war.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 19:22:33 (EDT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: Sir Dave }(
Subject: Thanks for the correction, Sir Dave!
Message:
You'll notice I wasn't entirely sure about that date - I'm never sure about many of those dates, and working at a school, I always get plenty of notice about the important ones - and I check with my sister or my calendar for most of them. As I've said before, history is my weakest subject. :( But yes, now I remember the 11th/11th/11th. We stop everything at that time here in Canada, too, of course.

I am relieved that George W. and the U.S. government seem to be thinking before acting, so far. And going after the financial assets of people who support terrorism was a rather good move as well, I thought. I didn't know Bush promoted that book himself ... is it true, or is that what he was advised to do? (Always the cynical optimist, here! ;)

Anna

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 21:24:56 (EDT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: Stonor
Subject: Yep and the proof's here
Message:
Click on the above link and you'll go to the Bush on Bushisms main page. Then if you've got Windows Media Player you can click on a link on that page to listen to George W talking about the book, ''The Complete Bushisms''.
[ The Complete Bushisms ]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 13:52:54 (EDT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Salam
Subject: HaaaaaaaHaaahahahhaaaa!!!! Good 'un, Salam(nt)
Message:
HaaaHahhaaaahhaaaaa!!!!! Good 'un, Salam (nt)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 03:04:08 (EDT)
From: [Blank]
Email: None
To: Salam
Subject: Bush for Dummies
Message:
images stollen without permission from

Bush for Dummies

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 22:39:09 (EDT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: sirdavid12@hotmail.com
To: All
Subject: Francesca, I think it's a media war
Message:
and I also think it's media grief. If it wasn't for the mass media and radio and TV, people wouldn't be affected by it. For several days I've not watched any American news channels and only listened to news on the radio. Then tonight I watched some American TV news channels and realised that the American media is mainly responsible for creating the grief and also panic that some people are feeling.

Sure, I shed some tears, especially when I heard that telephone voicemail message from the woman who was trapped in the WTC and about to die. But the grief and trauma that has spread is excessive, in my view and all down to the news channels.

I'm not saying grief and trauma aren't real but in this case they are being over-amplified to an excessive extent. You see I believe there is such a thing as manufactured grief, created by television and when one gets caught up in it, it can feel as real as when a person you know dies.

I think TV affects people's minds far more than they realise. Think about all the films you've watched where you've been brought to tears by some sad/happy ending. I know I often shed a tear at some silly children's film and I even did that with The Wizard Of Oz.

People are easily emotionally affected and manipulated by what happens on screen. This is useful for engendering patriotism but watching the US news channels, something sticks out like a sore thumb - American TV news channels are only preoccupied with America and the rest of the world seems to have become some distant reality that has less importance.

This is great for patriotic Americans but since the main US TV news channels are watched the world over, it has little or no relevance to non Americans. Maybe America is a victim of its own success and the TV news channels forget that most of the world is outside America.

I'm not bashing America or belittling the horror of recent events there but certainly the American news media which has so much daily effect upon Americans can do a diservice to their own people in manufacturing too much grief and also, more seriously, manufacturing anxiety and panic which can affect trade and industry and create recession.

Your Wall Street traders weren't falling for that one and were back in business within a few days. Much the same as what has been experienced here with the IRA atrocities and also what happened during the Second World War.

The news media has also over-amplified the potential threat to life from these terrorists. These terrorists might be fanatical and dedicated but they are also pretty dumb. The head suicide pilot nearly blew his cover when he repeatedly went to crop spraying airfields and asked to fly one of the planes. Others have blown their cover by enquiring too much about transporting hazardous chemicals.

At the recent G7 summit in Italy, there was, we now know, a plan for one of the suicide pilots to fly a light aircraft packed with explosives and crash it into the summit but the Italian authorities found out and arrested the pilot before it could happen.

The danger from terrorist attack is still very slight and people have more chance of winning the lottery than being killed by terrorist activity. Chemical weapons are very difficult to make in quantities large enough to kill more than a couple of people and even harder to spread over a large area.

What has really happened? A group of ruthless fanatics armed with knives were able to take advantage of non existent airline security and by dint of their ruthlessness were able to crash the planes. They won't be able to do that one again.

Most of the terror has been created by the news media. America is not under threat. America is not going to be bombed out of existence or have its population killed by chemical or biological weapons. Yet the media has implied that that danger is there and I see there is a real danger that America will frighten itself to death - which is what the terrorists want and aim to do.

Terrorism is attacking and manipulating the general population by fear itself.

Scott T asked me what's happening with the IRA these days. The IRA have realised that their terrorist tactics were not working on the UK population who were becoming hardened to them.

So now the IRA have ceased their UK mainland terrorist activities and only some break-away groups are left (such as the 'Real IRA') and now even they realise that after the bombing in Omargh where there were numerous deaths and maimings, expecially of children; they realise that their terrorist tactics have only made people more determined than ever to find a peace process and end the violence.

The main aim of terrorism is to frighten people. It is not aimed at causing mass casualties or even casualties close to those of a real war. It is aimed at causing mass fear and mass hysteria which can make a country immobile and force politicians to crumble under the strain.

Unfortunately, America's first taste of real terrorism just happens to be the largest terrorist attack in history and now America is in danger of doing exactly what the terrorists want - becoming a nation of mass fear and panic. And your news media, inexperienced in such things, is at present unwittingly, helping to spread the fear throughout the country.

There's more danger from drunk drivers than from terrorists. If the media only highlighted that danger, there would be far more Americans alive today.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 08:16:09 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: Yes and no, Sir Dave
Message:
I think some of what is going on is media-created, but not all. It's obvious to me that it is still safer to fly than to drive (even without drunk drivers), but the fear of flying generated by the attack seems more visceral than rational to me. I also think there has been way too much focus on chemical and biological weapons lately - which tends to scare people.

But about the grief and anger - my mother, sister and brother all live in DC, and while they don't know anyone who was killed, all of them know several people whose friends or relatives were killed on the planes, in the Pentagon, or in the WTC. Some of the students at the university I work for know people whose parents were killed. It DOES affect one directly if you live or have ties to either NY or DC - and the media doesn't have to generate this feeling. Even if you don't watch TV, you hear stories from other people who are involved in some way, and that actually hits me harder than the things on TV. Joe has told about some of the things he has heard - I have heard others.

For example, here is part of an e-mail I got from my sister (slightly edited for privacy). Not a big deal, but it brought up some feelings, for sure.:
one of my friends spent this week at the Pentagon going through rubble looking for plane parts. She's an investigator for a government agency. Not that this government agency has any interest in the terrorist attacks, but since she's Federal Law Enforcement, she got sent to help. They told her that she should expect to go to the WTC as well in the next few months. There is so much to do that they have to rotate people in, and let other people go home. She said the
Red Cross was wonderful - they had meals, massages, counselors, extra
clothes, whatever the workers needed was provided, and always in a very nice way. Still, it must have been very hard; I can't imagine. She said it made her really mad every time she found a piece of that plane; mad and sad.

Take care, Sir David -
Love,
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 08:20:21 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: PS - sort of unrelated, but interesting
Message:
BTW, my boss flew from Philadephia to Munich to one of the Greek islands on the Friday directly after the attack. He was there for 8 days and he said wherever he went, even on this small Greek island, people were watching CNN all the time (more than he was, actually).
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 06:41:17 (EDT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: World News
Message:
American TV news channels are only preoccupied with America and the rest of the world seems to have become some distant reality that has less importance.

Unfortunatwly, this is true, except when it comes to Israel. There's almost as much reporting on what's happenning there as there is here. It's tiresome. But since the WTC incident we've also learned there's this country named Afghanistan and it's neighbors Pakistan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan. We can even find them on the map.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 07:01:12 (EDT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Re: World News
Message:
Come on now, don't get carried away. You now know about Afghanistan and Pakistan but Uzebekistan??? You read it on the back of a matchbox, didn't you.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 00:35:07 (EDT)
From: Francesca :C)
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: But I don't watch TV!
Message:
Dave,

I hear what you're saying, and it's not that you don't have some good points there, but my shared grief is not from watching TV. I don't watch much TV or many movies. I don't like to have my mind manipulated by the media, and TV news is reptitive and -- as you said -- likes to play on emotions. And the whole gig is so transparent. So even the little I watch, my husband and I are usually discussing and debunking the 'spin' being put on the events by the reporters.

But regarding my empathy, I am like that with many tragedies I hear of in the world -- be they floods in India, mudslides in Argentina, political prisoners in some part of the globe.

I have relatives in NYC, Connecticut and New Jersey. Two of my sister's good friends stayed in her apartment traumatized for days. The husband of the couple saw the whole thing -- people jumping out the windows, running for his own life. They live across from the WTC in the closest residential housing. A premie friend was under the WTC in a train when the 2nd plane hit, and he spent 4 hours walking through a virtual war zone to get home.

I am usually touched by 'what's goin' on,' whether it's fun or whether it's tragedy. This one's not going away any time soon -- there's a lot of cleaning up and healing to do.

Francesca

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 07:10:02 (EDT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: Francesca :C)
Subject: Re: But I don't watch TV!
Message:
Yes, those are real personal events that you've narrated and they bring home the horror. I also saw (on TV) the people holding hands and jumping out of the windows. Terrible stuff. I know it's far worse though when you're personally affected or actually there.

I once saw a girl jump in front of a train and it affected be for a long time afterwards. I'd walked past her over the bridge that she then jumped off.

How d'you manage not to watch TV??? I admit that I was glued to the TV two weeks ago. Regarding your other comments, compassion is a wonderful thing and I know it's always appreciated.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 11:51:56 (EDT)
From: Francesca :C)
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: Re: TV!
Message:
Dave,

I watch it some, like I indicated, but I don't like TV in general. I spent most of my life after I left home without one. A few years ago I wanted to watch baseball games so I bought one. But now they don't show any baseball games unless you pay for cable. Other than that, it's music stuff like Austin City Limits, music performances and PBS.

My husband and I tried watching the news when this thing first happened, but it was clear that after a while it was easier to read the news on the Internet. There was so much melodrama and manipulation, and repetition of the same stories and images over and over and over. Plus a lot of the information is just what the 'powers that be' want you to see--i.e. cleared by law enforcement, military or government. I can understand the need for security, but it means that when things first break, you're not getting a balanced view. I remember that when we had some flooding here in the 80s, people back east were seeing the news reports of how bad it was and calling their relatives here -- how many people were dying, etc. To keep us from panicking, that stuff didn't come out locally until later.

Re the Internet -- people were posting a lot of articles from other countries' newspapers, and friends were e-mailing me stuff as well. It was way more informative to talk to people and get my information from lots of sources, rather than trust the 'tube.'

I am extremely critical of television and movies because most of them rely on showing people being violent to each other with words or actions. Then there's a lot of manipulating of emotions, and I don't like giving people that type of control either, especially when there seems to be no purpose to much of it. I can't paint it all with a broad brush, but I'd estiamte about 80 percent of it is toxic, as least to me.

Francesca

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 03:43:46 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Francesca :C)
Subject: Don't watch much TV! Me neither.
Message:
I record Law and Order. The season premiere last night was based on the lawyers in SF currently in jail for homicide by dog mauling. Oh
and PBS Mystery and that's it except for stuff like science shows or breaking news like WTC or the Challenger which unfortunately I saw live.

S. Africa didn't get TV until 76 (the tool of the devil acording the Afrikaners) so when I first discovered it I was hooked. Chuck, who grew up with the TV as babysitter detested it. I soon found out why. Everything on commercial TV is basically a soap opera. The domestic drama ''operas'' were invented to sell soap. The socalled news is an extension of the same commercial approach. Unlike most countries there is no US TV licence which pays for state-owned TV such as BBC.

Thank goodness for PBS (for Brits - that's public television which is paid for by us through donations) which just finished the four part Darwin thingy and imports Mystery and all the Beeb costume dramas and has the McNeil News Hour which is the equivalent of what passed for news on the BBC when I lived there. In other words, talking heads, about as exciting as watching paint peel.

US TV news is great for breaking news and incredible video footage but kind of flounders around afterwards sadly looking for stuff to boost the ratings. You get so used to it after a while that you filter out the garbage and learn to spot the good stuff quickly. But one thing you never do is take it seriously all the time.

Maybe I've become acculturated after 22 years but US TV news is the best when it's good and the worst when it's bad. Maybe not the worst. If you've ever seen state-owned TV news in a third world country you'll know what I mean.

No, Sir Dave, US TV is not the Beeb. It's commercial with a capital $.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 00:20:22 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: Media War
Message:
Dave:

Well the media was focussing on Conduit prior to the attack, so they haven't suddenly become noble or wise. There are some legitimate stories that they're following, but a lot of it is froth, and I haven't heard a single peep about the Heathrow incident. That said, I don't think there's much fear on the part of Americans. We know our media has it's whatsis in it's ear.

The three documentaries I've seen have been excellent: Beneath the Veil (British), Abandon All Hope (US), and the TLC documentary (the best of the lot).

One side effect of this war is likely to be an increased acceptance of the notion of strategy or conscious design. Instead of just letting the media 'happen' perhaps it's not so illegetimate to ask whether we have an appropriate media, since it seems compelled to focus an highly dramatic events without much depth. We certainly need depth in this coverage, and when people stop tuning in to the froth it'll blow away.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 23:17:35 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: Excellent point, Dave
Message:
There's more danger from drunk drivers than from terrorists. If the media only highlighted that danger, there would be far more Americans alive today.

That's just what I thought soon after the attack. Why are we even bothering with this stuff? It's not as if they're going to strike again. They've made their point, whatever it is, and now, if we just ignore them, they'll get really frustrated and realize they can't get anywhere this way.

Now drunk drivers, yes, they're a problem. They captured two more trying to get into cars in Boston last night. When will it end, huh?

Thanks for helping me keep things in perspective.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 07:12:06 (EDT)
From: Sir Dave }(
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: My Mother used to say
Message:
"Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit."

But it's still funny.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 03:52:12 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: We could send MADD after Osama
Message:
Mothers Against Drunk Drivers would have Bin Laden's balls for breakfast a few hours after being parachuted in armed with nothing more than their sharp tongues and vicious tempers.

I think I'll send an email to Colin Powell. I'm sure he hasn't thought of that. The women of MADD are lethal weapons and have succeeded in bringing down the alcohol limit and introducing mandatory jail time for DUIs in every state except maybe....oh Nevada or Arizona.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 00:40:53 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Due South.
Message:
Just heard Richard Holbrook suggesting that since the US and Canada share the longest open border in the world the US is only as safe as Canada's security can make it. So, according to Holbrook, it makes sense for the two countries to have a 'common security perimeter.' What next, a common language? But we'll never annex Canada because we'd end up with a Socialist Party that could get more than 2% of the vote. Seriously though, the heightened threat might bring the revolutionaries and counter-revolutionaries together as they've never been before. I'm almost compelled to speak of Mortimer Adler's notion of 'Regional Governments.'

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 20:20:41 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: All
Subject: Evolution tonight is on Mind and God
Message:
The fourth and final two-part segment in the PBS evolution series airs tonight. The first hour's all about the evolution of the mind and the second is about the implications for the existence of God. Judging by the PBS website they've really wimped out on this last issue. No wonder Dawkins is no where to be seen in the series. But it's been an informative program, nonetheless, from what I've seen myself and heard from others. I'm looking forward to it.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 18:06:03 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Boy, did PBS ever wimp out!
Message:
Laurie taped it and I just watched the last segment of the series. Much as it was interesting to watch the creationists struggle with science (my heart really went out to those poor students at Wheaton), when push came to shove the producers lost focus. They did a good enough job explaining the history of the 'Creation Science' movement and how it came about in order to sneak creationism back into the schools after the U.S. Supreme Court's 1987 decision barring non-scientific creation theories from science classes in public schools. But when it came to actually showing how the 'creation science' ideas -- like 'irreducible complexity' for instance aren't scientific at all, it didn't get into it at all. Too bad.

