Yahoo Groups archive

The Logic Off Topic list

Index last updated: 2026-04-28 23:27 UTC

Thread

Re: OT Goodbye

Re: OT Goodbye

2001-09-22 by Hendrik Jan Veenstra

Thoughts from the mind of Kool Musick, 9/20/01:

>100 aircraft are now flying
>out Saturday to Kuwait, and her son is amongst them. She is sincerely
>terrified that she will never see him again. What do I say to her?

... and what do you say to the tens of thousands of innocent 
Afghanistan citizens, most of them dead-poor, who are fleeing their 
country because Bush thinks cowboy language like "smoke them out of 
their holes" and "wanted: dead or alive" is an appropriate response 
to the current events?
Whatever happened to "unguilty until proven guilty"?  Isn't that the 
basis for our judicial system?  As far as I know, no guilty persons 
have yet been found, and evidence still is inconclusive.  Still the 
US president (of all people) calls for murder...  and thereby already 
makes completely innocent victims...

My heart bleeds for all those killed, or all who've lost relatives... 
But despite the enormity of this tragedy, it would prove a positive 
point about our so-called western democratic, humanitarian ideals if 
we could all keep seeing things in persepctive.

The sadness never stops...


HJ
-- 
     Hendrik Jan Veenstra
     email: mailto:h@...
     www:   http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html

Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye

2001-09-22 by Kool Musick

Hendrik Jan Veenstra <h@...> wrote:
>Thoughts from the mind of Kool Musick, 9/20/01:
>
> >100 aircraft are now flying
> >out Saturday to Kuwait, and her son is amongst them. She is sincerely
> >terrified that she will never see him again. What do I say to her?
>
>... and what do you say to the tens of thousands of innocent
>Afghanistan citizens, most of them dead-poor,

etc etc

I do not know those thousands of innocent Afghanistan citizens and you have 
not right to presume that I do not care about them.
I only know the person I referred to.
I tried to keep the minimum of politics and the maximum of humanity in my 
message.
Please do not impute to me motives I do not have, nor imply to me that 
there are issues I am not aware of, and that I or others have not thought of.
I am happy to debate them with you in private if you wish.
This particular thread began with someone berating the entire LUG community 
for not having responded to him when he wrote in here, and that matter I 
was trying to deal with.

>... Bush thinks cowboy language like "smoke them out of
>their holes" and "wanted: dead or alive" is an appropriate response
>to the current events?

The word 'Bush' did not appear anywhere in my messages.
I just spoke about myself, personally, and the fears that I personally have 
in respect of people that I actually know. Everytime they increase the size 
of the list of victims at the WTC my palms sweat and I look to see if my 
friends are amongst them. It was on that personal level that the original 
poster wrote and it was no that personal level that I tried to respond, to 
let him know that even though there may be 6200 posters here at the LUG we 
are all human and we DO care. The thrust of your entire email is basically 
that those of us currently resident in the USA do not care about their 
fellow human beings in Afghanistan and I for one resent that implication.

>My heart bleeds for all those killed, or all who've lost relatives...
Then please just stick to posting such things; for it is basically all that 
most us have said. Once you start rabitting on about Bush and his policies 
you are sure to provoke an argument. Pakistan is not the only place on the 
brink of civil war. You are perfectly well aware that many people in the 
USA support what Bush is doing while a very substantial number disagree 
with it. Why should anyone, especially on a music list, want to put a 
burning match into a tinder box like that?

>But despite the enormity of this tragedy, it would prove a positive
>point about our so-called western democratic, humanitarian ideals if
>we could all keep seeing things in persepctive.
Thank you ... but I do not think that it was I who was not seeing things in 
perspective. My message had a very specific and narrow aim and to that 
narrow aim I restricted myself.

>The sadness never stops...
And all I did was try to make that sadness easier to bear for someone who 
wrote into this List and said that he was feeling bitter. I absolutely did 
not try to increase the amount of rancour and bitterness in the world. 
There are already plenty enough of people doing that.

I cannot speak for anyone else but I did not find your message in the least 
helpful to me; and nor did I find it in the least compassionate.

Kool Musick
Keep Musick Kool


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye

2001-09-22 by GAmoore@aol.com

>Hendrik Jan Veenstra <h@...> wrote:
>>... and what do you say to the tens of thousands of innocent
>>Afghanistan citizens, most of them dead-poor,

I say to them, respect international conventions and extradite the accused 
mass murderer for proper trial. Much like the Libyans who bombed the PanAm 
flight over Lockerbe, Scottland - they got a fair trial - albeit after 10 
years of pressuring the Libyan government - and one of the two got off free 
as a bird. In this case, by sitting around waiting for the Taliban to stop 
prosecuting its own citizens with the death penalty for becoming Christian 
and persecuting their own women, we allow further attacks of this type to be 
organized and take place - maybe even in Europe.

And regarding innocence and lack of evidence, it appears the US government 
has a great deal of evidence that they are not disclosing. Before shedding a 
tear for these people about to die, you might wait for them to actually be 
attacked - since nothing has actually happened yet!  I don't think the US 
will indiscriminantly kill civilians because of very tenuous coalition with 
Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and and our sense of morality. During the 
Yugoslavia war, a top secret stealth fighter was shot down. 

During the Gulf war the standing plan was to have another American plane bomb 
the wreckage so our enemies would not have access to our technology for 
testing and reverse engineering. However, in this case, a bunch of Yugoslave 
yahoos were dancing on the wreckage so the US did not bomb them. 

So please think twice before you dispense your anti-American comments.

Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye

2001-09-22 by LogicBaby

Kool, I have just emailed you man! I don¹t think the guy was attacking you
on a personal level, neither I think he meant that terrorism is a cool
thing, I can understand your anger and bitterness over this, but like I said
some people outside the US feel that the world is getting more hostile
because of American foreign policy  and president Bush....There are some
valied points here that I hope we agree on;
1-killing of innocent people is un-human
2- There is still NO concrete evidence against the accused  IN THIS CASE
"Taleban + bin laden", I agree that the shit is an evil terrorist, but the
FBI had a list of people who are still alive and wrongfully accused and
still alive in other parts of the world....
3- Violence Breeds violence, Attacking a whole country as revenge is not a
good thing, those are poor people that can barely make it in life, THEY are
NOT the ones who hijacked the planes, and the evidence is still not there
yet, public Anger is not enough to justify "smoking them out, the war of the
crusades|" , CAN we ask the question WHY?
4-There are better ways to deal with our anger and frustrations, Music is
the best way, I suggest the B-52 drops imacs with logic on Afghani villages
instead of Bombs, They need education and culture if anything, there is no
point in making a whole nation your enemy just because of its regeam, WHY on
earth did the US leave Saddam Shit in Iraq, and now the killing of Bin Laden
is what's needed?? Maybe Saddam was behind all of this after all, Point is
People should not be prosecuted because of there governments, race, religion
or color.

Peace to the world

Re: OT Goodbye

2001-09-22 by Adrian Gill

> ... and what do you say to the tens of thousands of innocent
> Afghanistan citizens, most of them dead-poor, who are fleeing their
> country because Bush thinks cowboy language like "smoke them out of
> their holes" and "wanted: dead or alive" is an appropriate response
> to the current events?

And the "you're either with America or with the terrorists" stance.

   If the American government was to seriously pursue the policy of 
"taking out" the state sponsor of terrorists too, then it might as
well have launched the attack on the Pentagon itself.

   Bin Laden is but the latest in a _long_ line of American backed
terrorists who over-extended their counter insurgency brief. That
the support, training and financing of such terrorists when useful
was also 'undemocratic' and an attack on the 'free world' is
forgotten.

   Atrocities equal to and surpassing in scale that of Sept 11th
litter the history books. And American foreign policy has often been
the protagonist.

Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye

2001-09-22 by GAmoore@aol.com

In a message dated 9/22/01 9:36:40 AM, adrian@zarathustra.u-net.com writes:

>   Atrocities equal to and surpassing in scale that of Sept 11th
>litter the history books. And American foreign policy has often been
>the protagonist.


Oh come on! Thats horseshit. There have been attrocities as large - but only 
in time of war or natural disaster.  

Is this really the time for anti-American propoganda?