The other thing that bothered me was how these various teachers seemed to find a way to keep God in their firmament as if the idea was not squarely at odds with evolution. It damn well is as the kids themselves know. Either God's designing stuff or evolution's imitating design. Can't be both. Sure, there could be a God but he's simply relieved of his traditional command by evolution. So what's the point? Keeping him around like a symbolic monarchy? No thanks.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 18:25:53 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: First sign of senility Jim
Message:
talking to yourself :)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 00:26:03 (EDT)
From: a0aji
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: Evolution tonight is on Mind and God
Message:
The fourth and final two-part segment in the PBS evolution series airs tonight. The first hour's all about the evolution of the mind and the second is about the implications for the existence of God. Judging by the PBS website they've really wimped out on this last issue. No wonder Dawkins is no where to be seen in the series. But it's been an informative program, nonetheless, from what I've seen myself and heard from others. I'm looking forward to it.


---

Dawkins was in the last hour or two.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 10:13:10 (EDT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: a0aji
Subject: Re: Evolution tonight is on Mind and God
Message:
Steven Pinker was also featured, as well as Susan Blackmore, My, but she does get excited about her memes.

The segment on 'Why we believe' would have been better titled 'And yet we still believe'. Now there's an interesting subject. Why do people continue to believe in the story(ies) of creation long after substantial evidence shows that the world could not have possibly started that way? The mind is a remarkable thing. It's not always subject to reason. Often, it outright defies it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 18:05:30 (EDT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Interesting but biased
Message:
Overall I liked these two segments, but they presented a negative and biased view of critics of orthodox Darwinism. Ken Ham (the bible literalist) is indeed an idiot, but so what? There is much more to the debate then simply evolution (as opposed to the Darwinian explanation of it) vs the debunked myths of 6-day creation, Adam and Eve, the Flood, etc. They glossed over the distinction between evolution, the Darwinian explanation, and the atheistic interpretation, as if they are all the same. They are not. See
http://www.reviewevolution.com/getOurGuide.php
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 20:03:04 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: G
Subject: Typical religious bullshit
Message:
I looked at the site and skimmed the long PDF-format 'viewer's guide'. All typical creationist denial stuff. Talk about wishful thinking ... All these creationist critiques have been soundly answered time and again but the scientific community although the creationists have their faith and they're not about to surrender to something so banal as evidence and reason.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 20:13:43 (EDT)
From: PatD
Email: None
To: All
Subject: The New Ghenghis Khan
Message:
I've just been reading some of the posts below about all this shit that we find ourselves in the middle of .

I think that the Taliban are a side issue , the real shit will go down in Saudi Arabia where this cunning resourceful & totally ruthless man will make his play to destroy western civilisation .

The Saudi King is old & in Geneva , the country is ripe for civil war. If BL escapes the coming onslaught against him which he probably will , gets back to Saudi & becomes the inspirational figure for the wahabbi puritans , then he can switch off the oil & we're all DEAD.

I think that the WTC atrocity was just a tactical diversion .

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 00:53:32 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: PatD
Subject: Not very likely.
Message:
Pat:

The Saudi King is old & in Geneva , the country is ripe for civil war. If BL escapes the coming onslaught against him which he probably will , gets back to Saudi & becomes the inspirational figure for the wahabbi puritans , then he can switch off the oil & we're all DEAD.

First of all that's a big leap. I don't think there's a countryfull of Saudis waiting for UBL to show up and claim the throne, since he'd probably kill most of them. And the terrain in Saudi Arabia would be a lot more friendly to our efforts to snag him than the holes in Afghanistan.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 18:11:10 (EDT)
From: PatD
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Thanks Scott , paranoia attack on my part [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 14:47:05 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: All
Subject: Email from disgruntled premie
Message:
I found this in an email account that I do not publish on the forum. I think I know who it is who sent it. Premies really are soooo loving and kind.

FROM: 'Shawn Eison' arjune1@msn.com

What a loser, another example of those lazy fucking white boys who want power...but never got it. Those big black men kicking your asses in the ring, after you have tried sooo hard to reduced them to inferior status. They are dating your (so-called) women, and showing them what a real man is. You sorry ass white men take your asses back to the fucking mountains and pretend to be civilized. I could give a rats ass about your opinion of Maharaji, but i wonder about you mothers' opinion concerning that sorry ass father of yours on his knees in the bathroom with my dick in his mouth.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 06:27:11 (EDT)
From: don condom
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: Re: Email from disgruntled premie
Message:
if ya think it's me, pat c...you are MISTAKEN
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 01:15:18 (EDT)
From: Francesca :)
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: Another one for 'the premie collection'
Message:
Dear Pat,

I hope you're saving these little nuggets in a special place on your hard drive. You should save EACH and every one. Burn 'em to CD when you run out of room.

Francesca

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 04:02:55 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Francesca :)
Subject: Re: Another one for IPECAC
Message:
Ipecac is an emetic. It makes you pewk if you have eaten poison. I am saving all of these posts for a future IPECAC site. IPECAC stands for Internet Protest for Expremies against CAC. ;)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 11:55:59 (EDT)
From: Francesca ())
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: I like it! [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 21:24:22 (EDT)
From: salam
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: Re: Email from disgruntled premie
Message:
what is he refering to. Black- white. Is this an American thing. Someone doesn't like you.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 22:59:09 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: salam
Subject: I don't know Salam
Message:
I haven't got a clue. Your guess is as good as mine.

Premies always say that exes hate Rawat because we really are still in love with him. Maybe the premies hate me so much because they really love me ;)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 02:59:52 (EDT)
From: salam
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: u r becoming wise.
Message:
good point.

Certainly it's a CACA from the sound of him.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 16:52:33 (EDT)
From: such
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: belongs at ELK site:diverse premie poems! [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 16:35:09 (EDT)
From: bill
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: knowledge works wonders [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 12:54:11 (EDT)
From: Francesca
Email: None
To: All
Subject: A small view of the Taliban
Message:
This is an article from Time's Asia section. Even in the midst of hearing about all the horror, it is illustrative to see what the daily life is of people who live under these repressive regimes. And mind you, regimes with these types of religious view want to take over the world and make it "pure." PUKE!!! I can't tell you how much I think that strict religions are the pitts. It took me most of my life to reconcile myself with the teachings of Christ, after having been put through Catholicism in the 50s. (Patent leather shoes reflected our underwear, and weren't allowed by the nuns.) But this is awful, inhumane, barbaric, arrrgh!!!!

Oy,

Francesca

---

---

---

---

---

---

---
-
Rhythmless Nation
The Taliban believes music is wrong. Musicians are paying the price
BY NADYA LABI
'God, everyone in this world has a lover except me,' sings a woman. 'Why is it so?' Her lament, in Persian, throbs over the speakers of a cab heading for Kabul, Afghanistan. An hour into the six-hour journey from neighboring Pakistan, the taxi driver abruptly switches cassettes, and chants of Koranic verse replace the pop song. Moments later, the car stops at a checkpoint. The wooden poles of the barrier are entwined with strips of confiscated audiotape and film, the loose ends flapping in the wind. A guard peers into the car and inspects the four passengers and driver before allowing them to proceed. 'We are lucky,' says the driver. 'They could have beaten us all if they had found us listening to the music.'

The Ministry for the Prevention of Vice and Promotion of Virtue is on patrol. Its job is to eradicate sin, which, as defined by the totalitarian government of Afghanistan, includes simply listening to music. The Taliban, a collection of former theology students who took over Kabul in 1996, is best known for destroying ancient Buddhist statues, restricting the rights of women and allegedly harboring accused terrorist Osama bin Laden. It insists that there is a hadith (a record of the Prophet's sayings) warning people not to listen to music lest molten lead be poured into their ears on Judgment Day. Until then, the Taliban police are wreaking their own violence—against musical instruments and anyone who dares enjoy their use.

Religious songs with no instrumentation are exempted, as well as patriotic chants such as 'Taliban, O Taliban, you're creating facilities, you're defeating enemies'—a bit of nationalistic verse that has received heavy play on Radio Shariat, the state-run station. Before the prohibition, sung Persian poems known as ghazals and instrumental Indian melodies called ragas were highly popular in Afghanistan. Concerts featuring such traditional instruments as the rubab (a short-necked lute) used to last for hours at celebratory occasions like weddings and births. Even Western pop made its way to Kabul in the 1970s, when the capital was host to an international rock festival sponsored by a cigarette company.

ABBA will survive the ban, but Afghan musicians fear some forms of music are threatened with extinction. The archives of traditional Afghan folk songs at Kabul Radio, for example, are being destroyed. The sounds of silence, after all, are more reassuring to many governments than voices that have the power to move, to persuade and to protest. In the Sudan, musicians cannot perform after dark; in a Nigerian state where Islamic law is followed, a musician was recently imprisoned for singing. 'In much of the Third World, people cannot read or write,' says Marie Korpe, executive director of Freemuse, a group in Denmark that monitors music censorship. 'People listen to the radio, to songs. It is music that reaches people's hearts and souls.' When music is muzzled, an outlet for self-expression is lost.

Zabi Sherki, 21, was jailed for singing with other revelers on his wedding night in Kabul. 'We sang very quietly, but the police came inside and beat us,' he says. Upon his release two months later, Sherki fled to Peshawar, Pakistan, and joined a band that plays at weddings. Those who cannot escape devise other ways to rebel. Shopkeepers sell cassettes on the black market, musicians bury their instruments for retrieval later, and drivers blare their stereos in remote areas. In a tiny flat in Kabul, with the shutters drawn, Naveeda crouches before a kerosene lamp and whispers the lyrics of a popular love song to her family—softly, so that no one will report her. 'We're like dead people,' says her brother Nadir. 'When the evening comes, there's no electricity, no radio, no TV, no cinema.'

Many Afghans refuse to keep quiet. In a cramped studio off a busy thoroughfare in Peshawar, a few musicians sitting on faded red carpets take up instruments while they await customers. On the walls are photos of the band's performances. Zar Wali smiles broadly as he begins to play the harmonium. 'My beloved country,' he sings in his native Pashto, 'this Afghanistan, is very dear to me.' The anthem is sweet—sweet enough to make him briefly forget that he is in Pakistan.

REPORTED BY HANNAH BLOCH/PESHAWAR AND GHULAM HASNAIN/KABUL

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 17:35:53 (EDT)
From: bill
Email: None
To: Francesca
Subject: Re: A small view of the Taliban
Message:
Hi Francesca,
My wife and her co-workers are so upset that I realized that I will not be snuggling till this whole war is over.
SO, I have decided to share a different view with her, I remind her that, hell, I might be dead before this war is over and no one listens to me anyway, beyond donations, I have little to do, and being the kind of wimp that I am, I cant watch TV or movie violence, or even those emotionally stressful shows on the womans channel,
people talk about Hannible at work, and I plug my ears if they try to discuss the various ways he mistreated people.
Total wuss, My sister brought over her favorite movie, Braveheart, and my 11 year old wanted to show me the best parts, it is on DVD,
and I averted my gaze and wanted to leave the room because the sounds were so viscious.

Call me deluded, but I had a dream a few days ago and it was god, (again). Once in a while I get a visit. This time he let me know that
it was going to be all right. Didnt get a look at him as usual.
So, next day I decided to try to reorient my self to all this.
it took about 3 days, but I must admit I am happy again.
It is a bad movie, and I cant escape it, but the pursuit of happiness
still is there and I am not starving like most of the world, and I have so much in my world, I just must get back to reveling in it before I die of something natural, or maybe some religious nut gets HIS dream come true and he kills me.
I choose to ignore all the words of the holy books except I do pick one sentence out and pretend that it is the reccomended operating
instructions that came with my body, the one that goes,
love others,yourself,and that dream friend.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 16:45:05 (EDT)
From: suchabanana
Email: None
To: Francesca
Subject: Afghanistan:a wasteland bereft of music's joys
Message:
Music has always been a rich part of Afghani culture. There are many beautiful folk songs from the region, and among the millions of expatriate ethnic Afghanis, one may hear ghazals sung in Farsi and ragas played on the harmonium and tabla at most important occasions.

In fact, I have played with Afghani musicians in ensembles in concert and frequently at home. Afghanistan is in the middle of Asia, once the caravan trade crossroads of many cultures. Hence, Persian [Iranian], Indian, Kajik, Uzbek, Arab influences commingle with the traditional melodies and instrumentation.

A country where most music and its expression is banned is truly a soulless wasteland. For music beats and throbs within the heads, hearts and veins of humanity; the very pulsing of atoms within us echoes the infinite strains of the universal energy's lifestream. Nature itself resounds with the melodies of birds, the rustle of leaves, and the ceaseless ebb and flow of terrestial tides.

From the dawn of homo sapiens and time immemorial, people have created musical instruments and sung chants and songs. What a dark, lifeless planet this would be without the gift and joys of music.

Make a joyful noise!

We are the flute, the music you,
The mountain we, which echoes you,
The chessmen set in line by you,
To win or lose now moved by you,
We are the flags embroidered with the lion,
The unseen wind which ripples us is you.
-- Rumi

Peace and lentils,

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 16:18:32 (EDT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Francesca
Subject: RAWA (anti-Taliban Afghan women)
Message:
Hi everyone,

Here's the URL for the mirror web site of the
Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA),
the main web site, www.rawa.org, is overloaded with traffic.

http://rawasongs.fancymarketing.net/index.html

'RAWA is a political/social organization of Afghan women struggling for peace, freedom, democracy and women's rights in fundamentalism-blighted Afghanistan.'

If anyone is interested in helping them, you can click on 'TAKE ACTION' or 'How to help us'.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 14:07:14 (EDT)
From: Chuck S.
Email: None
To: Francesca
Subject: How horrible...
Message:
They beat people for listening to music, ''... lest molten lead be poured into their ears on Judgment Day.'' What kind of sick God are they worshipping anyway? The one who pours molten lead in your ears is the GOOD guy? Sick. The tyranical God of the Old Testament needs psycotherapy!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 15:44:05 (EDT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Chuck S.
Subject: Re: How horrible...
Message:
The Gawd is pissed and that's why he allows His judgement to fall upon the Infidels.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 14:17:18 (EDT)
From: Fundamentalist Fun
Email: None
To: Chuck S.
Subject: ''Why can't I own Canadians?''
Message:
An Open Letter to Dr. Laura


(Laura Schlessinger is a radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. She has become a convert to Judaism, and now she is Ba'al T'shuvah. She has made some statements about homosexuals that has caused the Canadian anti-hate laws to censure her. The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura which was posted on the internet)

Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some further advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws in the books of Moses and how to best follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser Abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread. (cotton/polyester blend) He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.

[end]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 00:39:51 (EDT)
From: Francesca :C)
Email: None
To: Fundamentalist Fun
Subject: This is a hoot!
Message:
Religion. BARF! RALPH! hURl! etc.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 18:49:22 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: All
Subject: Am I stupid or what ??
Message:
I've just been watching a BBC analysis of Bin Laden , his motives and objectives .A lot of it based on his own words, interviews and actions. Apocalyptic is the right word. The guy is totally one pointed and super confident.

His original beef was limited and focused on the Saudis. To him, it was abominable for the Saudis to allow US forces in to fight the Gulf war from there and he was incensed when US forces remained there after the war.

Once he moved to Afghanistan, he stated that the US represented the whole of the Western world and that they were materialistic, capitalist and soul-less. Islam, on the other hand was the representative of the spiritual. He described Americans as thieves and terrorists and issued his fatwah against the US saying military and civilians were both valid targets.

In the mid 90's he was attempting to make mini nuclear weapons. He was also testing chemical and biological weapons. Analysts reckon he has at least crude chemical weapons but probably more.

In Afghanistan his aims widened from just toppling the Saudi regime to vanquishing the West. He has stated his three main aims as 1. Toppling all the mid east gulf Governments including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait etc. 2.Wiping out Israel totally. 3. Killing as many Americans as possible wherever they are in the world.

For a long time he's been relishing fighting America on his own turf. He said American Soldiers were weak and cowardly and only able to fight from a distance with hi-tech weapons. He said there is no way American soldiers are prepared for a lengthy bloody engagement .

He relishes war with America and is happy that it is now going to begin.

Although I've mentioned wider issues in many of my posts and particularly pointed to the Israel/Palestine issue, I think Bin Ladens agenda is so much more than that. I still maintain all sorts of radical shifts have to be made in world politics during and after this showdown ( assuming this Islamic fruit and nutcase doesn't actually WIN haha) but this guy is dangerous beyond belief.

It's weird, I knew all this ,kinda, but didn't really KNOW it. This profile of him brought it home.

So get those special forces in b ythe thousands and hope they are tough enough to get BL and ALL his cohorts !!!

The alternative is not worth thinking about.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 11:02:43 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Re: Am I stupid or what ?
Message:
Dermot:

Er, the 'beginning of wisdom' and all that...

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 23:31:21 (EDT)
From: salsa
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: SMOKE THEM
Message:
NOW U GET IT.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 16:39:00 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: salsa
Subject: Do they have to be hung out to dry
Message:
before smoking them?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 13:38:52 (EDT)
From: salam
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: Re: Do they have to be hung out to dry
Message:
must be, other wise you don't get the full effect.

what am talking about? I don't smoke anymore.....

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 10:48:10 (EDT)
From: The Rev Bud Green
Email: None
To: salsa
Subject: You'll need alot of papers!
Message:
Hell I'll be licking the suckers all night. Still I like a little opiated Afghani.......
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 05:45:51 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: salsa
Subject: Re: SMOKE THEM....and ????
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 22:09:18 (EDT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: You are definitely NOT stupid
Message:
I think what you are is thoughtful and intelligent. That's what you are. But you are in the very same process that many of us are -- trying to make sense of this from a policy perspective, from the perspective of what all this means and where we go from here. That isn't easy. And there are no easy answers. Neither the 'go get'em' attitude,' the 'they got what they deserved' attitude (which, by the way I have seen NOWHERE on the left that I have read), or the fake pacifism of of sticking ones head in the sand. None of that helps, in my opinion.

I'm all in favor of getting bin Laden and breaking up his terrorist group. They committed a terrible crime. And we need to destroy their effectiveness if only for the protection of innocent people around the world. I don't think there is anyone who would disagree with that, save a few who are so far gone we need to worry about them for other reasons. But now all the war talk revolves around Afghanistan, home of the vicious Taliban, ostensibly because it is the hideaway for bin Laden, and we have to ask whether any of that makes any sense.

I've never been one to blame the United States for every bad thing that happens in the Third World, but it is a fact that our government supported militant Islamic fundamentalism in Afghanistan after the Soviet invasion in 1979. In fact, Carter's national security advisor, Berzinski (sp?), talks with glee in interviews that the US essentially 'set the trap' for the Soviets in Afghanistan and they fell into it leading, according to him, to the downfall of the Soviet Union a decade later. He is very proud of that. But there are about 500 US Stinger missles, the weapon he cited as the main downfall of the Soviets, unaccounted for in Afghanistan. That's a lot of planes.

Everyone also now conveniently forgets the mujahadeen coming to the white house meeting with Reagan in the 80s and Reagan referring to them as 'freedom fighters' just like he called that other ruthless, murderous, drug-dealing crowd, the contras in Central America, around the same time. For them, his cohorts like Oliver North in the basement of the White House, illegally sold missles to the Iranians and used the money to arm the contras, but that is another story for which a lot of innocent people in another area of the world suffered. And Oliver North is a radio commentator now.

The mujahedeen were freedom fighters against Communism, backed by more than $3 billion in US aid--more money and expertise than for any other cause in CIA history--and hailed as heroes by journalists and Reagan. But then, with the Soviets gone, the vying warlords turned against one another, raped and pillaged and murdered the civilian population and destroyed what still remained of normal Afghan life.

The Taliban, who rose out of this period of devastation, were boys, many of them orphans, from the wretched refugee camps of Pakistan, raised in fundamentalist boarding schools. The idea of indoctrinated children with weapons, and stinger missles is beyond frightening. Even leaving aside their ignorance and lack of modern skills, they could no more be expected to lead Afghanistan back to normalcy than an army made up of kids raised in Romanian orphanages.

Feminists and human-rights groups on the left have been sounding the alarm about the Taliban since they took over Afghanistan in 1996. That's why interested Americans know that Afghan women are forced to wear the total shroud of the burqa and are banned from work and from leaving their homes unless accompanied by a male relative; that girls are barred from school; and that the Taliban--far from being their nation's saviors, enforcing civic peace with Kalashnikovs--are just the latest oppressors of the miserable population.

What has been the response of the West to this news? Unless you count the absurd infatuation of European intellectuals with the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance of fundamentalist warlords (here we go again!), not much. Well, suddenly we are interested in dropping bombs.

But in all of this, I think it's important to ask the question, and it isn't condoning anything, and it isn't saying the US deserved anything that happened on Sept 11, but it's important to consider what would happen if the West actually took seriously the forces in the Muslim world who call for education, social justice, women's rights, democracy, civil liberties and secularism? They really are there. They aren't all Islamic nuts.

Why does our foreign policy underwrite the clerical fascist government of Saudi Arabia--and a host of nondemocratic regimes besides? What is the point of the continuing sanctions on Iraq, which have brought untold misery to ordinary people and awakened the most backward tendencies of Iraqi society while doing nothing to undermine Saddam Hussein? And why on earth are fundamentalist Jews from Brooklyn and Philadelphia allowed to turn Palestinians out of their homes on the West Bank? Because God gave them the land? Does any sane person really believe that?

Bombing Afghanistan to 'fight terrorism' is to punish not the Taliban but the victims of the Taliban, the people we should be supporting. At the same time, war would reinforce the worst elements in our own society--the flag-wavers and bigots and militarists. It's heartening that there have been peace vigils and rallies in many cities, but look what even the threat of war has already done to Congress, where only a single representative, Barbara Lee from right here in Oakland, voted against giving the President virtual carte blanche, and has been viciously attacked for doing it, bless her heart.

Ann Coulter, fulminating in her syndicated column, called for carpet-bombing of any country where people 'smiled' at news of the disaster: 'We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity.' What is this, the Crusades? The Rev. Jerry Falwell issued a belated mealy-mouthed apology for his astonishing remarks immediately after the attacks, but does anyone doubt that he meant them? The disaster was God's judgment on secular America, he said, while at that very moment notoriously secular New Yorkers were rushing to volunteer to dig out survivors, to give blood, food, money, anything--it was all the fault of 'the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians...the ACLU, People for the American Way.' That's what the Taliban think too, Mr. Falwell.

I talked to my Mom about this, who is about to have her 80th birthday next week and she said something that made me feel a little more positive. She said maybe this 'war' might be a war against fundamentalism, all fundamentalism, either Islamic, Christian, Jewish or anything else, and against death and hatred in the name of God, exposing all that for what it is, destructive and deadly. She said it might do for fundamentalism, just what the last great war did for facism -- made it completely unacceptable. Think so?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 14:13:56 (EDT)
From: Bob
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Hey Joe, I'm with you
Message:
We are witnessing this weekend one of the most epic events since the Second World War, certainly since Vietnam. I am not talking about the ruins of the World Trade Centre in New York and the grotesque physical scenes which we watched on 11 September, an atrocity which I described last week as a crime against humanity (of which more later). No, I am referring to the extraordinary, almost unbelievable preparations now under way for the most powerful nation ever to have existed on God's Earth to bomb the most devastated, ravaged, starvation-haunted and tragic country in the world. Afghanistan, raped and eviscerated by the Russian army for 10 years, abandoned by its friends – us, of course – once the Russians had fled, is about to be attacked by the surviving superpower.
I watch these events with incredulity, not least because I was a witness to the Russian invasion and occupation. How they fought for us, those Afghans, how they believed our word. How they trusted President Carter when he promised the West's support. I even met the CIA spook in Peshawar, brandishing the identity papers of a Soviet pilot, shot down with one of our missiles – which had been scooped from the wreckage of his Mig. 'Poor guy,' the CIA man said, before showing us a movie about GIs zapping the Vietcong in his private cinema. And yes, I remember what the Soviet officers told me after arresting me at Salang. They were performing their international duty in Afghanistan, they told me. They were 'punishing the terrorists' who wished to overthrow the (communist) Afghan government and destroy its people. Sound familiar?
I was working for The Times in 1980, and just south of Kabul I picked up a very disturbing story. A group of religious mujahedin fighters had attacked a school because the communist regime had forced girls to be educated alongside boys. So they had bombed the school, murdered the head teacher's wife and cut off her husband's head. It was all true. But when The Times ran the story, the Foreign Office complained to the foreign desk that my report gave support to the Russians. Of course. Because the Afghan fighters were the good guys. Because Osama bin Laden was a good guy. Charles Douglas-Home, then editor of The Times would always insist that Afghan guerrillas were called 'freedom fighters' in the headline. There was nothing you couldn't do with words.
And so it is today. President Bush now threatens the obscurantist, ignorant, super-conservative Taliban with the same punishment as he intends to mete out to bin Laden. Bush originally talked about 'justice and punishment' and about 'bringing to justice' the perpetrators of the atrocities. But he's not sending policemen to the Middle East; he's sending B-52s. And F-16s and AWACS planes and Apache helicopters. We are not going to arrest bin Laden. We are going to destroy him. And that's fine if he's the guilty man. But B-52s don't discriminate between men wearing turbans, or between men and women or women and children.
I wrote last week about the culture of censorship which is now to smother us, and of the personal attacks which any journalist questioning the roots of this crisis endures. Last week, in a national European newspaper, I got a new and revealing example of what this means. I was accused of being anti-American and then informed that anti-Americanism was akin to anti-Semitism. You get the point, of course. I'm not really sure what anti-Americanism is. But criticising the United States is now to be the moral equivalent of Jew-hating. It's OK to write headlines about 'Islamic terror' or my favourite French example 'God's madmen', but it's definitely out of bounds to ask why the United States is loathed by so many Arab Muslims in the Middle East. We can give the murderers a Muslim identity: we can finger the Middle East for the crime – but we may not suggest any reasons for the crime.
But let's go back to that word justice. Re-watching that pornography of mass-murder in New York, there must be many people who share my view that this was a crime against humanity. More than 6,000 dead; that's a Srebrenica of a slaughter. Even the Serbs spared most of the women and children when they killed their menfolk. The dead of Srebrenica deserve – and are getting – international justice at the Hague. So surely what we need is an International Criminal Court to deal with the sorts of killer who devastated New York on 11 September. Yet 'crime against humanity' is not a phrase we are hearing from the Americans. They prefer 'terrorist atrocity', which is slightly less powerful. Why, I wonder? Because to speak of a terrorist crime against humanity would be a tautology. Or because the US is against international justice. Or because it specifically opposed the creation of an international court on the grounds that its own citizens may one day be arraigned in front of it.
The problem is that America wants its own version of justice, a concept rooted, it seems, in the Wild West and Hollywood's version of the Second World War. President Bush speaks of smoking them out, of the old posters that once graced Dodge City: 'Wanted, Dead or Alive'. Tony Blair now tells us that we must stand by America as America stood by us in the Second World War. Yes, it's true that America helped us liberate Western Europe. But in both world wars, the US chose to intervene after only a long and – in the case of the Second World War – very profitable period of neutrality.
Don't the dead of Manhattan deserve better than this? It's less than three years since we launched a 200-Cruise missile attack on Iraq for throwing out the UN arms inspectors. Needless to say, nothing was achieved. More Iraqis were killed, and the UN inspectors never got back, and sanctions continued, and Iraqi children continued to die. No policy, no perspective. Action, not words.
And that's where we are today. Instead of helping Afghanistan, instead of pouring our aid into that country 10 years ago, rebuilding its cities and culture and creating a new political centre that would go beyond tribalism, we left it to rot. Sarajevo would be rebuilt. Not Kabul. Democracy, of a kind, could be set up in Bosnia. Not in Afghanistan. Schools could be reopened in Tuzla and Travnik. Not in Jaladabad. When the Taliban arrived, stringing up every opponent, chopping off the arms of thieves, stoning women for adultery, the United States regarded this dreadful outfit as a force for stability after the years of anarchy.
Bush's threats have effectively forced the evacuation of every Western aid worker. Already, Afghans are dying because of their absence. Drought and starvation go on killing millions – I mean millions – and between 20 and 25 Afghans are blown up every day by the 10 million mines the Russians left behind. Of course, the Russians never went back to clear the mines. I suppose those B-52 bombs will explode a few of them. But that'll be the only humanitarian work we're likely to see in the near future.
Look at the most startling image of all this past week. Pakistan has closed its border with Afghanistan. So has Iran. The Afghans are to stay in their prison. Unless they make it through Pakistan and wash up on the beaches of France or the waters of Australia or climb through the Channel Tunnel or hijack a plane to Britain to face the wrath of our Home Secretary. In which case, they must be sent back, returned, refused entry. It's a truly terrible irony that the only man we would be interested in receiving from Afghanistan is the man we are told is the evil genius behind the greatest mass-murder in American history: bin Laden. The others can stay at home and die.
bf
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 19:35:46 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Bob
Subject: So, you're basically against...
Message:
indescrimitately bombing Afghanistan, right? I mean, I'm prettty sure that's what you said...

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 14:22:26 (EDT)
From: Bob
Email: None
To: Bob
Subject: Re: Hey Joe, I'm with you
Message:
Sorry - should have credited the journalist Robert Frisk for above.
bf
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 16:31:07 (EDT)
From: Bob
Email: None
To: Bob
Subject: 2 bobs
Message:
There are 2 Bobs on the forum again. The one below is me, the 2 above are not. Bob, Bobo, Bob Schmitz.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 16:37:17 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Bob
Subject: I dub thee BobS.
Message:
But bobo is okay too - just not as dignified.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 17:27:08 (EDT)
From: bobo bob oh! bobb
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: Re: I dub thee BobS.
Message:
I'm more of a BoBB (as in Boaobbb ) than a Bob ( as in Bob the Builder )
but from now on, when I post again, can I be bobo? if that's all right with you Bob :)

bobo ?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 19:04:42 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: bobo bob oh! bobb
Subject: Why not Bobb)?
Message:
the b plus a close parenthesis.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 13:02:55 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Why don't you just say 'I told you so'
Message:
I've never been one to blame the United States for every bad thing that happens in the Third World, but it is a fact that our government supported militant Islamic fundamentalism in Afghanistan after the Soviet invasion in 1979. In fact, Carter's national security advisor, Berzinski (sp?), talks with glee in interviews that the US essentially 'set the trap' for the Soviets in Afghanistan and they fell into it leading, according to him, to the downfall of the Soviet Union a decade later. He is very proud of that. But there are about 500 US Stinger missles, the weapon he cited as the main downfall of the Soviets, unaccounted for in Afghanistan. That's a lot of planes.