The United States has been a stabilizing influence on the world for half a 
century. About a half million Americans have died in France, Italy, Germany, 
Okinawa, Korea, Vietnam, Panama, etc. Many mistakes have been made, but the 
US has largely reacted to turns of events, not created them. Did the US 
create the Russian invasian of Afganistan that lead to the mujhadeen?

As much of a mistake as Vietnam was, wasn't it better that the US (and 
Australia) stand up at that time, rather than give Moscow the green light to 
roll tanks across western Europe? Its easy for European countries to sit on 
the sidelights and not take the same risks, but reap the benefits of the US 
doing the dirty work.

Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye

2001-09-22 by marc lindahl

> From: Adrian Gill <adrian@zarathustra.u-net.com>
> 
> Atrocities equal to and surpassing in scale that of Sept 11th
> litter the history books. And American foreign policy has often been
> the protagonist.

Name ONE that wasn't a wartime act.

Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye

2001-09-22 by Kool Musick

As I said, Hendrik Jan, I did not find the message that you posted in in 
the least helpful or compassionate. It was absolutely certain that it would 
provoke further discord and disagreement. If it did not occur to you that 
this would be its inevitable consequence then it should have done. You have 
demonstrated yourself time and time again, on this list, to be a highly 
intelligent person.

Not everybody agrees with American foreign policy past or present. This is 
why it is called 'foreign policy': it is a policy that is sure to be 
foreign to at least some body. A sound domestic policy, on the other hand, 
is one such that people make sincere efforts to ensure that the policy 
pursued is agreed upon by everybody and is foreign to anybody. So ... can 
we all not just agree with the very simple platitude that everybody here 
agrees that people being blown to bits left right and centre really isn't 
very nice ... and then just move right on along?

Thank you.

Kool Musick
Keep Musick Kool


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye

2001-09-22 by Jorma Pennanen

This thread is getting very ugly. Please let us concentrate on 
showing the passion to victims of this horrible act.

Peace
-- 
Check out the web page for my band:
Now solo works also:
New home address : http://koti.welho.com/jpennane

Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye

2001-09-22 by Hendrik Jan Veenstra

Thoughts from the mind of Kool Musick, 9/22/01:

>As I said, Hendrik Jan, I did not find the message that you posted in in
>the least helpful or compassionate.

A few days ago I sent a letter to the LUG, mourning the victims of 
the attacks, and expressing my sympathies.  I wouldn't mind sending 
such a letter once more if it was any consolation to anyone. 
However, apart from the reality of horror & pain, there's also the 
reality of political measures, threats of war and more pointless 
killing.  Ignoring that, or keeping quiet about that, only means 
you're sticking your head in the sand -- something _I'm_ not prepared 
to do.

>It was absolutely certain that it would
>provoke further discord and disagreement. If it did not occur to you that
>this would be its inevitable consequence then it should have done. You have
>demonstrated yourself time and time again, on this list, to be a highly
>intelligent person.

I suspected reactions to come, of course.  Maybe I should have 
refrained from posting.  As GAmoore just wrote: "Its easy for 
European countries to sit on
the sidelights and not take the same risks".  Maybe I should have 
behaved in accordance with this (oversimplified imo) view.

However, believing my point was sensible, I'm not one to shy away 
from confrontation.  Hearing Bush talk, I get extremely annoyed, and 
I know I'm not alone in that.  Maybe a discussion like this actually 
gets some more brains jump-started.

>So ... can
>we all not just agree with the very simple platitude that everybody here
>agrees that people being blown to bits left right and centre really isn't
>very nice ... and then just move right on along?

Of course I agree, wholeheartedly.  The point is that "move right on 
along" is open to interpretation.  Does it mean we should mourn the 
victims, and forget the rest, and just go on talking about how my new 
harddrive isn't up to speed to play back 256 tracks non-interlacd 
audio?  Or do we move on, and start thinking about "what's next", 
just as the politicians are doing?


regards,
HJ
-- 
     Hendrik Jan Veenstra
     email: mailto:h@...
     www:   http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html

Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye

2001-09-22 by Hendrik Jan Veenstra

Thoughts from the mind of LogicBaby, 9/22/01:

>Kool, I have just emailed you man! I don't think the guy was attacking you
>on a personal level, neither I think he meant that terrorism is a cool
>thing,

Thanks.  Glad someone gets the point.

>4-There are better ways to deal with our anger and frustrations, Music is
>the best way, I suggest the B-52 drops imacs with logic on Afghani villages
>instead of Bombs,

:-)  And a bunch of extension chords.  Or did you plan on dropping 
batteries too?  Since most villages out there probably don't have 
electricity...

>WHY on earth did the US leave Saddam Shit in Iraq,

Because dropping Saddam would have meant the fundamentalists would 
have come to power.  Choosing between two evils...  And so after our 
oil-supply has been secured (Gulf-war), Saddam is now allowed to 
terrorize his own people, while the western world sits back and does 
nothing...

>Point is People should not be prosecuted because of there 
>governments, race, religion or color.

Amen.


-- 
     Hendrik Jan Veenstra
     email: mailto:h@...
     www:   http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html

Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye

2001-09-22 by Hendrik Jan Veenstra

Thoughts from the mind of Kool Musick, 9/22/01:

>Hendrik Jan Veenstra <h@...> wrote:
>>Thoughts from the mind of Kool Musick, 9/20/01:
>>
>>  >100 aircraft are now flying
>>  >out Saturday to Kuwait, and her son is amongst them. She is sincerely
>>  >terrified that she will never see him again. What do I say to her?
>>
>>... and what do you say to the tens of thousands of innocent
>  >Afghanistan citizens, most of them dead-poor,
>
>I do not know those thousands of innocent Afghanistan citizens and you have
>not right to presume that I do not care about them.
>[...]
>I cannot speak for anyone else but I did not find your message in the least
>helpful to me; and nor did I find it in the least compassionate.

Apparently you took my message as a personal attack in reply to your 
earlier post.  That was not my intention at all, and I'm sorry you 
read it that way.  It's just that much of the "official" language 
I've heard coming out of the US lately has been bothering me greatly. 
Given the US's status of super-power, and given its self-proclaimed 
"defenders of freedom" alure, I find it sad to see how easily 
gut-feelings (no matter how understandable they are) can come to 
dominate sense & sensibility.
Probably I shouldn't have cited your message at all, since, really, 
it didn't have that much to do with what I tried to say.  I'm sorry 
for that.

regards,
HJ
-- 
     Hendrik Jan Veenstra
     email: mailto:h@...
     www:   http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html

Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye

2001-09-22 by Hendrik Jan Veenstra

Thoughts from the mind of GAmoore@..., 9/22/01:

>  >Hendrik Jan Veenstra <h@...> wrote:
>>>... and what do you say to the tens of thousands of innocent
>>>Afghanistan citizens, most of them dead-poor,
>
>I say to them, respect international conventions and extradite the accused
>mass murderer for proper trial.

To the people?  Dead-poor farmers and shepards?  What power do they 
have?  What's their guilt?

>And regarding innocence and lack of evidence, it appears the US government
>has a great deal of evidence that they are not disclosing.

And in Hamburg 6 people are arrested that seem to have to do with the 
attack, and are not associated with Bin Laden at all.  And evidence 
has been found pointing to Irak, not being related to Bin Laden 
either.
And even if BL is the evil brain behind the bombings (and ignoring 
the samll fact that it was the US who initially financed Bin Laden, 
back when the USSR attacked Afghanistan): there's still the "tiny" 
matter of "certainty beyond a reasonable doubt" before anyone can be 
convicted, isn't it?
Sure I understand the US want to have a "deep chat" with Bin Laden, 
and they're right if they want to interrogate him in person.  But 
that would mean: "wanted: alive".  Which is not at all the same as 
"dead or alive".

>  Before shedding a
>tear for these people about to die, you might wait for them to actually be
>attacked - since nothing has actually happened yet!

Apparently you didn't see the footage from Afghanistan on tv...  Any 
idea how many completely innocent people are on the run right now? 
Tens of thousands, running through hostile mountains, leaving their 
belongings behind, only to reach a 1.5 *million* people refugee-camp 
in Pakistan...

>So please think twice before you dispense your anti-American comments.

I do think twice.  And more than that.  I just don't think my post 
was anti-American.  There's a difference between the US as a people, 
and the US as a political entity.  I mourn for the people (or at 
least those that have in whichever way been hurt by the attack). 
That doesn't mean I have to agree with all actions or utterings of 
the political body.
There's plenty of sadness, in the US and elsewhere, and terrorism is 
a horrible presence on this planet.  However, simple demagogic talk 
like "whoever is not with us, is with the terrorists" is just not 
acceptable to me.  One of the things that's completely being ignored 
in such platitudes is the fact that it's not just America & co versus 
"the rest of the world".  Some people love America, and with good 
reason.  Some hate America, and with equally good reason.  Does 
anyone really believe the Palestines will ever cooperate with the US? 
After they've been murdered with US-supplied weapons for decades? 
Are they therefore all terrorists?
Saying that anyone who doesn't like the US is therefore "with the 
terrorists" is, imo, a horrible and shortsighted thing to do.  If you 
want to take that personally and call this an "anti-American" 
comment... well, then we'll have to redefine quite a few words in our 
dictionaries, I'm afraid...


regards,
HJ
-- 
     Hendrik Jan Veenstra
     email: mailto:h@...
     www:   http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html

Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye

2001-09-22 by Kool Musick

Hendrik Jan said:

>Apparently you took my message as a personal attack in reply to your
>earlier post.
Yes. It was MY words you quoted in order to make your point. Since I had 
uttered those words in an effort to promote world peace, I do not 
appreciate that they instead led to a mini world-war instead.

>It's just that much of the "official" language
>I've heard coming out of the US lately has been bothering me greatly.
Take it up with them. Not with me. You have no heard anything like that 
from me, and there has been absolutely nothing remotely like that in any of 
my posts.

>Probably I shouldn't have cited your message at all, since, really,
>it didn't have that much to do with what I tried to say.
Quite.


>I'm sorry for that.
Thank you. I appreciate it.

Kool Musick
Keep Musick Kool


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye

2001-09-22 by Kool Musick

Hendrik Jan wrote:

>I suspected reactions to come, of course.
Which is why you posted.

>Maybe I should have
>refrained from posting.
!!

>Hearing Bush talk, I get extremely annoyed,
Then why get annoyed with me? Why pick on me? There was not a single quote 
from George Bush anywhere in my email and I never referred to him. Or to 
anyone else.

>   Maybe a discussion like this actually
>gets some more brains jump-started.
I do not think anybody on this list needs their brains jump-started.

Actually, I need my brains jump-started about sysex messages. Feel free to 
do that any time you like.


>Of course I agree, wholeheartedly.  The point is that "move right on
>along" is open to interpretation.
Pass.

Because my brains do not need to be jump-started.

Kool Musick
Keep Musick Kool


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye

2001-09-22 by Hendrik Jan Veenstra

Thoughts from the mind of Kool Musick, 9/22/01:

>Actually, I need my brains jump-started about sysex messages. Feel free to
>do that any time you like.

My website has some tutorials about sysex messages and how to use and 
control them in Logic.  Including sample environments and such.  If 
any questions remain, feel free to ask -- as long as it's not about 
some particular cryptic implementation of some unknown-to-me synth 
manufacturer...

Does this contribute to world peace then, maybe... ?

-- 
     Hendrik Jan Veenstra
     email: mailto:h@...
     www:   http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html

Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye

2001-09-22 by John Matthews

Ga Moore is absolutely right about all this, you know. I have researched a
lot of 20th century millitary history and would absolutely not say the US
was so bad in its foreign Policy. They might make mistakes, but who doesnt??

It also strikes ne as being extremely distasteful at this time to be saying
"sorry about what happened, BUT US policy etc..." A lot of Americans are
upset and  simply do not need this kind of distasteful crap at the moment.

there is nothing the US has done to deserve the terrible events that
occurred on the 11th of September.

There is also a lot of anti US propaganda, dont believe it all, the truth is
there are far, far worse regimes in the world than the USA and infinitely
worse and more evil leaders than Bush.

Considering what actually happened on that awful day, I think the Americans
have been remarkably restrained in their response so far, and in their
words.

As a Briton, I hope that my country gives all the support we can to our
American friends.

John.
----- Original Message -----
From: <GAmoore@...>
To: <logic-ot@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 22 September 2001 17:46
Subject: Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye


> In a message dated 9/22/01 9:36:40 AM, adrian@zarathustra.u-net.com
writes:
>
> >   Atrocities equal to and surpassing in scale that of Sept 11th
> >litter the history books. And American foreign policy has often been
> >the protagonist.
>
>
> Oh come on! Thats horseshit. There have been attrocities as large - but
only
> in time of war or natural disaster.
>
> Is this really the time for anti-American propoganda?
>
> The United States has been a stabilizing influence on the world for half a
> century. About a half million Americans have died in France, Italy,
Germany,
> Okinawa, Korea, Vietnam, Panama, etc. Many mistakes have been made, but
the
> US has largely reacted to turns of events, not created them. Did the US
> create the Russian invasian of Afganistan that lead to the mujhadeen?
>
> As much of a mistake as Vietnam was, wasn't it better that the US (and
> Australia) stand up at that time, rather than give Moscow the green light
to
> roll tanks across western Europe? Its easy for European countries to sit
on
> the sidelights and not take the same risks, but reap the benefits of the
US
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> doing the dirty work.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye

2001-09-22 by Wilson Zorn

> Oh come on! Thats horseshit. There have been attrocities as large - but
only
> in time of war or natural disaster.
>

Well, there was the Cultural Revolution, that was a worse atrocity.  But I
can't think of a single big killing strike outside of war, either.  And I
can't think of anything on that scale perpetrated by America, and I also
think we've made many mistakes and atrocities.  But no, nothing like this,
not even close.

> Is this really the time for anti-American propoganda?
>

No, and pesonally I'd like to see propoganda for neither side. (GAmooore,
this is NOT directed at you, I am making a blanket statement for all)

Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye

2001-09-23 by dchapsk@aol.com

In a message dated 9/22/01 7:27:20 AM, koolmusick@... writes:

<< thousands of innocent
>Afghanistan citizens, most of them dead-poor,
 >>

Please see "Beneath The Viel."  A documentary that will air Sat 8pm, and Sun 
4pm Pacific time on CNN.  An intense eye opening look at Afganistan, flmed a 
year ago by an female expatriate.  A must see for anyone who wants to know 
what life is like there for women. Very sobering stuff.

Dan Chapman

Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye

2001-09-23 by Kool Musick

Dan Chapman wrote:

>In a message dated 9/22/01 7:27:20 AM, koolmusick@... writes:
>
><< thousands of innocent
> >Afghanistan citizens, most of them dead-poor,
> >>

Excuse me ... but I did not write that.

Kool Musick
Keep Musick Kool


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye

2001-09-23 by marc lindahl

> From: Hendrik Jan Veenstra <h@...>
> 
>> WHY on earth did the US leave Saddam Shit in Iraq,
> 
> Because dropping Saddam would have meant the fundamentalists would
> have come to power.  Choosing between two evils...  And so after our
> oil-supply has been secured (Gulf-war), Saddam is now allowed to
> terrorize his own people, while the western world sits back and does
> nothing...

The reason Colin Powell gave was that they didn't want to occupy the country
long term, and that they felt they would have to do that to stabilize it if
they took out Saddam.  Makes sense, if only from a purely operational
view....

Re: Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye

2001-09-23 by GAmoore@aol.com

Yeah, but there is. They haven't presented it you or in court yet, but 
that doesn't mean it doens't exist. There have been many little tidbits 
leaked but they are keeping the details quiet so they can go after them.

>2- There is still NO concrete evidence against the accused  IN THIS CASE
>"Taleban + bin laden"

A Bin Laden associate also tried to kill the pope a few years ago.

Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye

2001-09-23 by marc lindahl

> From: GAmoore@...
> 
> A Bin Laden associate also tried to kill the pope a few years ago.
> 

Not to mention two US embassies in Africa and a US ship.