Joe, I swear I almost thought you were making fun of yourself with that first sentence. A little unintended self-parody perhaps? Why don't you ever acknowledge some of the difficult dilemnas and laudable objectives of the U.S. in its various interventions? I mean, what's your real point here? That the U.S. was stupid, couldn't predict what they should have, namely that Islamic fundamentalism in Afghanistan would rise up to sting it as it has? I wonder, do you support the American goal in the first place, supporting the resistance to the Soviet invasion? Was that laudable or not? Don't you think that the Soviet failure there contributed significantly to the collapse of the U.S.S.R.? And, if so, wasn't that a good thing, despite all the many difficulties former Soviet countries have had to date adjusting? So what's the real beef? The States was just stupid, never gets it right? I wonder, how many 'experts', in or out of the government, foresaw this threat back then. Do you know? I wouldn't be surprised if no one got it although that's getting hard to imagine what with all the 'experts' now who realize it was a bad move. Beauty of hindsight, I guess.

Feminists and human-rights groups on the left have been sounding the alarm about the Taliban since they took over Afghanistan in 1996. That's why interested Americans know that Afghan women are forced to wear the total shroud of the burqa and are banned from work and from leaving their homes unless accompanied by a male relative; that girls are barred from school; and that the Taliban--far from being their nation's saviors, enforcing civic peace with Kalashnikovs--are just the latest oppressors of the miserable population.

What has been the response of the West to this news? Unless you count the absurd infatuation of European intellectuals with the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance of fundamentalist warlords (here we go again!), not much. Well, suddenly we are interested in dropping bombs.

God, you make it sound as if only 'feminists and human rights groups on the left' ever knew about or cared about the horrors of the Taliban regime. I don't seek out particularly left-oriented media yet I've known about and been concerned about these guys for a few years now. I've always gotten the impression that any reasonable person who doesn't happen to be an Islamic fundamentalist was appalled, including all the regular, main stream media and the audience they serve. Why do you say otherwise? You make it sound as if this is yet another instance of the left -- only the left -- carrying the moral torch for us all. Does CNN get a place in that parade? And what do you mean by 'suddenly we are interested in dropping bombs'? Are you saying that we should have been mobilizing a military intervention to root out the Taliban anyway? Or that if we weren't willing to consider 'bombs' then, it's wrong to consider them now? Or that bombs in any circumstance, even responding to this attack on America are out of the question? You're blaming the government for something, I'm just not sure what.

But in all of this, I think it's important to ask the question, and it isn't condoning anything, and it isn't saying the US deserved anything that happened on Sept 11, but it's important to consider what would happen if the West actually took seriously the forces in the Muslim world who call for education, social justice, women's rights, democracy, civil liberties and secularism? They really are there. They aren't all Islamic nuts.

What are you saying here, Joe? That there are all sorts of liberal factions in the arab and / or muslim world that have been clamouring to no avail for western support? What are these 'forces' that you're saying the West never took seriously? And how, how should we have done so?

Why does our foreign policy underwrite the clerical fascist government of Saudi Arabia--and a host of nondemocratic regimes besides?

Good question, I guess. None of us, I don't think, have much sympathy for the Saudi government. Canadians, for example, have been perplexed and incensed over the detention of a Vancouver man for the past year who we have many good reasons to believe is being framed for a car bomb explosion in the sordid alcohol-smuggling trade there. His particular story's given Canadians a reason to take a closer look at Saudi society, especially how stark and unhospitable it is for Westerners. We've all heard of the possible beheading this guy faces. The culture seems most uninviting to say the least. But what really can we do? Cut off diplomatic ties? Force the sheiks to spend their oil dollars the way we'd prefer? Sure, maybe we shouldn't have even bothered fending off Saddam Hussein. Or maybe it was just a matter of choosing between two evils. But as far as I knwo, there aren't any big democratic insurgencies offering anything better there even if we chose to somehow assist. And it's not a matter of money, Saudi Arabia's got that.

What is the point of the continuing sanctions on Iraq, which have brought untold misery to ordinary people and awakened the most backward tendencies of Iraqi society while doing nothing to undermine Saddam Hussein?

This issue confuses me. Didn't the U.S. support a revamping of the sanctions years ago to allow oil-for-food and other humanitarian needs? What's the real story there? We do know that Hussein has continued to try to build chemical and biological weapons manufacturing facilities and may indeed have already begun making actually making this stuff. What's the answer? Just ease all the sanctions, stop the fly-overs and hope Saddam grows to like us again? Yes, I know, maybe we should have gone for the kill in the Gulf War and not stopped short of toppling him on our own rather than expecting the Iraquis to do it. Again, no crystal balls but lots of good hindsight.

And why on earth are fundamentalist Jews from Brooklyn and Philadelphia allowed to turn Palestinians out of their homes on the West Bank? Because God gave them the land? Does any sane person really believe that?

I've never condoned or really even understood the settlement trip. As you know, I think all religion's bunk and look forward to the day that judaism, like the rest, is nothing but a colorful series on the History channel. I also note that this and other issues were on the table and some sort of reasonable compromise was almost in the works on many Israeli / Palestinian issues before the Palestinians decided that no, let's have a good old Intifada instead. But then, when you hear the virulent and chilling anti-semitic rhetoric coming out of the mosques .... either Israel has a right to exist or it doesn't. I'm troubled by its creation a bit intellectually. But, then again, I ask myself what the alternatives were? Could these people ever pick up the pieces in any way, shape or form in Germany, Austria or Poland again after their systematic extermination in those and other Final Solution countries? Can you honestly say that you trust the Palestinians or any of their supporters now if they say that they really do accept the reality of Israel? How would you ensure its security if you do? (I know this is a bit adrift from your specific question about the settlements, but not far).

Bombing Afghanistan to 'fight terrorism' is to punish not the Taliban but the victims of the Taliban, the people we should be supporting.

Surprise, Joe, even your own government is saying that. It's a strategic problem that no one but a few freaks are insensitive too.

At the same time, war would reinforce the worst elements in our own society--the flag-wavers and bigots and militarists.

You've already caught the shit you deserve for that one. I won't pile on.

It's heartening that there have been peace vigils and rallies in many cities, but look what even the threat of war has already done to Congress, where only a single representative, Barbara Lee from right here in Oakland, voted against giving the President virtual carte blanche, and has been viciously attacked for doing it, bless her heart.

'Peace vigils' without substantial alternative plans to war that would ensure some solution to this ominous threat are just moral masturbation.

Ann Coulter, fulminating in her syndicated column, called for carpet-bombing of any country where people 'smiled' at news of the disaster: 'We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity.' What is this, the Crusades?

Did you just make her up? No, I'm kidding, I know you're serious. I don't know who she is but, sure, she sounds like an extremist in her own right. Even still, though, bear in mind an important difference between her and the other religious extremists we're talking about: for all her fanaticism, she's still just acting defensively. Promise her that the enemy's incapacitated, that she's no longer under attack herself, and I'm sure she wouldn't want to hurt a fly. That's not exactly what we're hearing from bL and his supporters.

The Rev. Jerry Falwell issued a belated mealy-mouthed apology for his astonishing remarks immediately after the attacks, but does anyone doubt that he meant them? The disaster was God's judgment on secular America, he said, while at that very moment notoriously secular New Yorkers were rushing to volunteer to dig out survivors, to give blood, food, money, anything--it was all the fault of 'the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians...the ACLU, People for the American Way.' That's what the Taliban think too, Mr. Falwell.

Total idiot and just further proof that religion's dangerous. It's like a medicine that works fine in the small, diluted doses recommended by all 'modern' doctors. Only trouble is, it still comes in its original bottle which happens to have deadly instructions on the label. So, don't read the label too closely, everything's fine. On the other hand ...

I talked to my Mom about this, who is about to have her 80th birthday next week and she said something that made me feel a little more positive. She said maybe this 'war' might be a war against fundamentalism, all fundamentalism, either Islamic, Christian, Jewish or anything else, and against death and hatred in the name of God, exposing all that for what it is, destructive and deadly. She said it might do for fundamentalism, just what the last great war did for facism -- made it completely unacceptable. Think so?

Well, I don't the war itself is against anything but Islamic fundamentalism itself, but it sure makes for a good argument next time someone starts going on about how beneficial religion is for society. Mum might be right in the long term. I hope so.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 13:24:44 (EDT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Criticism of the US in the Third World
Message:
In furtherance of our understanding of why the USA is greatly resented around the developing world, and even to an increasing extent in the developed world like in Europe, I have a question for you. The USA says it stands for freedom and democracy, and we endlessly congratulate ourselves for that and I think the American public has this warped view that we are benevolent around the world. But in the developing world, they see us as hypocrites who consistently and repeatedly throw our lot in with the undemocratic, militarist, dictatorial, human-rights violating forces in their countries.

Can you think of an instance in the developing world that the USA actually backed the democratic horse in any of those places? Off the top of my head I can think of two, and in both cases it was kicking and screaming.

1. First was South Africa, finally. You may recall that the Congress passed sanctions against the apratheid government which Ronald Reagan VETOED, but the congress passed it over his veto, something that almost never happens. So, we finally got on the right side in the mid-80s.

2. The second was the Philippines. The Philippines was our colony for a long time, and we won't even get into that, but we backed the dictator Marcos for years, economically the militarily, because he was 'stability' and we wanted those military bases (which we have now to some extent we have relinquished, leaving the Philippines with incredible toxic pollution behind). Marcos was ripping off the country for billions, but we didn't care as long as he kept his population in check. It wasn't until Marcos was embarrased into actually having an election, which he lost but rigged to look like he won, that he US said he had to step aside and he did, living out the rest of his life with his wife and some portion of her shoe collection, in Hawaii.

Then there are all the places where we have supported the anti-democratic, militaristic dictatorships and the like. Here is a partial list:

Indonesia
Vietnam
El Salvador
Nicaragua
Panama (until we invaded and overthrew our guy)
Philippines until the fall or Marcos
Pakistan
Egypt
Zaire
Guatamala
Cuba until Castro
Dominican Republic
Haiti until Aristide
Chile
Brazil
Angola
Iraq
Iran until the Shah fell
Turkey
UAE
Syria until the 67 war
Lebanon until the Syrians and Israel took over
Kuwait

Those are just the ones I can think of at the moment.

And I think it's also very interesting that in Iran, the country that had the gall to throw us out, now has elections, unlike almost any other place in the Middle East, and actually elected a somewhat more moderate leader in the past few years. Compare Iran to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, Pakistan, and the like, all of whom are our allies, and all of whom receive billions in US military hardware.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 19:04:48 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Criticism of the US in the Third World
Message:
The second anti-colonial revolution took place in Haiti, which is often referred to as the 'second new nation.' The Haitian revolution was inspired by, and followed the course of, the French Revolution rather than the American. In fact, most revolutions and revolts since have had the same inspiration (to the extent that Hegel and then Marx drew their theories from the Paris communes and the events of the 9th of Termadore) and have followed much the same course. There have been very few revolutions spawned in the American model in the sense of emphasizing individual liberty, 'negative' freedom, and the rule of law rather than economic equality and redistribution of wealth. One might also make a good case that this preference for a revolution based on the French or Marxist model is short sighted on *their* part. The US has usually mistrusted these revolutionary movements not because we oppose democracy, but because we have an aversion to instability and have mistakenly identified revolution with social catyclism ever since the awful lessons of the Reign of Terror (too often repeated: Greece, Cambodia, whatever). Leftist dictatorships are not usually preferable to dictatorships of the right even though the choice is often between the lesser of two evils. By and large leftist regimes have, if anything, manifested more and greater atrocities than those of the right.

So, it's a mistake to assume that our failure to support revolutionary movements is a policy opposed to democracy, but rather a failure to export 'our' revolution as the viable alternative. The strongest inkling for what might have been possible resides in the way we have dealt with defeated enemies, having never once chosen to establish a dictatorship where we could build the system from scratch. If you want to know what was possible (and what may still be) look at Japan.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 19:29:25 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: wealth redistribution vs free market
Message:
You said: ''Leftist dictatorships are not usually preferable to dictatorships of the right even though the choice is often between the lesser of two evils. By and large leftist regimes have, if anything, manifested more and greater atrocities than those of the right.''

Japan is an exception because they embraced the free market - to an extent. At least they were sympathetic to capitalism and big business.

Our foreign policy is based on our business interests and can never be viewed favorably by anyone who does not see that as the lesser of two evils in comparison with communism. America's business interests are often at odds with our European cousins with their penchant for socialism or ''social democracy.''

The business of America is business like it or not and I do. I'm even getting used to living in a democracy where politics is also business.

It may not be perfect but at least it is not coercive and based on intellectual interfering busy-bodies' ''social engineering'' because they think they know what's best for the lower classes.

Socialists will never like America. Looks like this debate on F7 is separating the socialists from the capitalists. Sorry but I am a dyed in the wool laissez-faire free-market libertarian a la Adam Smith and think enlightened self-interest is natural and honest.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 00:34:54 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: Re: wealth redistribution vs free market
Message:
Pat:

I think everything you said is right on. Just want to make an observation about Japan:

Japan is an exception because they embraced the free market - to an extent. At least they were sympathetic to capitalism and big business.

The language of that statement strikes me as ironic because there are two very large bodies of literature, one on 'American Exceptionalism' and the other on 'Japanese Uniqueness' that converge on the American experiment in social engineering in Japan after WWII. The Japanese know about social engineering. They had a troublesome caste of noblemen (the lowest of the noble castes, actually) in the Samurai. In the first decade of the 20th century they made a conscious decision to turn this warrior caste into a capitalist entrepreneur caste. They had not been completely successful, which is why the idle Samurai got head up in the late 30s. You have to keep the people with the swords busy or they'll cut off your head.

The other thing about the Japanese is that they assimilate. They assimilated the Chinese culture, which was very successful against them, and they assimilated American democracy because it suited them. So, the difficulty is in cloning the single exception to American exceptionalism that probably owes it's success to Japanese uniqueness. I can't figure it out, and no one else can either.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 04:14:00 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: You lost me. Scott
Message:
I can't make heads or tails of your penultimate sentence (''So, the difficulty is in cloning the single exception to American exceptionalism that probably owes it's success to Japanese uniqueness'') and I really want to. So, if you have the time and inclination, please explain it to me.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 00:39:26 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: My fault, sorry.
Message:
Pat:

I got carried away with the irony of it, I guess. One step at a time. Let's start with Japanese uniqueness. Japan is unique, primarily because of it's capacity to assimilate the best of other cultures.

Next, American Exceptionalism is a 'double edged sword.' What I mean by that (in this case) is that America is exceptional according to Tocqueville, et al because of the unique qualities and character of Americans instilled in it's founding and due to it's unique history, resulting in the identification with an American Ideology. This is not a blessing in one very important sense: the American Revolution (based on liberty rather than equality) has rarely been followed by example. Rather, most revolutions have been inspired by the ideals of that other 18th Century revolution that followed on the heels of the American. In other words, what good is an entirely exceptional case? Problem: How do you make the US *less* exceptional? How do you inspire revolutionary movements in the American model?

We managed to instill some of these qualities in the Japanese, mostly because they are a unique people in a different sense. (They see a good thing, and claim it as their own.) So, it doesn't really solve the problem, though it might provide some clues.

That make more sense? (Sorry, I just got dazzled by Tocqueville and Eisenstadt.)

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 14:11:50 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Thanks, Scott
Message:
But I really am out of my depth with most of this political stuff. Sure, I'm the most opinionated person I know but not the most well-informed. (For instance you were right to correct me when I used the word ''socialized'' instead of ''nationalized'' in a thread above.)

I'm probably going to bow out of this discussion for a while as I know when I am up against what I call ''unconscious Marxists'' (people who have absorbed Marxism without knowing that they have) and it seems that we're outnumbered and I don't have the capacity to argue abstracts like you.

I'm not an ideologist, just a businessman and accept the world the way it is and make the best of it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 14:33:18 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: I hope you're not referring to me Pat:)
Message:
because if you are then yep you are out of your depth :)

I,ve never been a socialist let alone a marxist.

It may surprise you to know that I'm a pro business Liberal Democrat. Not in any political party sense.

If, again, you were referring to me then I wouldn't have enough concious marxism in me to absorb it into ' un-concious marxism'.

Ever heard that little expression ....never judge a book by its cover?

Dermot

The Businessman

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 15:06:03 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Re: I hope you're not referring to me Pat:)
Message:
Dermot, I think you have thought out your position and have argued it well. No, I mean there are quite a few knee-jerk feelgood new-agey leftists here who have not thought out there position.

I have. From once having been a communist during my anti-apartheid days I have become a classical liberal which is not so much an ideology as a personality trait.

Now let's argue IRA. Just kidding. I used to believe the Brits were evil (they did put 120,000 of my ancestors in concentration camps during the Boer War) but have come to see that they were no more evil than ......well, the USA.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 07:36:22 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: AND
Message:
This dangerous idea of 'uniqueness' and 'exceptionalness' is the root cause of much mis-understanding and conflict.

In the Japanese psyche there is also (or has been up to very recently.....probably still is there)a belief, a "certainty" that the Japanese, in contrast to ALL other peoples are not just human but a 'divine' race. The emperor being the earthly embodiment of that Japanese divinity.
One could argue that is bullshit (which it is) but it wasn't bullshit to the Japs. That is why the Geneva convention of HUMAN rights didn't resonate so well in the Jap military during the 2ndWW.

In the same way the arrogant assumption that the USA is an exception, may also lead to a form of cultural imperialism that doesn't go down well in the rest of the world. SEE?

And have these wonderful researchers delved in deeply to ALL the 200 or so nation states (big power, small power, ethnic mixtures, historical lineages etc etc etc ) to categorically state this 'uniqueness' and this 'exceptionability' ?

Or is it a broadbrush, superficial exercise to further 'validate' a starting premise?????

Dermot

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 07:18:11 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Japan 'unique' ?
Message:
You know what 'unique' means, yeah?

Let's take any country at random.....England?

Tell me how many cultures it has assimilated starting from , say, the Roman invasion.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 14:48:30 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Re: Japan 'unique' ?
Message:
Dermot:

Well, you can certainly make an argument that Japan isn't all that unique, but England has made some fairly 'unique' contributions of it's own. For instance, if it had simply absorbed the concept of Roman Law (law by statute) there wouldn't be any common law tradition, or 'stare decisis' (law by precedent). I'm prepared to say that Japan has a rather unique cultural ability to absorb the values of other cultures and make them it's own. However, it is probably not all that unique in other respects. (For instance, it's alot like Germany in the way it has wrestled with martialism and the legacy of a recent feudal past.)

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 10:12:56 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: Loses me too
Message:
hahaha.

I'm sure he knows what he's talking about but I wish he'd tell us in plain English :)

By the way ......Hi Scott, .....just winding you up mate.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 14:12:04 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: How simplistic!
Message:
Your point is facile. Sure, many of the governments, leaders and regimes the states has supported have been less than democractic but often real democracy was never an option. Why don't you ever talk about that? Why don't you ever discuss the fact that the Soviet Union collapsed largely because they weren't able to fulfill any hegemonic ambitions since the sixties but were rooted out in many places they established footholds, like Central America for instance? Why don't you mention the terribly undemocractic regimes that replaced those the states supported?

Are you actually suggesting that Iran is a better place to live today than under the shah?

You're like Chomsky, Joe, in that you're well-settled into an anti-American perspective. Come on, you can't deny it. It's your default now. Yes, you'll look at the facts but you can't help but focus on U.S. 'sin' and error. Thus, you minimize whatever credit your government might earn and maximize its faults. When was the last time you ever voiced anything even akin to pride in anything your country's done internationally? I'm not saying you have to, although I think that, for example, history will be much kinder to the states than you are. History will see a far-from-perfect country which rose to great power in the twentieth century and which intervened in numerous world situations to try, at least, to do what it thought best perpetuated its admirable ideals. It will be found to be hypocritical, inconsistent, often selfish and short-sighted. But it will still get a lot of credit for things such as confronting communism, a truly anti-democractic, once world-wide movement, trying, with varying successes, to help bring peace to various regions in conflict, let's not even mention Hitler. History, I'm sure, will be kinder to your country than you yourself are.

Now, am I supposed to write specific responses on all the countries you've named or risk being called evasive? Let me know and I'll do so later. Right now I've got to go.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 20:02:45 (EDT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Quick reponse to LOOOOOOONG post
Message:
I don't have a lot of time, but I'll try to respond to a few things.

I mean, what's your real point here?That the U.S. was stupid, couldn't predict what they should have, namely that Islamic fundamentalism in Afghanistan would rise up to sting it as it has?

No, my point is we need to acknolwedge how we helped fundamentalism flourish there and not do it again. Pretty simple really. The other point is the US tends to try to fulfill its short-term interests, and I never suggested opposing the Soviets wasn't one of them, but we tend to split and not see it through. Afghanistan is one example. Iraq is another. If we get involved in Afghanistan it will be interesting to see if the Bush adminsitration drops its commadment against 'nation-building,' something they pilloried Clinton for doing.

And I'm saying we didn't get too concerned about the Taliban from a human rights perspective. We only got concerned when they harbor bin Laden and we no longer want that government around.

And take this as a prediction: we will drop bombs on Afghanistan, and we will kill innocent people. We are just waiting right now to see if some kind of internal insurrection might happen within the Afghan military, and if we attack there is no chance of that happening. [I know this is true, because I just heard Bob Novack interviewed on CNN and he knows all the inside scoops ::))] And if Rumsfled and Wolfowitz win out in the current battle in the administration with Colin Powell, we will bomb other places too, likely Iraq and the Beqaa valley.

What are you saying here, Joe? That there are all sorts of liberal factions in the arab and / or muslim world that have been clamouring to no avail for western support? What are these 'forces' that you're saying the West never took seriously? And how, how should we have done so?

I think my point is pretty clear. We support repressive regimes in the Middle East, even prop them up to the tune of billions in military aid, and yes, there really are other forces in the middle east to support, and they would be more assertive if we supported them. We are supposed to be about democracy and human rights, but that hasn't been our record in the Middle East. And to suggest the US has no power to influence that is abusurd. It's not an overnight process, and there is a lot of damange to undo. Egypt is an even more extreme example than Saudi Arabia. So is Pakistan for that matter.

This issue confuses me. Didn't the U.S. support a revamping of the sanctions years ago to allow oil-for-food and other humanitarian needs?

Yes, I think you are confused. The US and Britain have been the only nations even wanting to retain the sanctions, and the modifications to the sanctions the US has allowed have been tiny. 500,000 dead kids is a pretty big deal. And like I said above, Iraq is an example of a situation we left festering after we accomplished what we wanted. If we were going to war with Iraq because, as Bush Sr. said, Hussein was 'Hitler' it makes no sense to leave Hitler in power. We had the means to do it and it would have been better for the Iraqis than slowy killing off the population. The sanctions haven't worked. They just made the Iraqi population so weak and demoralized that overthrowing Hussein, which is what we said we wanted them to do, is out of the question. We didn't support the Kurds because of Turkey, who has been exterminating that population for years, without as much as a peep from us. And now, Iraq is so weak it is a threat to no one, and the sanctions are just worthless means of causing more misery, something that is not lost on the population of the Middle East.

Note, however, that Wolfowitz and others in the Bush administration want to use the current crisis to attack Iraq, even though there is zero evidence it had anything to do with the attacks. Good old Powell is against this, partly because the 'coalition' he is trying to put together, would immediately fall apart if we did that.

I've never condoned or really even understood the settlement trip.

Well, we agree. And it's the Jewish fundamentalists who are primarily behind them. The very most right-wingers who are the main settlers, and many of them are from the USA, which seems to be one of the world's breeding grounds for fundamnentalists of all stripes. And those settlements are mainly in the West Bank, not in Israel, which I have always supported, and continue to support, and yes, that issue is quite adrift. It's just some of the things Israel does that I don't support, and the US should stop giving them carte blanche along with the $4 billion we give them in military aid. At least Clinton was trying to get peace negotiations going. Bush has been hands off, at least until now. And Israel is completely capable of defending itself, and if it's not, I'm in favor of US support. But the settlements, in my opinion, are just another example of fundamentalism, this time that Zionist, radical idea that God gave the Jews all of Palestine. So, they just take over parts of it and turn it into a carved-up Bantustan, even if the Palestinians ever get parts of it. What really confirmed this for me was when the Israelis set up settlements in the GAZA STRIP. Can you believe that? Since nobody would choose to live in the GAZA Strip, which is a hell hole, that's got to be pure religious ferver that motivated that. And, even now, the settlements continue, actually accelerated under Sharon.

Jim, as an idealistic youth I lived on a kibbutz in Israel for 2 months in 1972. At that time, Israel was occupying the West Bank, but they weren't settling it, and the Israelis I knew were only in favor of keeping it temporarily as a buffer to the other Arab States, because war was in the air, and actually broke out again in 1973. They never thought it was a 'greater Israel' or anything like that. So, I picked oranges and saw US-made fighter jets fly over, and raised turkeys, and I also had to decide that if war broke out I would help defend where I was living. Of course, a lot of the people I was with were Marxists, but I thought they were some of the best of what Israel was all about. But, in my opinion, Israel has really changed since then, so brutalized by all the violence. Since the 1979 Peace treaty with Egypt, there has been no credible military threat to Israel that it couldn't destroy quickly. So, I'm a very strong supporter of Israel, which I think should become a secular democracy, and I think Israel was legally formed through the UN and I even remember all of Paul Newman's speeches from the movie Exodus, so I'm with that program. ::))

'Peace vigils' without substantial alternative plans to war that would ensure some solution to this ominous threat are just moral masturbation.

Oh, I didn't know that.

My whole point here is that I think religious fundamentalism is the real problem here, either Ann Coulter (syndicated columnist, NY Daily News), Jerry Falwell, and Jewish Fundamentalism that leads to the settlements and the rest. And Islamic Fundamentalism seems to be the very most dangerous. It's the core of the problem, in my opinion, and I think it has to be seen as that, and I hope it will be seen as that by more people. The problem is, I think many fundamentalists think everyone ELSE is a fundamentalist but not THEM, because THEY have the actual true cause.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 21:22:51 (EDT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: One of the problems
Message:
Afghanistan is a good example of what happens when we try to arm and support 'freedom fighters.' We pumped all kinds of money and support in, not because we gave a crap about the 'freedom fighters' but because we wanted to oppose the Soviets. To do this, we dumped in all kinds of money and arms and told them we supported them in victory, both through the CIA and openly, including that famous visit to the White House and the rest.

Well, at some point, Gorbechev came along and we weren't interested anymore. So, we split. Bye. The CIA continued on for awhile, even after Bush Sr. said to stop.

But the mujahadeen didn't go away. And what do you do if you are an armed terrorist who has been doing that for 10 - 15 years? It's not like you have any skills and can just blend into society and get a job at the local library or food store. So, they didn't disband, and guess what, just like the Contras, when we stopped funding them, they got their money from DRUGS, and actually became the largest trafficer of heroin in the entire world.

And what did they do? They did everything they could do to destroy the negotiations between the US and the Soviets over Afghanistan, and organized among the refugees, building up their army, and a few years later we have an even more extreme group, the Talliban and they gradually take over the nearly destroyed country.

And bin Laden was our guy. He was funded by the CIA as part of that whole operation. That's where he got started. See, the point never was Afghanistan, to us it was all cold war politics, and that's the problem. And the ones who really suffered in all this was the Afghan population, and they still are.

Very short-sighted, very disengaged, and I think we ought to acknolwedge that, and for heavens sake, not do the same fucking thing again.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 21:56:36 (EDT)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Re: One of the problems
Message:
Afghanistan's ambassador to the U.N. was on Charlie Rose today. He claims that Pakistan formed the Taliban to keep Afghanistan from becoming a competing power in the region. He said that 6,000 of the Taliban's troops are actually members of Pakistan's military, and that Pakistan is playing both sides of the fence on this situation. First I've heard of this.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 12:50:04 (EDT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: Right
Message:
The Taliban was actually formed among the refugee camps of the thousands of Afghans who fled the war with the Soviets. Pakistan was allied with the US, and the Pakistani secret service (the ISI(?)) formed the Taliban with US aid. The Taliban were essentially spawned, however from the mujahadeen, the so-called 'freedom fighters' that the US was giving billions to and arming to the hilt.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 20:09:32 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: I'm taking a short nap
Message:
Before I do, though, I'd be most interested in learning more about these democratic forces you think we could be supporting in the arab states. I've never heard of them. Who are they, etc?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 21:08:58 (EDT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Who they are...
Message:
Jim,

In most of the countries in the Middle East the US supports with military aid, like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, (I include Turkey in this too), those organizations have been so persecuted that they officially exist only outside those countries. But all of them do have such organizations, many with headquarters in the USA, Britain, maybe even Canada. They only exist unofficially in those countries with the repressive regimes. Sure, they aren't very open in those countries, but what can you expect?

Indeed, Pakistan used to have a democracy, until about 10 years ago. Iran almost got a nationalist democracy in 1953, but the US and Britain put that down and re-installed the Shah.

In order for those forces to come to the fore, there would need to be the openness that allows it. Some freedom of speech and the press, some right to criticize the government, the right to form political parties, even the right to assemble, you know, basic stuff.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 07:58:55 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Watch those short Jim posts, Joe
Message:
concluding with a question !

What it means is the vast bulk of your detailed response will be convenviently side-stepped because if pursued further, will show up the established , right wing agenda for what it is...shallow and reactionary. It's an old lawyers trick, right Jim ? :)

The question posed will hone in on an area Jim feels safe with until of course that too is adequately answered ,so other questions will follow. Your long posts will be responded to with short ones, usually ending with a question ( unless Jim now changes tactics to refute my observations ! )

Anyway, best wishes to Joe, Jim and all

Yours mischeviously

with tongue in cheek

Dermot :)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 12:38:23 (EDT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Thanks, Dermot
Message:
But I know all about Jim and his sidestepping questions. Actually, I don't care, it's more important to me to just get the discussion information out there, which you have been great in doing, by the way.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 13:44:24 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: What the hell ....?
Message:
Sorry, guys. I didn't realize I was playing those lawyer tricks again. Yeah, I've really been side-stepping your posts, Joe. Good one.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 14:34:50 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Sorry Jim, couldn't resist :) [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 14:32:18 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Disengagement
Message:
Jim:

I wonder, how many 'experts', in or out of the government, foresaw this threat back then. Do you know? I wouldn't be surprised if no one got it although that's getting hard to imagine what with all the 'experts' now who realize it was a bad move. Beauty of hindsight, I guess.

I recall reading an article in *Atlantic* that was written in the early 90s that specifically referred to that potential problem, so at least some experts were aware of it. Neither the Bush nor the Clinton administrations took the warnings seriously enough though.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 13:56:03 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Thanks for some answers Jim
Message:
even though you didn't bother to answer me. Why?

Especially the Israel/Palestine situation. I can understand a lot of what you are saying there. That finally is the BIG stumbling block. How do you actually ensure Israels right to exist? Without that the situation is hopeless.

Some tentative answers. First though, isn't the best example of Israelis getting on with Arabs, the relationship with Jordan? It may not be perfect but it's a step in the right direction, don't you think? There's even a treaty with Egypt.

Now if the half of the population of Israel that usually wants to be reasonable and usually prefers peace to war had their way, wouldn't the ever escalating, provactive orthodox settlement issue be sorted out? I agree Arafat is to blame for ditching the last peace overtures but if a peace accord can be established, with genuine compromise on both sides (I can't see that happening under Sharon/Arafat) no matter if it isn't 'perfect' then sooner or later,when the majority of Palestinians feel they themselves have some dignity and feel that the job they have or business they run is worth keeping, Intifadas won't be top of the agenda for them.As the houses they live in are decent family homes and the education and health facilities their children receive are improved, again their appetite for Intifad will diminish.