[L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye

2001-09-23 by Dennis Gunn

At 1:57 PM +0200 9/22/01, Hendrik Jan Veenstra wrote:
>Thoughts from the mind of Kool Musick, 9/20/01:
>
>>100 aircraft are now flying
>>out Saturday to Kuwait, and her son is amongst them. She is sincerely
>>terrified that she will never see him again. What do I say to her?
>
>... and what do you say to the tens of thousands of innocent
>Afghanistan citizens, most of them dead-poor, who are fleeing their
>country because Bush thinks cowboy language like "smoke them out of
>their holes" and "wanted: dead or alive" is an appropriate response
>to the current events?
>Whatever happened to "unguilty until proven guilty"?  Isn't that the
>basis for our judicial system?  As far as I know, no guilty persons
>have yet been found, and evidence still is inconclusive.

Protecting the innocent is always a priority.  In the west and 
anywhere else where there is a homicidal maniac at large who has 
killed and promises to kill again the #1 priority is to apprehend him 
to and the purpose of that is to protect the innocent.  In this 
instance whether that means dead or alive is mainly up to Bin Laden 
and the Taliban .  Bin Laden has been video taping himself making 
threats that came true and calling on his followers to kill Americans 
where ever and when ever possible for about ten years now.  It is 
idiocy of the first order to call this man innocent.

Dead or alive is just common sense.

>   Still the
>US president (of all people) calls for murder...
>

Complete sophist bullshit.  Get a grip.

>  and thereby already
>makes completely innocent victims...

Where is the tense in this sentence are we talking future or present 
because AFAIK the US has yet to have fired a shot.  Lots of people in 
the US have been fired upon though.

>My heart bleeds for all those killed, or all who've lost relatives...
>But despite the enormity of this tragedy, it would prove a positive
>point about our so-called western democratic, humanitarian ideals if
>we could all keep seeing things in persepctive.

Alright lets put things in perspective.  6 thousand people have just 
been killed very likely by the followers of a single man who is a 
fugitive from justice in his own country.  The Saudis feelings about 
Bin Laden are about the same as the US citizens feel about Timothy 
McVeigh for about the same reasons.  Bin Laden who is definitely 
insane but has never been called stupid has chosen what is probably 
one of the most brutal backwards countries on the planet to hide out 
in for lots of good reasons, number one among them probably being 
that the Afghan's psyches have been twisted by so many years of 
poverty, war and brutality from their leaders that instead of seeing 
Bin Laden as the sick fuck the folks where he comes from know him to 
be Bin Laden probably just seems like another pretty normal guy to 
them.

I agree that it is sad that innocent Afghani people are probably 
going to suffer and I truly hope that there is some way of avoiding 
that. I have yet to see anything that vaguely resembles a real 
solution being proposed by anyone.  Sticking your head in the sand is 
not going help.

It is the Taliban that said they were willing to shed every last drop 
of Afghan blood to protect Bin Laden.  It is utterly understandable 
and reasonable that the proposed donors are taking their plasma 
elsewhere.  I wish them luck.

The Taliban could avoid all kinds of trouble and in fact gain 
international praise by simply kicking Bin Laden out of their 
country.  After all what do they owe him?  Is it that he helped them 
overthrow the Marxists in the 70-80s war?  The US did too why are 
they not grateful to the US?   The only US involvement in Afghanistan 
that I know of is that we gave some small amount of support to anti 
Marxist factions among whom where the Taliban to overthrow the 
Marxists.  Other than that the only area I know of is that the US has 
tried to get the Taliban to stop Afghanis from growing and selling 
Heroin for export.  So why do the Afghan leadership suffer this mad 
fucking foreigner Bin Laden to live on their soil?  They should not 
put him up or put up with him and if they had a modicum of 
responsibility they would not.  But then I can't think of anyone 
anywhere who claim that the Taliban are a responsible leadership. 
What do you think HJ?


If you want to object to someone's behavior why don't you object to 
the Taliban or Bin Ladin.

But after all it is easy to understand why Western Europeans might 
have a different take on all this than US citizens.  After all they 
don't have the gun pointed at them.  OTOH some day some African 
victim of the diamond cartel sponsored wars might decide that Bin 
Laden's tactics look pretty smart and that they have nothing to loose 
anyway so "why not just start dropping some airliners on Belgium?" 
It will be interesting to hear the European take on terrorism then.

>The sadness never stops...

I cannot blame the Afghani people too much for having a rather 
twisted view of the US.  After all they are poor, brutalized, have 
limited access to information and the main sources they have are 
people for whom anything or anyone not Islamic is by definition the 
enemy.   For Europeans on the other hand the sophist sniping that has 
been going on around this incident is inexcusable.

No one has been able to specify the Taliban's grievance against the 
US that is large enough for them to allow some one like Bin Laden to 
operate freely within their borders.  Their main objection to the US 
is the extremely hypocritical inaccurate and unfair assertion that 
the US is anti-Islamic.  It's just not true but that does not seem to 
stop a lot of Muslim  populations from promptly forgetting any 
incident where US policy was on their side in a dispute.  That  the 
"Leadership" of Afghanistan a country where any religion but Islam is 
outlawed should make that accusation against a country where  there 
is a large Muslim population living alongside a Christian one and 
both are protected by law is hypocrisy of a rather astounding 
magnitude and it is rather telling that our western European critics 
never see fit to mention it. (It is also sad to note that this 
incident has made protecting the rights of  the Muslim minority 
within the US more difficult than ever)

Our western European critics bitch and whine about Bush's behavior in 
this crisis but are very low on specifics regarding what he should be 
doing different.   Go slow?  He has been.  Investigate?  Being done. 
Do not act unilaterally but work with other countries to build 
consensus and coordinate effort?  Being done.  Use all diplomatic 
channels.  Being done.

They bitch because Bush is talking tough.  Really.  Get a grip.  The 
Taliban did not respond to the reasonable request of the Pakistani's 
to hand over Bin Laden.   Should people expect no tough talk from the 
US president under these circumstances?   Is that reasonable or would 
it even be wise?

As a matter of fact I am reading that some of the Afghan clerics are 
saying that Bin Laden should leave voluntarilly so the US tactics may 
be working better than you make them out to be.


About all they are left with is his stupid demeanor and poor oration 
skills.  He does look and sound stupid but these are not capitol 
offenses.  I would rather have someone looking and sounding stupid 
and displaying smart behavior than the other way around







>Apparently you didn't see the footage from Afghanistan on tv...  Any
>idea how many completely innocent people are on the run right now?
>Tens of thousands, running through hostile mountains, leaving their
>belongings behind, only to reach a 1.5 *million* people refugee-camp
>in Pakistan...

This line of reasoning is typical of the knee jerk vilification we 
Americans have to put up with.  The US is eternally vilified by the 
Taliban "leadership", the "leadership" provides haven for a man who 
organises an attack on the US then when asked by the US through 
Pakistani intermediaries (who in spite of the difficult situation the 
incident has put them in see the sense of the request) to turn him 
over, the "leadership" vows to be willing protect him with the "last 
drop of Afghan blood" so in the western European mind it is Bush's 
words that are to blame for the blood donors designated by the 
aforementioned "leadership" deciding to abscond with their plasma to 
parts unknown?



>  >So please think twice before you dispense your anti-American comments.
>
>I do think twice.

May once  or three times or some odd number would work better for you.


>  And more than that.  I just don't think my post
>was anti-American.  There's a difference between the US as a people,
>and the US as a political entity.

Not this time.  American views are nearer consensus on this than they 
probably have been in a very long time.


>I mourn for the people (or at
>least those that have in whichever way been hurt by the attack).
>That doesn't mean I have to agree with all actions or utterings of
>the political body.
>There's plenty of sadness, in the US and elsewhere, and terrorism is
>a horrible presence on this planet.  However, simple demagogic talk
>like "whoever is not with us, is with the terrorists" is just not
>acceptable to me.  One of the things that's completely being ignored
>in such platitudes is the fact that it's not just America & co versus
>"the rest of the world".  Some people love America, and with good
>reason.  Some hate America, and with equally good reason.

I am tired of watching Americans get crucified by: European pseudo 
intellectuals looking for prey, banana republic dictators looking for 
a boogi man to blame for their own failures, third world aid 
recipients angry because they want more aid than they are getting, 
knee jerk college kids with high school conspiracy theories, Islamic 
militants looking for someone they can say they are "protecting" 
their population from, their own press, etc... etc...

Americans are easy targets.  We are wealthy, largely uninformed about 
the world outside our borders, under-versed in history and geography, 
often loud and crass,  etc.... but I just can't believe that 
Americans are the evil perpetrators of some scheme for world 
domination, we aren't that organized.  We are however irrationally 
portrayed that way day in and day out around the world and the result 
is that some poor suckers actually end up buying into the whole Great 
Satan theory after which anything becomes possible for them.  And the 
extended results are what we are witnessing. 

Actually I sometimes wish there was some shadowy power pulling the 
strings behind the curtain.  If there was, one so intelligent would 
certainly understand that the world would run a lot more smoothly 
without all of this mindless destruction and would try to arrange 
things to defend his interests.



>  Does
>anyone really believe the Palestines will ever cooperate with the US?

#1 Palistine is not Afghanistan.  The Afghanistan government supports 
a terrorist who calls for our destruction and has been doing so for 
the past ten years.  He may or may not be the party responsible or 
among the parties responsible in this particular incident but there 
have been at least some where he was.  The Afghans in power are 
people that have directly benifitted from US aid and this is their 
form of gratitude.   The should not be putting this guy up or putting 
up with him period.  If they were responsible people they would not.

#2. The US cannot control the Israelis or the Palestinians.  The US 
has been trying to use what influence it has over Israel for years to 
get them to lighten up on the Palestinians, because among other 
things, Israeli belligerence causes the US problems as well, but 
every time things start to move in a positive direction extremists on 
one side or the other start killing people.  It is ridiculous to 
blame the US for that.  But don't let that stop you. It never stops 
anyone else.

#3.  I will not deny that history has been unfair to them but the 
Palestinians have at some time to take some responsibility for their 
own actions.  There are lots of examples of people who have overcome 
worse situations by acting in a positive rational way.  The 
Vietnamese for example just blow me away with the way they have been 
able to keep their society together through all they have been 
through in the last century but another example might be the 
Palestinian's adversaries the Jews who have historically had some 
pretty tough times too but no matter how tough things get they always 
appeared to keep institutions like schools (like the Vietnamese) and 
research and art functioning kept looking for creative ways to deal 
with their problems. 

In the climate of political correctness prevailing in the West it is 
not popular to believe that one Ideology may have more merit than 
another but in fact its does seem that some ideologies do in fact 
work better than others.

There is a saying that the best revenge is to live well.  True I 
suppose, but of course to do that first you have to continue living 
at all and if people hate you simply because you are well off and 
they aren't that form of revenge becomes a life and death struggle 
too.

There is a Russian joke about a peasant named Alex who hates his 
neighbor Sascha because he has a sheep and Alex has nothing.  So one 
night Alex is awakened from his sleep by an angel who says he wants 
to help and can grant him a wish.  Alex thinks for a minute and 
smiles ecstatically makes his wish and says "thank you so much" to 
the angel.  So when Sascha wakes up in the morning he finds his sheep 
is dead.  


>Saying that anyone who doesn't like the US is therefore "with the
>terrorists" is, imo, a horrible and shortsighted thing to do.

True but so is playing apologist for the terrorists cause.
-- 


                                 Dennis Gunn
                                 Mightyjohn@...

                  check out  MIGHTY JOHN HENRY's album "hot air head"
                                                    info at
                        http://www.twics.com/~mightyjo/home.html

Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye

2001-09-23 by LogicBaby

Dear Dennis;
 
> #1 Palistine is not Afghanistan.
True, completely agree.
> #2. The US cannot control the Israelis or the Palestinians.  The US
> has been trying to use what influence it has over Israel for years to
> get them to lighten up on the Palestinians, because among other
> things, Israeli belligerence causes the US problems as well, but
> every time things start to move in a positive direction extremists on
> one side or the other start killing people.  It is ridiculous to
> blame the US for that.  But don't let that stop you. It never stops
> anyone else.
On the Night of Spetember 11th, 3 Palestinian villiges where invaded at
night, 30 people killed and dozens injured all with American weapons and TAX
money, It only took some serious phone calls to Sharon and Gang to cool it
down....



> #3.  I will not deny that history has been unfair to them but the
> Palestinians have at some time to take some responsibility for their
> own actions.  There are lots of examples of people who have overcome
> worse situations by acting in a positive rational way.  The
> Vietnamese for example just blow me away with the way they have been
> able to keep their society together through all they have been
> through in the last century but another example might be the
> Palestinian's adversaries the Jews who have historically had some
> pretty tough times too but no matter how tough things get they always
> appeared to keep institutions like schools (like the Vietnamese) and
> research and art functioning kept looking for creative ways to deal
> with their problems.
So, What do you mean?!! The Palestinians have creative places, films, arts
and so on but they have brutal Military occupation and a raciest state
called Israel backed by US Tax money to deal with, they have apaches and
F-16 bombing there towns every night and every small town is cut from the
outside world with big holes on the roads and military forces, how creative
can you get? Its very simple Israel needs to Pull out of the west bank, east
Jerusalem and Gaza in accordance with UN resolutions, Illegal settlements
needs to go, very simple, but as long as there is no one to stop them the
bloodshed will keep going and extremism will grow on both sides.

Peace

Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye

2001-09-23 by John Matthews

Hi Logic OT,
                    Dennis and GA's words have the ring of truth about them
because they are based much more upon historical facts than mere opinions,
and, In my view go some way towards shattering the myth that all US citizens
are ignorant about the rest of the world. Many are, no doubt- but clearly
here, not all.

I would like to know what the true root cause of these European anti US
feelings are. Maybe its more to do with the resentment of US world cultural
influence (Macdonalds, hollywood movies, US music, baseball caps, rap music,
English becoming the world language etc..) than politics??

There is also the natural fear of people towards war which leads them to
passivism. Read about the events of 1933-1939 in Europe. Just about the only
politician who was giving warnings about Nazi Germany was Winston Churchill,
and he was criticised by all, including those in his own party. In 1936
no-one wanted to hear that Europe should invade Germany and depose Hitler.
Had they done so then- tens of millions of lives would have been saved.

In fact, Churchill was then viewed by many in much the same way as Bush is
now.

My fear is that Bin Laden (or someone like him) will become the Hitler of
our times, if Pakistan becomes a Taliban country, for example, he will have
access to nuclear weapons.

Imagine a hijacked 747 with a nuclear weapon as its payload?? I'd rather
not-

so I say we should stop this mad man now before he has this capabillity. I
hope it can be done without the least loss of life.

My only criticism of SOME US citizens is over their financial support of the
IRA.

I heard Bush say that after the got those responsible for the atrocity of
the 11th Sept, they would go after world terrorism in general. I hope they
do. I would like to see that include the IRA, the Loyalist paramillitary and
all the other terrorist griups in Ireland and I would like to see the arrest
of those in the US who sponsored terrorism in Northern Ireland.

Personally, I think Britain should have pulled out of Northern Ireland and
let them get on with it. I can not see either side as being right or wrong.
In fact, Catholic, Protestant- who cares?? Part of UK or part of a united
Ireland- does it really matter that much. I think these people have
forgotten what it is all about,  however, those who committed the terrorism
and those who supported it should be punished.

sorry about the rant, but at least its on the OT list. I think I'll make
some music this afternoon with Logic to calm me down
:-)

peace to all

John.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
----- Original Message -----
From: Dennis Gunn <mightyjohn@...>
To: <logic-ot@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 23 September 2001 07:54
Subject: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye

Dennis said etc.........

Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye

2001-09-23 by Wilson Zorn

> In fact, Churchill was then viewed by many in much the same way as Bush is
> now.
>

With a 76% approvals rating at home?  I think not!

> My only criticism of SOME US citizens is over their financial support of
the
> IRA.
>

Just an interesting point - you're the first person in a listserv or ng I've
heard say this.  Thanks, it is valid.

Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye

2001-09-23 by Dennis Gunn

At 11:57 PM +0100 9/22/01, John Matthews wrote:
>There is also a lot of anti US propaganda, dont believe it all, the truth is
>there are far, far worse regimes in the world than the USA and infinitely
>worse and more evil leaders than Bush.
>
>Considering what actually happened on that awful day, I think the Americans
>have been remarkably restrained in their response so far, and in their
>words.
>
>As a Briton, I hope that my country gives all the support we can to our
>American friends.
>
>John.

Thank you John, as an American it means a lot to hear a few kind 
words because what we tend hear loudest and most often is the kind of 
thing that turns us off to everyone.
-- 


                                 Dennis Gunn
                                 Mightyjohn@...

                  check out  MIGHTY JOHN HENRY's album "hot air head"
                                                    info at
                        http://www.twics.com/~mightyjo/home.html

Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye

2001-09-23 by LogicBaby

Hey Mike, what's so special in Canada, why should I run there?!!!!
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> It's called wipe out fundamentalist time!
> -One Pissed-Off Veteran
> Run for Canada, LogicBaby!!

Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye (longish)

2001-09-23 by LogicBaby

There is no difference between a person, an ideology or a government that
puts itself in the shoes of God and says if you are with me then you are
good if against me then evil......The victim here is human soles...


> The bottomline is: violence will never be wiped out, especially not
> by using more violence.

Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye

2001-09-23 by Mike Cover

DENNIS...WELL SAID FAIR HEART!!  THIS IS THE TIME TO STAND UP TO THE BASTARDS...OR...YOU'LL FIND A NUKE IN YOUR BACKYARD.. OR BIOBUG IN YOUR SCOTCH!  
-GRANDADDY
http://HumanGnome.com 
Show quoted textHide quoted text
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Dennis Gunn 
  To: logic-ot@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2001 1:54 AM
  Subject: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye


  At 1:57 PM +0200 9/22/01, Hendrik Jan Veenstra wrote:
  >Thoughts from the mind of Kool Musick, 9/20/01:
  >
  >>100 aircraft are now flying
  >>out Saturday to Kuwait, and her son is amongst them. She is sincerely
  >>terrified that she will never see him again. What do I say to her?
  >
  >... and what do you say to the tens of thousands of innocent
  >Afghanistan citizens, most of them dead-poor, who are fleeing their
  >country because Bush thinks cowboy language like "smoke them out of
  >their holes" and "wanted: dead or alive" is an appropriate response
  >to the current events?
  >Whatever happened to "unguilty until proven guilty"?  Isn't that the
  >basis for our judicial system?  As far as I know, no guilty persons
  >have yet been found, and evidence still is inconclusive.

  Protecting the innocent is always a priority.  In the west and 
  anywhere else where there is a homicidal maniac at large who has 
  killed and promises to kill again the #1 priority is to apprehend him 
  to and the purpose of that is to protect the innocent.  In this 
  instance whether that means dead or alive is mainly up to Bin Laden 
  and the Taliban .  Bin Laden has been video taping himself making 
  threats that came true and calling on his followers to kill Americans 
  where ever and when ever possible for about ten years now.  It is 
  idiocy of the first order to call this man innocent.

  Dead or alive is just common sense.

  >   Still the
  >US president (of all people) calls for murder...
  >

  Complete sophist bullshit.  Get a grip.

  >  and thereby already
  >makes completely innocent victims...

  Where is the tense in this sentence are we talking future or present 
  because AFAIK the US has yet to have fired a shot.  Lots of people in 
  the US have been fired upon though.

  >My heart bleeds for all those killed, or all who've lost relatives...
  >But despite the enormity of this tragedy, it would prove a positive
  >point about our so-called western democratic, humanitarian ideals if
  >we could all keep seeing things in persepctive.

  Alright lets put things in perspective.  6 thousand people have just 
  been killed very likely by the followers of a single man who is a 
  fugitive from justice in his own country.  The Saudis feelings about 
  Bin Laden are about the same as the US citizens feel about Timothy 
  McVeigh for about the same reasons.  Bin Laden who is definitely 
  insane but has never been called stupid has chosen what is probably 
  one of the most brutal backwards countries on the planet to hide out 
  in for lots of good reasons, number one among them probably being 
  that the Afghan's psyches have been twisted by so many years of 
  poverty, war and brutality from their leaders that instead of seeing 
  Bin Laden as the sick fuck the folks where he comes from know him to 
  be Bin Laden probably just seems like another pretty normal guy to 
  them.

  I agree that it is sad that innocent Afghani people are probably 
  going to suffer and I truly hope that there is some way of avoiding 
  that. I have yet to see anything that vaguely resembles a real 
  solution being proposed by anyone.  Sticking your head in the sand is 
  not going help.

  It is the Taliban that said they were willing to shed every last drop 
  of Afghan blood to protect Bin Laden.  It is utterly understandable 
  and reasonable that the proposed donors are taking their plasma 
  elsewhere.  I wish them luck.

  The Taliban could avoid all kinds of trouble and in fact gain 
  international praise by simply kicking Bin Laden out of their 
  country.  After all what do they owe him?  Is it that he helped them 
  overthrow the Marxists in the 70-80s war?  The US did too why are 
  they not grateful to the US?   The only US involvement in Afghanistan 
  that I know of is that we gave some small amount of support to anti 
  Marxist factions among whom where the Taliban to overthrow the 
  Marxists.  Other than that the only area I know of is that the US has 
  tried to get the Taliban to stop Afghanis from growing and selling 
  Heroin for export.  So why do the Afghan leadership suffer this mad 
  fucking foreigner Bin Laden to live on their soil?  They should not 
  put him up or put up with him and if they had a modicum of 
  responsibility they would not.  But then I can't think of anyone 
  anywhere who claim that the Taliban are a responsible leadership. 
  What do you think HJ?


  If you want to object to someone's behavior why don't you object to 
  the Taliban or Bin Ladin.

  But after all it is easy to understand why Western Europeans might 
  have a different take on all this than US citizens.  After all they 
  don't have the gun pointed at them.  OTOH some day some African 
  victim of the diamond cartel sponsored wars might decide that Bin 
  Laden's tactics look pretty smart and that they have nothing to loose 
  anyway so "why not just start dropping some airliners on Belgium?" 
  It will be interesting to hear the European take on terrorism then.

  >The sadness never stops...

  I cannot blame the Afghani people too much for having a rather 
  twisted view of the US.  After all they are poor, brutalized, have 
  limited access to information and the main sources they have are 
  people for whom anything or anyone not Islamic is by definition the 
  enemy.   For Europeans on the other hand the sophist sniping that has 
  been going on around this incident is inexcusable.

  No one has been able to specify the Taliban's grievance against the 
  US that is large enough for them to allow some one like Bin Laden to 
  operate freely within their borders.  Their main objection to the US 
  is the extremely hypocritical inaccurate and unfair assertion that 
  the US is anti-Islamic.  It's just not true but that does not seem to 
  stop a lot of Muslim  populations from promptly forgetting any 
  incident where US policy was on their side in a dispute.  That  the 
  "Leadership" of Afghanistan a country where any religion but Islam is 
  outlawed should make that accusation against a country where  there 
  is a large Muslim population living alongside a Christian one and 
  both are protected by law is hypocrisy of a rather astounding 
  magnitude and it is rather telling that our western European critics 
  never see fit to mention it. (It is also sad to note that this 
  incident has made protecting the rights of  the Muslim minority 
  within the US more difficult than ever)

  Our western European critics bitch and whine about Bush's behavior in 
  this crisis but are very low on specifics regarding what he should be 
  doing different.   Go slow?  He has been.  Investigate?  Being done. 
  Do not act unilaterally but work with other countries to build 
  consensus and coordinate effort?  Being done.  Use all diplomatic 
  channels.  Being done.

  They bitch because Bush is talking tough.  Really.  Get a grip.  The 
  Taliban did not respond to the reasonable request of the Pakistani's 
  to hand over Bin Laden.   Should people expect no tough talk from the 
  US president under these circumstances?   Is that reasonable or would 
  it even be wise?

  As a matter of fact I am reading that some of the Afghan clerics are 
  saying that Bin Laden should leave voluntarilly so the US tactics may 
  be working better than you make them out to be.