Most of that will depend on having decent, incorruptible Palestinian leaders.A lot of Arafats bunch of cronies are selfish and corrupt.

What I'm saying though is TIME and ever IMPROVING LIVING STANDARDS will go a long way to ensuring Israels security. When economies are interlinked ( as is happening more and more with Jordan), when the normal things we take for granted become commonplace then there's a good chance of genuine peace and co-existence. Of course there's the problem of the extremists on both sides, they are not going to go away overnight. That is a tough one.

I think though it's in the Palestinians interest to sincerely try to make a go of a peace settlement even though they won't get all they want and it's in Israels interest to be more accomadating , less oppressive.

Peace and prosperity for both (hence security) is not IMPOSSIBLE. The problem is Sharon and Arafat are as fucked up as each other. Maybe, we'll have to wait for new leadership on both sides who are prepared to give and take sincerely.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 14:38:14 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Re: Thanks for some answers Jim
Message:
even though you didn't bother to answer me. Why?

Nothing personal, just a little random answering, really. Joe's was the most recent and you guys were in agreement so I thought I'd speak to you both, in a sense. No slight intended, though.

Especially the Israel/Palestine situation. I can understand a lot of what you are saying there. That finally is the BIG stumbling block. How do you actually ensure Israels right to exist? Without that the situation is hopeless.

Well, in the mosques they're saying that it doesn't hve the right to exist, although the very second they stop saying that Israel's supposed to forget they ever heard any such thing. Why be paranoid, huh?

Some tentative answers. First though, isn't the best example of Israelis getting on with Arabs, the relationship with Jordan? It may not be perfect but it's a step in the right direction, don't you think? There's even a treaty with Egypt.

Sure, and there would be peace in the region if both sides compromised reasonably. Problem is, though, that, at least according to all I've read on the last substantive negotiations, Israel was offering what should have been acceptable terms but the Palestinians wouldn't accept them. Honestly, Dermot, do you think Arafat has more than a semblance of control over his own home-bred fundamentalists? People who have no interest at all in the continued existence of a jewish state on sacred arab soil? I don't see a real solution, quite frankly. Not now anyway.

Now if the half of the population of Israel that usually wants to be reasonable and usually prefers peace to war had their way, wouldn't the ever escalating, provactive orthodox settlement issue be sorted out?

I differ with you on the numbers. The most aggressive thing the Israeli's have done is build the settlements on land that will likely remain, much of it anyway, Israeli. There really is a qualitative difference between the jewish and arab agendas there. The jews are not threatening to blow up or destroy the Palestinians, although the converse is much the case. The jews want peace, always have. Their big issue is all about esnuring their safety in the process.

I agree Arafat is to blame for ditching the last peace overtures but if a peace accord can be established, with genuine compromise on both sides (I can't see that happening under Sharon/Arafat) no matter if it isn't 'perfect' then sooner or later,when the majority of Palestinians feel they themselves have some dignity and feel that the job they have or business they run is worth keeping, Intifadas won't be top of the agenda for them.As the houses they live in are decent family homes and the education and health facilities their children receive are improved, again their appetite for Intifad will diminish.

Too bad they blew it then. They've got no financial support to speak of from their arab 'brothers' except for encouragement in apocalyptic bloodlust. They're not about to build any sort of society when they're celebrating their suicide bombers in their homes and mosques. They ripped apart the fabric of trust that was slowly building between the two societies becuase they thought that was a faster and more effective road to fulfilling their goals than negotiation. You don't get all that you want in negotiation. Israel was much more flexible than were the Palestinians. They started this current mess; I can't think of any plausible solution right now. I'll tell you one thing, if I were an Israeli, I sure wouldn't want the borders opened, not with all those Hamas guys out of prison at His Chairmanship's pleasure. Would you?

Most of that will depend on having decent, incorruptible Palestinian leaders.A lot of Arafats bunch of cronies are selfish and corrupt.

Well, there you go.

What I'm saying though is TIME and ever IMPROVING LIVING STANDARDS will go a long way to ensuring Israels security. When economies are interlinked ( as is happening more and more with Jordan), when the normal things we take for granted become commonplace then there's a good chance of genuine peace and co-existence. Of course there's the problem of the extremists on both sides, they are not going to go away overnight. That is a tough one.

Yes, you're right it's a tough one and where I've squared off against you this past week is over the issue of why we're even talking abut this now. As you now seem to concede, this isn't and never was the burning issue for bL. It was barely on his radar screen, to hear him tell it anyway. So what's the point? It's a complex mess. Maybe neither the states nor Israel's handled the earlier negotiations perfectly. Maybe Sharon shouldn't have taken his little walk. Maybe Israel shouldn't have shot the rock throwers (although I can't think of a single example, current or past, where any army's done otherwise. Can you?). But, in any event, I don't think it's fair to try to make the bL problem an opportunity to jump all over the U.S. government for supporting Israel. It doesn't seem helpful and is barely relevant.

I think though it's in the Palestinians interest to sincerely try to make a go of a peace settlement even though they won't get all they want and it's in Israels interest to be more accomadating , less oppressive.

Yes, Dermot, me too. Tell that to Hamas.

Peace and prosperity for both (hence security) is not IMPOSSIBLE. The problem is Sharon and Arafat are as fucked up as each other. Maybe, we'll have to wait for new leadership on both sides who are prepared to give and take sincerely.

I don't think Sharon's anywhere near as dangerous as Arafat whose word means nothing. But we've already discussed this to death. You disagree, I know that.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 10:56:22 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Treading on Thin Water
Message:
[Though I know you're not reading this.]

I've never been one to blame the United States for every bad thing that happens in the Third World,

I'm sure there's probably a short list somewhere of third world problems that you've not laid at the feet of the US. Can't think of any offhand though. But I don't think the failure of the Elder Bush and Clinton administrations to maintain 'engagement' in Afghanistan after the Russians were expelled has much to do with considerations about whether we ought to be engaged in a war against terrorism now. I mean, it was clearly a BIG policy error, but you seem to be saying something quite different: in effect that we shouldn't have been there in the first place. Well, that's an ideological rather than a policy position, and I don't agree.

At the same time, war would reinforce the worst elements in our own society--the flag-wavers and bigots and militarists.

What an unmitigated and inappropriate insult, as though Mark Bingham, a gay man who along with Jeremy Glick and Todd Beamer foiled the fourth hijack attempt, wouldn't be waiving a flag now had he survived. Linking patriotism with bigotry and 'militarism' (whatever that is) is simply misguided (the kindest word I could think of). You ought to be ashamed.

As for the war against fundamentalism, if it helps to see it that way then fine, but that's an oversimplification sure to lead to disappointment. It's another topic entirely, and I'm attempting to limit myself to three of four posts a day. Suffice to say that, for me a lot of others, it doesn't boil down to a confrontation between a relativist left-leaning 'third way' and fundamentalism. I think the conflict may represent some openings for progressive reform though, provided the reformers are more informed by political insight than their own ideology.

She said it might do for fundamentalism, just what the last great war did for facism -- made it completely unacceptable. Think so?

Maybe, but how strong is the link between Christian, Jewish and Islamic fundamentalism? I think it might serve to seriously weaken the political power of Christian fundamentalism in the US, but that link has never had much objective legitimacy anyway. And there's now a new Christian movement born out of fundamentalism that seems to have disconnected from charismatic figures like Falwell and Robertson who espouse a rigid authoritarian interpretation of the sacred texts. I'd call it the 'inspirationalist movement,' but haven't seen much about it in the press or literature yet. It is definitely not 'New Age' though. Falwell, if not Robertson, is seen as a self-aggrandizing idiot by this group. He's 'treading on thin water' as a friend of mine put it.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 07:37:04 (EDT)
From: Bob
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: War against fundamentalism
Message:
That is what it's all about, and what we're all about. Fundamentalism and cultism have become lethal diseases of society of the 21 st century. I wish we could put the fundamentalists of every kind somewhere together on an island. Then they could take it out on each other instead of innocent people!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 07:19:16 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: PS Joe
Message:
Re: Your ma's comments.

If only.....somehow I doubt it. However, if the USA and Europe et al started to drop their expedient ' double/treble, whatever, standards' and sincerely tried to live up to the defence of freedom and democracy and sincerely tried to provide food, education, health provision etc to the less fortunate (jeeze, we're rich enough aren't we?) then fundamentalists....be they Christian, Jewish, muslim, non-religious, hindu or whatever would be ever increasingly marginalised as sane, decent and HONEST values took root all over the place.

For Western leaders to get behind the microphones at press conferences and spew out ' protection of freedom and democracy' (whilst backing those dark age Saudis et al )when one or other psycopath who've they've previously backed to the hilt suddenly becomes a problem, just doesn't cut it.

Hell, even westerners don't believe them .....how much more will those who suffer the consequences of the wests blatant hypocricy.

It's an insult to basic intelligence.

Real politik , political expediency , big power domineering is all very well ......the political intelligentsia can't conceive of any other approach. The only possible positive thing to come out of this whole crisis is that maybe, just maybe, the west will recognise approaches and attitudes have to radically change.

But why do I still doubt they will change?

Cheers

Dermot

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 05:39:43 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Only YOU could say that, Joe
Message:
As a thoughtful, intelligent, caring American. Had I said those things in this current climate, I'd just be called 'Anti-American' and people could go on smugly ignoring the real issues here. I also agree with so much of Robyns post too. Also , like you , I haven't heard anyone say America 'deserved' what they got. I'd appreciate it if those who've claimed that some people here said or implied that, please name them and not just make snide comments. Discussing and pointing out obvious flaws in the foreign policies (for example) of our countries , is freedom and democracy in action. I'm not against freedom and democracy (nor even, sensible capitalism) so our freedom to speak at least saves us from something like the return of 'McCarthyism' and if we are not careful such a bigoted mindset could return in a few months or years.Hell, we've got closer to it in a mere 2 weeks. so all those TRUE democrats…..speak your mind and speak your heart, even if at times it's not 'PC', even if it's sometimes against the flow. A lot of the stuff Scott has said, for example, I've not agreed with but I not only like him , I damn well accept his right to say and feel whatever he decides to. That's up to HIM, not me.

Obviously the scale of the attack on the WTC was greater than any terrorists attacks anywhere. The whole episode was truly sickening, truly appalling and for those affected directly or indirectly it was and is hell on earth. A terrorist attack is a terrorist attack. While we witnessed the financial centre in London being blown to bits or the centre of Manchester being blown to bits , Omagh town centre in Northern Ireland where children and adults were blown to smithereens, a completely, packed to the rafters , drinking pub in the centre of Birmingham (at its busiest time )blown sky high and COUNTLESS other attacks here and in Ireland, we sadly never really got an outpouring of symapthy from America or anywhere else. I do recall certain American politicians and people working out the best way forward to help the terrorist perpertrators vis-ŕ-vis finance or weapons. So whilst the deepest sympathy goes to any victims of terrorism, accusations of 'Anti-American' don't go down well, with me at any rate. I doubt if many Americans actually remember when and where Terrorists atrocities afflicted England, Ireland or anywhere else. This is not meant as a put down or an insult. I'm just saying it how it is. The death toll though not equivelant on any particular day, adds up more or less to the same number of devasted families.The same children without parents or the same parents without children. So be thankful America that the WHOLE WORLD has pretty much sympathised and in some cases shared in your grief. I could point you to thousands worldwide where that basic human recognition hasn't been forthcoming, including here.

As you point out Joe , we are trying to get to grips with our thoughts, feelings, knee-jerk reactions , yes, but more considered reactions, thoughtful responses, paradoxes and dilemmas, All simultaneously, and at times it is confusing and difficult. Nevertheless, I'm not ashamed in the slightest , rather I'm proud, not to fall in line with rabid , senseless, reactionary right wing bullshit.

That's not to say I don't see BL as a global threat who needs to be dealt with URGENTLY.The reason I see the need to go after Bin Laden ruthlessly is , as I've already stated above. I DO NOT think we should go after the millions of poor, suffering Afghan people. I feel so, so ,.so, so ,.so sorry for those poor, bedraggled, starving, terrorised people. If there is a God , I'd thank him from the bottom of my heart if they escape the onslaught to come and in future are afforded (by the rest of the world) basic human rights, concern and dignity. THAT , is why I hope the SPECIAL forces are used in great numbers. I'd hate to see a 17yo British kid , who probably joined the Army to learn a trade and see the world whatever (or his equivelant in the USA or anywhere ) finding himself in God forsaken Afghanistan facing a barbaric, fanatical, tough adversary who doesn't give a fuck whether he lives or dies. The special forces are different. They know the score, they are hardened, brilliant fighters and know that if , sadly, they have to sacrifice their lives they (for OUR benefit) would do so. Not as crazed suicide artists but as ingenious, accomplished fighters. War sucks, but they know it and are prepared for it. As far as I can see they are he worlds best hope beacause , left wing, right wing , whatever, Bin Ladens agenda is too dangerous. Way too dangerous, if we still want a world to live in over the next few years.

Having said that , I've also maintained that things have to change. Britain, Europe, USA, Israel and others (the so called free , democracies ) have to now and in future CHANGE. I don't have to say why. All someone has to do is read your post to see how our countries are acting on the world stage. That doesn't excuse insane people like BL or Saddam or whoever. I will not join those, mainly right wing reactionaries, who see no real problem with our own countries. No I won't do that and I'm not ashamed in the slightest of my stance.

Thanks to all for responding ….whether I agree with you or not :)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 07:18:45 (EDT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: An even greater tragedy unfolding
Message:
Nothing wrong with what you wrote there, Dermot. I wholeheartedly agree with you about the plight of the poor Afghans. There is yet another terrible tragedy unfolding of even greater magnitude than the WTC and Pentagon attacks. Journalists are saying 7,500,000 Afghans could starve to death within weeks because the Taliban have stopped all UN food aid in Afghanistan. The situation there is terrible beyond belief.

I only hope that someone invades Afghanistan soon and liberates these people.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 11:28:56 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: Re: An even greater tragedy unfolding
Message:
David:

I only hope that someone invades Afghanistan soon and liberates these people.

I doubt that there's a will in the UN to stomach an invasion under it's auspices, but if the Taliban factions continue to desert then perhaps the UN mission can be continued in the liberated areas.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 13:16:46 (EDT)
From: Francesca
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Scott, Dave, everyone, thanks
Message:
I've been reading your posts. The most important thing is to stop the suffering and prevent those who cause such suffering from getting any deeper of a toehold in terms of power and influence, isn't it?

With all the inhumanity, terrorism, death squads and repressive regimes there are on the planet and have been for some time, regardless of who has supported them in the past and for what political reason, I can only hope that the civilized world will band together and help stop the abuse.

This is one cause that is bipartisan and spans all sorts of political and ideological views. As Scott has said, and I think he is correct, our future depends upon it. It is true we can analyze how we got here, and that definitely has value -- the present is a continuum of the past brought into the future -- but the present is here now, and I think we all agree that no one can afford to be asleep at the switch. The future is quite uncertain. We have had terrorism before, but technology and diabolical minds can now put it on a massive scale. And because of our precious freedoms, those who might wreak it may be here among us.

Bests,

Francesca

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 07:22:59 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: So true, Dave. [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 01:03:09 (EDT)
From: Francesca
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: You GO! Joe. Great post! [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 02:50:45 (EDT)
From: Salam
Email: None
To: Francesca
Subject: Re: You GO! Joe. Great post!
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 00:49:14 (EDT)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Joe
Message:
Why do you think the Northern Alliance isn't a big step forward from the Taliban? They claim to support women's rights to education and career, and I saw films of them without the veils.

I think your mother's thinking is wishful. Although people aren't going so far as Christian fundamentalism, they're religious beliefs seem to be stronger, if anything.

Thanks for another excellent post. You have a way of distilling the huge mass of information into a form that is concise and understandable.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 12:22:09 (EDT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: The Nothern Alliance....
Message:
The problem with the Northern Alliance is that they, ALSO, are fundamentalist Islamics, with all kinds of human rights violations to their credit. To say they are marginally better than the Talliban isn't saying much.

And as we have seen, once we arm, aid, support and let loose those forces, we cannot control them, or maybe we aren't interested in staying involved once we get what we want. That's what happened the last time around. Our policies have always been terribly short-sighted, we don't understand the forces involved, and we have a tendency just to throw our weight around and then split.

Plus, there are a host of other problems. We need the Pakistanis, but they hate the Northern Alliance because the Northern Allliance is supported by India, for example, and also by Iran. The alliances are very complicated and about to fall apart at any moment. The forces we unleash, aggravate, not to mention the misery we could cause, will, in my opinion, come back to bite us in the ass. Maybe not immediately, but eventually. I think we need to learn from our mistakes.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 12:37:13 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: The ex-King of Afghanistan
Message:
is being prepared to return I understand. He's getting on a bit now (86 yo?) and whether or not he would sit easily with fundamentalists, i don't know.

He's been urged to return not for any great love of a monarchial system but more as a rallying/unifying figure. He was quite popular with a lot of ordinary Afghanis, so I've heard.

I heard an interview with him and he sounded sincere in wanting to move on from all the tragedies and disasters of the last 20 or so years.

Whether he'd be just used as a tool while other fundamntalist position themselves for power, I don't know.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 00:44:57 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Re: The ex-King of Afghanistan
Message:
The big advantage in having a monarchy is that there's a common unifying figure when the administration trips and falls in the ditch (as they're bound to do eventually). Without such a figure then a major mistake by the governing elite almost always results in a change in government rather than a simple change in administrations. In other words it helps in peaceful transitions of power. Constitutional monarchies provide stability and consistency. Something like that has also been proposed for the Balkans.

In the US the Constitution itself fulfills this role. The unifying focus doesn't reside in our architecture, institutions, or even in our population or popular culture, which is something that went straight over the heads of the terrorists' simplistic view of power.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 02:41:37 (EDT)
From: Salam
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: Re: Joe
Message:
The Northern Alliance by themselves can not rule Afghanistan. They are composed mostly of Tajiks, the Pashtun will not allow it as they make 40% of the ethnic poplulation. The only way is to bring the knuckle heads to sit down together and agree on something which is very doubtfull. Even the old king couldn't do that. The Afghan problem is a bit beyond logic, it was buried under a mountain of traditions and suddenly everyone is sticking there thumbs into trying to resovel it. Best solution is for a United Nation sponsored program of development that will improve the standard of living, communication and education until the people feel that they are willing to take over.

There are a lot of humanitarian relife organisation already working in Afghanistan and these could have their work expanded to include such things. Very hard in a country with deep rooted traditions.

and again, what do I know.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 07:27:59 (EDT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Salam
Subject: What do you know?
Message:
Actually, Salam, it's obvious you're quite knowledgeable about Middle Eastern affairs, so as far as I'm concerned, you can stop asking 'what do I know'. You obviously know a lot. But I'm with Pat. Why did you put the word 'terrorist' in quotes. Usually, when that's done, it indicates that the subject doesn't really exist, like I do when I put the word 'war' in quotes. I'm indicating that I don't think there's really a war going on, but just international criminals on a rampage. Do you feel that there really aren't anything such as terrorists, that perhaps they're some kind of freedom fighters or something? I hope not.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 11:42:04 (EDT)
From: salam})
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Re: What do you know?
Message:
I wrote the post few days ago and decided not to post it, cause I thought it was to heavy. But seeing that we 'HAVE A SITUATION SIR', I posted it.

Terorists between quotes. Humm. Think about it. Hamas has a bunch of terrorist which Iran nurtured so do the Talibans. Now that Iran is a bit more docile, so are the terrorist. So the next country that pops up hating another will support a group of 'terrorist'.

Ok, if a CIA or an SAS is caught by the Talibans. He will be a spy and a terrorist to them. Yes?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 21:10:25 (EDT)
From: salam
Email: None
To: salam})
Subject: correction
Message:
I said Hammas in my post. It should be Hizbulah. Sorry.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 11:49:06 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: salam})
Subject: Come on, Salam
Message:
I wrote the post few days ago and decided not to post it, cause I thought it was to heavy. But seeing that we 'HAVE A SITUATION SIR', I posted it.

Terorists between quotes. Humm. Think about it. Hamas has a bunch of terrorist which Iran nurtured so do the Talibans. Now that Iran is a bit more docile, so are the terrorist. So the next country that pops up hating another will support a group of 'terrorist'.

Ok, if a CIA or an SAS is caught by the Talibans. He will be a spy and a terrorist to them. Yes?


---

Who cares if the Taliban would think a CIA agent is a 'terrorist'. The question is do you? If not, why mention it?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 12:28:05 (EDT)
From: salam
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: either with you or against you policy.
Message:
I don't see what the contradiction is, if there is any.

[ did i fuck up somewhere?, Where are the explainers? ]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 13:36:35 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: salam
Subject: Re: either with you or against you policy.
Message:
The point is this. You start off explaining what you mean by 'terrorist' then vere off into how the Taliban would define the word as if their application matters. It'd be like someone asking you who 'Satan' was and your saying that 'Satan is another name for the mythical enemy of a mythical God, however, if you ask Ayotalla Khameini, Satan's the U.S.A.' but no one was asking him so why even say so?

Capiche?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 21:13:13 (EDT)
From: salam
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: either with you or against you policy.
Message:
yah capiche. I knew I fucked up somewhere, sheesh.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 09:08:36 (EDT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: 'terrorist'
Message:
It would be difficult to define the term in such as way that it did not include quite a number of states and organisations that are not usually described by the Western media in that way, and therefore it is a term that is difficult to use in a consistently.

Robert Fisk makes that point (tho not directly) in the article I've linked to (from my strangely doubled post in this thread).

Noam Chomsky also makes this point with detailed reasoning, in the context of the Contras and Nicaragua. See the fifth interview on the site pointed to by Stonor, in her 'Chompsky' (sic) post.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 19:17:14 (EDT)
From: G
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: 'terrorist' in dictionary
Message:
Here is some text from www.dictionary.com on 'terrorist':

terrorist:

One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism

A radical who employs terror as a political weapon

terrorism:

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

The act of terrorizing, or state of being terrorized; a mode of government by terror or intimidation.

the systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 03:48:47 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Salam
Subject: But you have to first stop the Taliban
Message:
......from stealing the Red Cross supplies meant for the poor as they did last week.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 10:43:21 (EDT)
From: salam
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: Re: But you have to first stop the Taliban
Message:
what can I say? This is an indication that they are having casualties with the recent escalation of clashes with the North.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 21:11:09 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: These are the new Nazis, Dermot
Message:
It took Pearl Harbor for the US to eventually see that Churchill was right. WTC was my Pearl Harbor.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 05:46:51 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: Re: These are the new Nazis, Dermot
Message:
I agree Pat......they HAVE to be sorted out.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 20:31:05 (EDT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: This from the SF Chronical Sept 16, 2001
Message:
What do you think of this?

***I found this to be mayhaps the most truthful consideration of what is happening that I've read so far -- though I will admit, I have not looked far to 'know' that this summary of what is going on makes the most sense. Chloe
***********************************************************************************
from the San Francisco Chronicle, Sept. 16, 2001
Retaliation is a trap. In a world that was supposed to have learnt that the rule of law comes above revenge, President Bush appears to be heading for the very disaster that Osama bin Laden has laid down for him. Let us have no doubts about what happened in New York and Washington last week. It was a crime against humanity. We cannot understand America`s need to retaliate unless we accept this bleak, awesome fact. But this crime was perpetrated - it becomes ever clearer - to provoke the United States into just the blind, arrogant punch that the U.S. military is preparing.
Mr. bin Laden - every day his culpability becomes more apparent - has described to me how he wishes to overthrow the pro-American regime of the Middle East, starting with Saudi Arabia and moving on to Egypt, Jordan and the other Gulf states. In an Arab world sunk in corruption and dictatorships - most of them supported by the West - the only act that might bring Muslims to strike at their own leaders would be a brutal, indiscrimate assault by the United States.. Mr. bin Laden is unsophisticated in foreign affairs, but a close student of the art and horror of war. He knew how to fight the Russians who stayed on in Afghanistan, a Russian monster that revenged itself upon its ill-educated, courageous antagonists until, faced with war without end, the entire Soviet Union began to fall apart.
The Chechens learnt this lesson. And the man responsible for so much of the bloodbath in Chechnya - the career KGB man whose army is raping and murdering the insurgent Sunni Muslin population of Chechnya - is now being signed up by Mr. Bush for this war against people. Vladimir Putin must surely have a sense of humor to appreciate the cruel ironies that have now come to pass, though I doubt if he will let Mr. Bush know what happens when you start a war of retaliation; your army - like the Russian forces in Chechnya - becomes locked into battle with an enemy that appears ever more ruthless, ever more evil.
But the Americans need look no further than Ariel Sharon`s futile war with the Palestinians to understand the folly of retaliation. In Lebanon, it was always the same. A Hizbollah guerilla would kill an Israel occupation soldier, and the Israelis would fire back in retaliation at a village in which a civilian would die.. The Hizbollah would retaliate with a Katyusha missile attack over the Israeli border, and the Israelis would retaliate again with a bombardment of southern Lebanon.
In Israel/Palestine, it is the same story. An Israeli soldier shoots a Palestinian stone-thrower. The Palestinians retaliate by killing a settler. The Israelis then retaliate by sending a murder squad to kill a Palestinian gunman. The Palestinians retaliate by sending a suicide bomber into a pizzeria. The Israelis then retaliate by sending F-16s to bomb a Palestinian police station. Retaliation leads to retaliation and more retaliation. War without end.
And while Mr. Bush - and perhaps Mr. Blair - prepare their forces, they explain so meretriciously that this is a war for 'democracy and liberty', that it is about men who are 'attacking civilization'. 'America was targeted for attack,' Mr. Bush informed us on Friday, 'because we are the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world.' But this is not why America was attacked. If this was an Arab-Muslim apocalypse, then it is intimately associated with events in the Middle East and with America`s stewardship of the area. Arabs, it might be added, would rather like some of that democracy and liberty and freedom that Mr. Bush has been telling them about. Instead, they get a president who wins 98 per cent in the elections (Washington`s friend, Mr. Mubarak) or a Palestinian police force, trained by the CIA, that tortures and sometimes kills its people in prison. The Syrians would also like a little of that democracy. So would the Saudis. But their effete princes are all friends of America - in many cases, educated at US universities.
I will always remember how President Clinton announced that Saddam Hussein - another of our grotesque inventions - must be overthrown so that the people of Iraq could choose their own leaders. But if that happened, it would be the first time in Middle Eastern history that Arabs have been permitted to do so. No, it is 'our' democracy and 'our' liberty and freedom that Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair are talking about, our Western sanctuary that is under attack, not the vast place of terror and injustice that the Middle East has become.
Let me illustrate what I mean. Nineteen years ago today, the greatest act of terrorism - using Israel`s own defin ition of that much misused word - in modern Middle Eastern history began. Does anyone remember the anniversary in the West? How many readers of this article remember it? I will take a tiny risk and say that no other British newspaper - certainly no American newspaper - will today recall the fact that on16 September 1982, Israel`s Phalangist militia allies started their three-day orgy of rape and knifing and murder in the Palestinian refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila that cost 1,800 lives. It followed an Israeli invasion of Lebanon - designed to drive the PLO out of the country and given the green light by the then US Secretary of State, Alexander Haig - which cost the lives of 17,500 Lebanese and Palestinians, almost all of them civilians. That`s probably three times the death toll in the World Trade Centre. Yet I do not remember any vigils or memorial services or candle-lighting in America or the West for the innocent dead of Lebanon. I don`t recall any stirring speaches about democracy or liberty. In fact, my memory is that the United States spent most of the bloody months of July and August 1982 calling for 'restraint'.
No, Israel is not to blame for what happened last week. The culprits were Arabs, not Israelis. But America`s failure to act with honor in the Middle East, its promiscuous sale of missiles to those who use them against civilians, its blithe disregard for the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi children under sanctions of which Washington is the principal supporter - all these are intimately related to the society that produced the Arabs who plunged America into an apocalypse of fire last week.
America`s name is literally stamped on to the missiles fired by Israel into Palestinian buildings in Gaza and the West Bank. Only four weeks ago, I identified one of them as an AGM 114-D air-to-ground rocket made by Boeing and Lockheed-Martin at their factory in - of all places - Florida, the state where some of the suiciders trained to fly.
It was fired from an Apache helicopter (made in America of course) during the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, when hundreds of cluster bombs were dropped in civilian areas of Beruit by the Israelis in contravention of undertakings given to the United States. Most of the bombs had US Naval markings and America then suspended a shipment of fighter bombers to Israel - for less than two months.
The same type of missile - this time an AGM 114-C made in Georgia- was fired by the Israelis into the back of an ambulance near the Lebanese village of Mansori, killing two women and four children. I collected the pieces of the missile, including its computer coding plate, flew to Georgia and presented them to the manufacturers of the Boeing factory. And what did the developer of the missile say to me when I showed him photographs of the children his missile had killed? 'Whatever you do,' he told me,'don`t quote me as saying anything critical of the policies of Israel.'
I`m sure the father of those children, who was driving the ambulance,will have been appalled by last week`s events, but I don`t suppose, given the fate of his own wife - one of the women killed - that he was in a mood to send condolences to anyone. All these facts, of course, must be forgotten, now.
Every effort will be made in the coming days to switch off the 'why' question and concentrate on the who, what and how. CNN and most of the world`s media have already obeyed this essential new war rule. I`ve already seen what happens when this rule is broken. When the Independent published my article on the connection between the Middle Eastern injustice and the New York holocaust, the BBC`s 24-hour news channel produced an American commentator who remarked that 'Robert Fisk has won the prize for bad taste'. When I raised the same point on an Irish radio talk show, the other guest, a Harvard lawyer, denounced me as a bigot, a liar, a 'dangerous man' and- of course - potentially anti-semitic. The Irish pulled the plug on him.
No wonder we have to refer to the terrorists as 'mindless'. For if we did not, we would have to explain what went on in those minds. But this attempt to censor the realities of the war that has already begun must not be permitted to continue. Look at the logic. Secretary of State, Colin Powell was insisting on Friday that his message to the Taliban is simple: they have to take responsibility for sheltering Mr. bin Laden. 'You cannot separate your activities from the activities of the perpetrators,' he warned. But the Americans absolutely refuse to associate their own response to their predicament with their activities in the Middle East. We are supposed to hold our tongues, even when Ariel Sharon - a man whose name will always be associated with the massacre at Sabra and Shatila - announces that Israel also wishes to join the battle against 'world terror'.
No wonder the Palestinians are fearful. In the past four days, 23 Palestinians have been killed in the West Bank and Gaza, an astonishing figure that would have been front-page news had America not been blitzed. If Israel signs up for the new conflict, then the Palestinians - by fighting the Israelis - will. by extension, become part of the 'world terror' against which Mr. Bush is supposedly going to war. Not for nothing did Mr.Sharon claim that Yasser Arafat had connections with Osama bin Laden.
I repeat: what happened in New York was a crime against humanity. And that means policemen, arrests, justice, a whole new international court at the Hague if necessary. Not cruise missiles and 'precision' bombs and Muslim lives lost in revenge for Western lives. But the trap has been sprung. Mr. Bush - perhaps we, too - are now walking into it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 08:00:18 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: Re: This from the SF Chronical Sept 16, 2001
Message:
Robyn:

What do you think of this?