  About all they are left with is his stupid demeanor and poor oration 
  skills.  He does look and sound stupid but these are not capitol 
  offenses.  I would rather have someone looking and sounding stupid 
  and displaying smart behavior than the other way around







  >Apparently you didn't see the footage from Afghanistan on tv...  Any
  >idea how many completely innocent people are on the run right now?
  >Tens of thousands, running through hostile mountains, leaving their
  >belongings behind, only to reach a 1.5 *million* people refugee-camp
  >in Pakistan...

  This line of reasoning is typical of the knee jerk vilification we 
  Americans have to put up with.  The US is eternally vilified by the 
  Taliban "leadership", the "leadership" provides haven for a man who 
  organises an attack on the US then when asked by the US through 
  Pakistani intermediaries (who in spite of the difficult situation the 
  incident has put them in see the sense of the request) to turn him 
  over, the "leadership" vows to be willing protect him with the "last 
  drop of Afghan blood" so in the western European mind it is Bush's 
  words that are to blame for the blood donors designated by the 
  aforementioned "leadership" deciding to abscond with their plasma to 
  parts unknown?



  >  >So please think twice before you dispense your anti-American comments.
  >
  >I do think twice.

  May once  or three times or some odd number would work better for you.


  >  And more than that.  I just don't think my post
  >was anti-American.  There's a difference between the US as a people,
  >and the US as a political entity.

  Not this time.  American views are nearer consensus on this than they 
  probably have been in a very long time.


  >I mourn for the people (or at
  >least those that have in whichever way been hurt by the attack).
  >That doesn't mean I have to agree with all actions or utterings of
  >the political body.
  >There's plenty of sadness, in the US and elsewhere, and terrorism is
  >a horrible presence on this planet.  However, simple demagogic talk
  >like "whoever is not with us, is with the terrorists" is just not
  >acceptable to me.  One of the things that's completely being ignored
  >in such platitudes is the fact that it's not just America & co versus
  >"the rest of the world".  Some people love America, and with good
  >reason.  Some hate America, and with equally good reason.

  I am tired of watching Americans get crucified by: European pseudo 
  intellectuals looking for prey, banana republic dictators looking for 
  a boogi man to blame for their own failures, third world aid 
  recipients angry because they want more aid than they are getting, 
  knee jerk college kids with high school conspiracy theories, Islamic 
  militants looking for someone they can say they are "protecting" 
  their population from, their own press, etc... etc...

  Americans are easy targets.  We are wealthy, largely uninformed about 
  the world outside our borders, under-versed in history and geography, 
  often loud and crass,  etc.... but I just can't believe that 
  Americans are the evil perpetrators of some scheme for world 
  domination, we aren't that organized.  We are however irrationally 
  portrayed that way day in and day out around the world and the result 
  is that some poor suckers actually end up buying into the whole Great 
  Satan theory after which anything becomes possible for them.  And the 
  extended results are what we are witnessing. 

  Actually I sometimes wish there was some shadowy power pulling the 
  strings behind the curtain.  If there was, one so intelligent would 
  certainly understand that the world would run a lot more smoothly 
  without all of this mindless destruction and would try to arrange 
  things to defend his interests.



  >  Does
  >anyone really believe the Palestines will ever cooperate with the US?

  #1 Palistine is not Afghanistan.  The Afghanistan government supports 
  a terrorist who calls for our destruction and has been doing so for 
  the past ten years.  He may or may not be the party responsible or 
  among the parties responsible in this particular incident but there 
  have been at least some where he was.  The Afghans in power are 
  people that have directly benifitted from US aid and this is their 
  form of gratitude.   The should not be putting this guy up or putting 
  up with him period.  If they were responsible people they would not.

  #2. The US cannot control the Israelis or the Palestinians.  The US 
  has been trying to use what influence it has over Israel for years to 
  get them to lighten up on the Palestinians, because among other 
  things, Israeli belligerence causes the US problems as well, but 
  every time things start to move in a positive direction extremists on 
  one side or the other start killing people.  It is ridiculous to 
  blame the US for that.  But don't let that stop you. It never stops 
  anyone else.

  #3.  I will not deny that history has been unfair to them but the 
  Palestinians have at some time to take some responsibility for their 
  own actions.  There are lots of examples of people who have overcome 
  worse situations by acting in a positive rational way.  The 
  Vietnamese for example just blow me away with the way they have been 
  able to keep their society together through all they have been 
  through in the last century but another example might be the 
  Palestinian's adversaries the Jews who have historically had some 
  pretty tough times too but no matter how tough things get they always 
  appeared to keep institutions like schools (like the Vietnamese) and 
  research and art functioning kept looking for creative ways to deal 
  with their problems. 

  In the climate of political correctness prevailing in the West it is 
  not popular to believe that one Ideology may have more merit than 
  another but in fact its does seem that some ideologies do in fact 
  work better than others.

  There is a saying that the best revenge is to live well.  True I 
  suppose, but of course to do that first you have to continue living 
  at all and if people hate you simply because you are well off and 
  they aren't that form of revenge becomes a life and death struggle 
  too.

  There is a Russian joke about a peasant named Alex who hates his 
  neighbor Sascha because he has a sheep and Alex has nothing.  So one 
  night Alex is awakened from his sleep by an angel who says he wants 
  to help and can grant him a wish.  Alex thinks for a minute and 
  smiles ecstatically makes his wish and says "thank you so much" to 
  the angel.  So when Sascha wakes up in the morning he finds his sheep 
  is dead.  


  >Saying that anyone who doesn't like the US is therefore "with the
  >terrorists" is, imo, a horrible and shortsighted thing to do.

  True but so is playing apologist for the terrorists cause.
  -- 


                                   Dennis Gunn
                                   Mightyjohn@...

                    check out  MIGHTY JOHN HENRY's album "hot air head"
                                                      info at
                          http://www.twics.com/~mightyjo/home.html

        

        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
              ADVERTISEMENT
                 
       
       

  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye

2001-09-23 by John Matthews

----- Original Message -----
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: Wilson Zorn <wilson.zorn@...>

> > In fact, Churchill was then viewed by many in much the same way as Bush
is
> > now.
> >
>
> With a 76% approvals rating at home?  I think not!

I dont know what the statistics are in Europe, but I have heard much
criticism of Bush over here, and it was to this European comment that I drew
the analogy, not to his undoubted US support.

>
> > My only criticism of SOME US citizens is over their financial support of
> the
> > IRA.
> >
>
> Just an interesting point - you're the first person in a listserv or ng
I've
> heard say this.  Thanks, it is valid.
>

Well, I'm against terrorism wherever it may be. For whatever cause, although
one man's freedom fighter can be  another man's terrorist and vice- versa.
It depends what side you are on. But that cannot justify killing of innocent
people, however you look at it. There has to be a better way to solve these
problems..........

again, peace to all

John.

Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye

2001-09-23 by Mike Cover

It's called wipe out fundamentalist time!
-One Pissed-Off Veteran
Run for Canada, LogicBaby!!
http://Humangnome.com
Come and get it!!
Show quoted textHide quoted text
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: LogicBaby 
  To: logic ot yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2001 3:16 AM
  Subject: Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye


  Dear Dennis;

  > #1 Palistine is not Afghanistan.
  True, completely agree.
  > #2. The US cannot control the Israelis or the Palestinians.  The US
  > has been trying to use what influence it has over Israel for years to
  > get them to lighten up on the Palestinians, because among other
  > things, Israeli belligerence causes the US problems as well, but
  > every time things start to move in a positive direction extremists on
  > one side or the other start killing people.  It is ridiculous to
  > blame the US for that.  But don't let that stop you. It never stops
  > anyone else.
  On the Night of Spetember 11th, 3 Palestinian villiges where invaded at
  night, 30 people killed and dozens injured all with American weapons and TAX
  money, It only took some serious phone calls to Sharon and Gang to cool it
  down....