How about misinformed nonsense?

The 'Rule of Law' is simply the principle, upheld by consensus, tradition and a monopoly of force, that rulers are subject to the same laws as the governed. So regardless of the fact that there are ad hoc 'world courts' there is no such thing as the 'rule of law' applied to the world as a whole. That aspect of the article is irrelevant since the author doesn't understand the principle he's writing about.

He also doesn't understand the practice of self government, since it requires more than 'rules' to make it work. It requires a society prepared by it's own history and experience for the leap. So the notion that the US is preventing widespread popular democratic movements in the Middle East is pure hogwash. We may not always support the right factions within those societies, but that's hardly the same as a systematic policy to prevent the ascendance of democracy. More like poor policy judgment. But beyond that hackneyed piece of anti-American sentiment the notion that 'why' is even relevant when, at least in Iraq and Afghanistan if not Iran and a number of other states, the inmates have taken over the asylum, borders on a kind of insanity.

But I've said all this before, with little effect. It would seem that what is self-evident to 90% of the US population is incomprehensible to the other 10%.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 13:43:31 (EDT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: anti-American sentiment?
Message:
Scott, surely I can't be reading you right here, can I?

You seem to be saying that, to suggest that America could ever show 'poor policy judgment' is tantamount to being 'anti-American'. Aren't you?

Look, I know the leaders of your county (maybe you too) like to think of America as a 'beacon of democracy' - well, hell, who am I to disagree? - no doubt America is living under the best democracy money can buy.;)

But surely, if a country is to be governed well, it requires not just a strong party in power, but a strong opposition too. A weak opposition is NOT good for the government, the people OR the nation as a whole.

And as for suggesting that it's insanity to ask 'WHY' the situation outside the US is as it is .................. jeeez, Scott, the only people who don't ask why the lunatics have taken over an asylum are surely the lunatics themselves?

Tell me I'm misreading you, won't you? Please?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 00:24:31 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: cq
Subject: Yeah, you've misread me, as usual.
Message:
But surely, if a country is to be governed well, it requires not just a strong party in power, but a strong opposition too. A weak opposition is NOT good for the government, the people OR the nation as a whole.

'Peaceful transition of power.' 'Honorable opposition.' Those are the essential characteristics of power in an open society. What do these concepts have to do with having an opposition in strong and substancial disagreement about wartime policy? If a country can't find common ground during a war it won't last very long. Surely this isn't difficult to grasp. What common ground are you suggesting exits here? I haven't seen any expression of it, although you seem to *presume* it's there for some reason.

And as for suggesting that it's insanity to ask 'WHY' the situation outside the US is as it is .................. jeeez, Scott, the only people who don't ask why the lunatics have taken over an asylum are surely the lunatics themselves?

??? Yeah, *why* the lunatics have taken over the assylum is not what *you're* talking about. Rather, you're suggesting the lunatics have a 'rational agenda.' By definition, that's nuts. You understand what rational means, right?

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 14:29:08 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: cq
Subject: Good points Cq,esp.Opposition etc [nt]
Message:
x
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 05:51:17 (EDT)
From: dERMOT
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: Re: This from the SF Chronical Sept 16, 2001
Message:
Hi Robyn

There's a lot in there I agree with but I think Bin Laden is too wealthy,too determined and too ruthless to ignore.

I can't see any other alternative but to deal with him as soon as possible.

Best wishes

Dermot

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 02:11:13 (EDT)
From: Salam
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: Re: This from the SF Chronical Sept 16, 2001
Message:
Great insight. Do you think you can e-mail me the url for the article?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 05:07:41 (EDT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Salam
Subject: Robert Fisk
Message:
Robert Fisk: an AGM 114-C made in Georgia- was fired by the Israelis into the back of an ambulance near the Lebanese village of Mansori, killing two women and four children. I collected the pieces of the missile, including its computer coding plate, flew to Georgia and presented them to the manufacturers of the Boeing factory.

Robert Fisk also writes for the British Newspaper the the Independent. It was the paper the Brits turned to in the days following Sept 11th, recording an increase in sales of 44% -- more than other paper.

More from Robert Fisk

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 10:46:52 (EDT)
From: salam
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: Re: Robert Fisk
Message:
thank you.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 05:07:21 (EDT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Salam
Subject: Robert Fisk
Message:
Robert Fisk: an AGM 114-C made in Georgia- was fired by the Israelis into the back of an ambulance near the Lebanese village of Mansori, killing two women and four children. I collected the pieces of the missile, including its computer coding plate, flew to Georgia and presented them to the manufacturers of the Boeing factory.

Robert Fisk also writes for the British Newspaper the the Independent. It was the paper the Brits turned to in the days following Sept 11th, recording an increase in sales of 44% -- more than other paper.

More from Robert Fisk

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 19:50:32 (EDT)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Re: Am I stupid or what ?
Message:
The best opportunity to crush bin Laden's forces is to supply and train the Northern Alliance (the forces whose leader, Masood, was assasinated two days before the attacks). They know the terrain and style of battle necessary to defeat bin Laden's forces (who, incidentally, are different than the Taliban army). They also know where the mines are planted and how bin Laden's forces fight.

It's an almost perfect built-in solution. The goal of the Northern Alliance is to replace the Taliban with a free society. Bin Laden's troops are tough, tough fighters.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 05:53:35 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: Re: Am I stupid or what ?
Message:
Anyone and US, British, German and French special forces Rick IMO.

Cheers

Dermot

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 20:01:36 (EDT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: Re: Am I stupid or what ?
Message:
Yeah, but if history repeats itself, our allies today will probably be our enemies tomorrow. But right now, if the Americans want a base of operations for 'special ops', I agree, the Northern Alliance's territory is ideal. They can also sniff out bin Laden's whereabouts and infiltrate al Quaeda. They're just what the doctor ordered for us, and we're just what he ordered for them.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 02:31:05 (EDT)
From: salam
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Re: Am I stupid or what ?
Message:
this is exactly the short sightedness that you guus get yourself in trouble with.

After the death of Massoud of the Northern alliance, the new General Adel Rashid Dostum is an ex Russian Commander, what a surprise a very ambitious man that ran his own operation for few years before the Taliban took over.

At a news conference, the Pakistani foreign minister Abdul Sattar, said that he was concerned over reports that the opposition Northern Alliance in Afghanistan was seeking military assistance to fight the Taliban.

On the other hand, India has said it would like to see a government in Afghanistan that unites the country's different ethnic groups if the ruling Taliban is ousted from power.

India and russia support the Northern alliance. Secretly, the Northern alliance opposes Pakistan interference in Afghanistan thus the war in the north is a drain to Pakistan also.

It looks like the political structure in the area has changed. The US made a mistake in supporting 7 Afghan factions during the Soviet invasion of their country then abandoning them to their own fait which in turn left a vacuum that Pakistan capitalized on by supporting an outside faction [Taliban] to walk in and take over. It looks that Pakistan has underestimated the Taliban and things went out of hand. Now the USA is back in the region to make things right again. They have already decided what to do.

first – give the Russians more hand into controlling the region, though the Russian are not happy to be on the far end. they want to be involved in the decision making process.
secound – Trim Pakistan’s’ claws back a bit, but don’t really upset them, as they are the meat in the sandwich between India and Russia.
third – Install a new government in Afghanistan lead by the ex king Zahr Shah, again Pakistan doesn’t like that, since Zahr Shah stood against Pakistan during the early 60’s quarrel on the border crossing of the Pashtun tribes.
forth - a new goverment in Afganistan, led by the Northern Aliance is advantagous to India.
Fifth – The Saudis have had enough of it all, no more American infidel troops, but they will continue to flood the market with petrol whenever they are asked to.
Sixth – The “terrorists” will find a new country.

So it’s all, convenient the area becomes more stable, Bush is a hero in the eyes of the American public and will most likely win another term and there is wonderfull reason why the American and the world economy is in recession. Iran is looked at favorably in the eyes of the west, Putin gets money from the west and bobs your uncle.

Now they can go back and shoot at Iraq, fix up the mess in the Middle East and start building the 4 billion dollars pipeline.

Oh, did I mention Kashmir.

Now…………

But what do I know.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 07:51:42 (EDT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: salam
Subject: Living in a dream world
Message:
this is exactly the short sightedness that you guus get yourself in trouble with.

Yes, that's right. The Northern Alliance draws support from a patchwork of minority ethnic groups, none of which are Afghani!

The Northern Alliance has been largely defeated by the Taliban, a force created by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia with American help. That is, the Taliban were largely created by the Pakistani and Saudi Security services with CIA backing. There is no need for any surprise about this. When it comes to puritanical fundamentalism, the Saudis come a pretty close second to the Taliban.

So let's not delude ourselves here. The Northern Alliance certainly won't. Yes, they will take the money, guns and support for they have no love for the Taliban. Ethnic hatred is a part of it. But, no, they will not imagine for one moment that America is acting out of anything but cynical and narrow national self-interest. They will notice that American support to them came only after America was attacked (think about that point very carefully) -- and they will also remember that before that attack they had been left to rot by the West for a decade.

Their troopers will as cheerfully kill Americans as they did the Russians should that ever become convenient to their own cynical and narrow self-interest. That is the way the game is played, after all.

Welcome to the Great Game.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 03:45:23 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: salam
Subject: Re: Am I stupid or what ?
Message:
No you aren't stupid obviously but perhaps need to use less idiosyncratic language. I read all your stuff as you let me see things from a very personal perspective.

What do you mean by saying that Pakistan is ''the meat in the sandwich between India and Russia?'' If an American said that I would know what it meant but I don't know what you Aussies mean by it.

Your Sixth point is ''The “terrorists” will find a new country.'' They are already in almost every country. One of the recent suicide terrorists lived in San Diego. My question is why do put the word Terrorist into quote marks?

I'm not sure what you mean by this paragraph: ''Bush is a hero in the eyes of the American public and will most likely win another term and there is wonderfull reason why the American and the world economy is in recession.''

I'll also bet that Bush gets a second term, probably a wiser man. What I don't understand is the last part of your prophecy about a recession.

Yes, most Republican Presidents in the past 20 years have run up enormous deficits in spite of pretending to be fiscal conservatives and enriched the wealthy money-lenders at the expense of the middle- and working classes BUT money has begun to pour back into Silicone Valley in expectation of a hi-tech war and interest rates were lowered again.

WWWlll could be boom time. Not immediately but next year sometime. A lot of my dotcom customers have found jobs again and my business has definitely picked up (well, it helps that it just made the top one hundred restaurants in a snooty mag.)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 11:35:53 (EDT)
From: salam
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: Re: Am I stupid or what ?
Message:
Well look at it this way. The real reason behind all this is 'OIL and GAS'. There is nothing else to it. Central Asia has more oil reserves in it than the whole Middle East put together. So what happens, well again after the collapse of USSR, these shitty little countries became independent with a large reserve of energy source.See [ http://www.hri.org/MFA/thesis/winter98/20.html ]. Their only problem is that they are land bond, no sea or air space. Oil has to bass through another country to export it. The Russians already had a pipeline from Kazakistan to the Black sea and they were as happy as Larry.

The West was not happy and wanted a share of the pie, so the story goes that Pakistan was asked to support the Talibans to bring some form of stability to the country so that an oil and gas pipeline comes from Turkuminstan to Pakistan. See [ http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/afghan.html }

The problem that Pakistan is facing is a shortage of gas supplies around the year 2010. The tax bill for energy with be about 50%, therefore the Pakistan goverment need dirt cheep supply of oil & gas. The only viable solution is the mentioned pipeline. If the Talibans would have shut their faces and did not let bin Laden in, no one would have noticed what the fuck is going on.

Now russia, having interest in all this, it Russia, does not see that a stable goverment in Afghanistan is in it's favor, thus it only support the North with enough military equipment to keep the situation in Afghanistan unstable. If by any chance the North does come to power, then Russia is in too, and we are in the next stage of plotting, cause the west have to suck up to Russia instead of the other way.

India, though it stand to benefit from the oil pipeline. wants a weakend Pakistan, which might give them a stronger negotiating leverage with the issue of Kahmir, thus India support the North. So Pakistan is the meat in the sandwich.

It's the gateway to cheap oil to the west, the US has to stand behind Pakistan in any which way. From the way things are looking, this appears to be aother middle east shamble.

The US economy was going into [or in] a recession. The rexession would have taken one or six month for it to have a full impact. The wtc incident accelerated that to within a week. The US adminstration can't be blamed, it's similar to the act of GOD.

There won't be a war as such. you can only attack a target if you can see him. Bin Laden doesn't have and army, only foot solders, hiding behind every rock, crevis and cave, to get to him you need to kill them one by one to get to him, unless the CIA have come out with something like Teleporting.

So personally I think all this military build up is a lot of bull. The US goverment is flexing it's muscle to scare the Talibans while the Talibans are giving the US the finger to stick it and come and get us if you can.

But hey for $40 million I'll kiss Bushes ass, no make that the whole congress.

[ and Shah'razad went to sleep thinking of her next post ]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 10:44:45 (EDT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: congratulations, Pat
Message:
Well done on the restaurant rating. I know your eatery will be on my list of 'musts' the next time Patty and I vist SF.

I'm all catted up. One on my shoulders and one on my lap. Must be time to light the pellet stove. A guy gets real popular around here when the temperature dips...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 13:54:26 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: Thanks, Gerry
Message:
We needed a bit of good publicity. After the CAC attack three anonymous negative reviews were posted on City Search which may or may not have been coincidental.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 20:41:04 (EDT)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Re: Am I stupid or what ?
Message:
It may be too late to not have lethal enemies. We'll be lucky enough to get through each day as it comes.

Senator Gary Hart said today he expected another violent attack of some kind, in the U.S. in the near future. I can't see any way around it. There's just too much ground to cover.

The only salve I can see for the long term is PR, PR and more PR. I'm not sure how that shakes down, but you can't have this many crazy people enraged at you without suffering big losses. There must be some way to prevent future generations from feeling the way so many do in that part of the world.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 23:34:29 (EDT)
From: salsa
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: PR with bin?
Message:
how would you that? How would you reason with THAT type of mentality?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 27, 2001 at 00:29:07 (EDT)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: salsa
Subject: Re: PR with bin?
Message:
Obviously, it's too late to do PR with Bin Laden. But I can think of two sorts of PR that could be done otherwise: 1.) Look for things that could have been done differently in the past, and do them in the future (i.e., abandoning Afghanistan after helping them defeat the USSR rather than stay and help nation-build) and 2.) Find ways to penetrate the opinions of youngsters who are too young to yet have any opinion about the U.S.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 20:52:59 (EDT)
From: hamzen
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: Genuine coalitions would do it
Message:
I reckon Rick, but REALLY carefully done, this american restraint at the moment is to be totally supported, and real coalitions built around the world, there are very few governments/people who aren't targets for bin laden, plenty of arab countries would love to be rid of him.

the secret is to keep the arabs onside by not inflicting enormous civilian casualties which they would then have to attack to keep their populations from getting out of control.
In Iran the splits are being accelerated and the reformists are winning, but america has to be a lot more subtle than in the past, or that could change VERY quickly.

Thank god for colin powell I say.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 19:03:15 (EDT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Re: Am I stupid or what ?
Message:
He described Americans as thieves and terrorists and issued his fatwah against the US saying military and civilians were both valid targets.

Yeah, but that's only because citizens pay taxes. So stop paying taxes, countrymen, and the war is over!

I think for the likes of bin Laden, the Palestinian issue is just a front for what he really has in mind, the complete removal of western influence from the Arab world. Hopefully, moderate Arabs will see that they're just being played by this guy when he tries to play on their sentiments concerning the Palestinians and the suffering of Iraqis under sanctions. This guy is just a murdering psychopath. I really hope that's the way most Arabs see this guy, because if they don't, we're fucked.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index