  > #3.  I will not deny that history has been unfair to them but the
  > Palestinians have at some time to take some responsibility for their
  > own actions.  There are lots of examples of people who have overcome
  > worse situations by acting in a positive rational way.  The
  > Vietnamese for example just blow me away with the way they have been
  > able to keep their society together through all they have been
  > through in the last century but another example might be the
  > Palestinian's adversaries the Jews who have historically had some
  > pretty tough times too but no matter how tough things get they always
  > appeared to keep institutions like schools (like the Vietnamese) and
  > research and art functioning kept looking for creative ways to deal
  > with their problems.
  So, What do you mean?!! The Palestinians have creative places, films, arts
  and so on but they have brutal Military occupation and a raciest state
  called Israel backed by US Tax money to deal with, they have apaches and
  F-16 bombing there towns every night and every small town is cut from the
  outside world with big holes on the roads and military forces, how creative
  can you get? Its very simple Israel needs to Pull out of the west bank, east
  Jerusalem and Gaza in accordance with UN resolutions, Illegal settlements
  needs to go, very simple, but as long as there is no one to stop them the
  bloodshed will keep going and extremism will grow on both sides.

  Peace 


        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
              ADVERTISEMENT
                 
       
       

  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye

2001-09-23 by Dennis Gunn

At 4:16 PM +0800 9/23/01, LogicBaby wrote:
>Dear Dennis;
>
>>  #1 Palistine is not Afghanistan.
>True, completely agree.
>>  #2. The US cannot control the Israelis or the Palestinians.  The US
>>  has been trying to use what influence it has over Israel for years to
>>  get them to lighten up on the Palestinians, because among other
>>  things, Israeli belligerence causes the US problems as well, but
>>  every time things start to move in a positive direction extremists on
>>  one side or the other start killing people.  It is ridiculous to
>>  blame the US for that.  But don't let that stop you. It never stops
>>  anyone else.
>On the Night of Spetember 11th, 3 Palestinian villiges where invaded at
>night, 30 people killed and dozens injured all with American weapons and TAX
>money, It only took some serious phone calls to Sharon and Gang to cool it
>down....

Sorry can't comment I know nothing about the incident.  BTW who made 
the calls, why did they do it, and why did "Sharon and Gang" listen?


>  > #3.  I will not deny that history has been unfair to them but the
>>  Palestinians have at some time to take some responsibility for their
>>  own actions.  There are lots of examples of people who have overcome
>>  worse situations by acting in a positive rational way.  The
>>  Vietnamese for example just blow me away with the way they have been
>>  able to keep their society together through all they have been
>>  through in the last century but another example might be the
>>  Palestinian's adversaries the Jews who have historically had some
>>  pretty tough times too but no matter how tough things get they always
>>  appeared to keep institutions like schools (like the Vietnamese) and
>>  research and art functioning kept looking for creative ways to deal
>>  with their problems.



>So, What do you mean?!! The Palestinians have creative places, films, arts
>and so on but they have brutal Military occupation and a raciest state
>called Israel backed by US Tax money to deal with, they have apaches and
>F-16 bombing there towns every night and every small town is cut from the
>outside world with big holes on the roads and military forces, how creative
>can you get? Its very simple Israel needs to Pull out of the west bank, east
>Jerusalem and Gaza in accordance with UN resolutions, Illegal settlements
>needs to go, very simple, but as long as there is no one to stop them the
>bloodshed will keep going and extremism will grow on both sides.

I would not deny for a second that the Palestinians don't have it 
rough.  I would also not pretend for a minute to know the answer to 
the problem.  I do know that it is an oversimplification to say that 
the US is to blame for all their problems.   As for creatively 
approaching their problems I don't think sending their children to 
fight and be killed by a vastly superior force just for the shock 
value counts.  They *are* going to have find some way to reign in 
their fanatics who go berserk every time it looks like there might be 
some kind of settlement with the Israelis though and for that matter 
the exact same thing should be said about the Israelis as well. 
Somewhere along the line people on both sides of the conflict are 
going to have to recognize the fact that the other side is not going 
anywhere.  In fact I think most of the cooler heads there do accept 
that fact.
-- 


                                 Dennis Gunn
                                 Mightyjohn@...

                  check out  MIGHTY JOHN HENRY's album "hot air head"
                                                    info at
                        http://www.twics.com/~mightyjo/home.html

[L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye (longish)

2001-09-23 by Hendrik Jan Veenstra

Thoughts from the mind of Dennis Gunn, 9/23/01:

>  >Whatever happened to "unguilty until proven guilty"?  Isn't that the
>>basis for our judicial system?  As far as I know, no guilty persons
>  >have yet been found, and evidence still is inconclusive.
>
>[...] Bin Laden has been video taping himself making
>threats that came true and calling on his followers to kill Americans
>where ever and when ever possible for about ten years now.  It is
>idiocy of the first order to call this man innocent.

I can't remember calling him innocent.  He may well be guilty of 
various crimes or acts of terrorism, but we're talking about _this_ 
particular act right now.  Has he been proven guilty "beyond a 
reasonable doubt"?  No.
Bin Laden has been no.1 on the FBI's most-wanted list for quite some 
time now, but did they ever really open such a man-hunt on him 
before?  No.  Why do it now?  Because he's the _most likely_ 
candidate for the WTC-bombing.  As I said before: fair enough that 
they want him, and fair enough that they already wanted him earlier, 
before the attack.
However, the way the US government goes about with it's 
chesthair-cowboy language mainly gives the impression that they 
simply need someone to be guilty.  Very human: whenever something 
horrible happens, we all want a face to blame.  Some anonymous group 
of fanatics just won't do -- it has to have a name and a face.  It 
has to be something you can wipe of the face of the earth, if only 
for the satisfaction and "sense of justice" of the people.  The 
history of mankind is full of this (understandable) mechanism.  And 
when we can't find someone to blame, we blame some god -- "the wrath 
of god" has always had great explanatory power.
The fact that "the masses" cry for revenge and want a face attached 
to the horror that came over them is, once again, very understandable 
and very human.  But, call me naive, from world-leaders I would 
expect a somewhat more rational attitude than these gut-level 
instinctive reactions.

>Dead or alive is just common sense.

'Dead' is never common sense.  There may be cases when killing 
someone may be the only possible way out (are there really?) but it's 
never "common sense".

>  >Still the US president (of all people) calls for murder...
>
>Complete sophist bullshit.  Get a grip.

Enlighten me...  Saying you want someone "dead or alive" doesn't 
provide justification for killing a person?  I surely must be missing 
something.

Mind you, I don't argue the fact that the world would be a better 
place without BL and the likes of him.  Of course it would.  And 
maybe we will all be happy when he's dead.  Fine.  But that's not the 
issue.

>  >  and thereby already
>>makes completely innocent victims...
>
>Where is the tense in this sentence are we talking future or present
>because AFAIK the US has yet to have fired a shot.  Lots of people in
>the US have been fired upon though.

Present tense.  Tens of thousands unguilty citizens fleeing their 
homes.  See a previous post.

>Alright lets put things in perspective.  6 thousand people have just
>been killed
>[...]
>that the Afghan's psyches have been twisted by so many years of
>poverty, war and brutality from their leaders that instead of seeing
>Bin Laden as the sick fuck the folks where he comes from know him to
>be Bin Laden probably just seems like another pretty normal guy to
>them.

And you call that "perspective"?  Judging an entire people whom you 
know _nothing_ about?  Surely that must justify upcoming bombings of 
Afghanistan, right?
I don't care how the Afghan people think about Bin Laden.  They're 
poor, suppressed, terrorised by their own government, and massively 
under-informed.  Their perspective on bin Laden or whoever is 
completely inconsequential.

>I agree that it is sad that innocent Afghani people are probably
>going to suffer and I truly hope that there is some way of avoiding
>that. I have yet to see anything that vaguely resembles a real
>solution being proposed by anyone.  Sticking your head in the sand is
>not going help.

Agreed.  However, killing bin Laden, no matter how satisfactory, also 
isn't going to help. The problem is way, way bigger than this one 
person, and goed back decades (or longer) in world history.  The 
arrogant attitude of christians  suppressing muslims dates back to 
the crusades, at least.
Of course this doesn't justify terrorism, and of course this isn't an 
excuse to let bin Laden & co run wild and let them do whatever they 
fancy.  I never said that.  It's just that imo "putting things in 
perspective" means that pinpointing one guilty person, just because 
it looks good on tv, is no solution either.  "Satisfaction" and 
"solution" are two different concepts, even though they both start 
with an 's'.

>It is the Taliban that said they were willing to shed every last drop
>of Afghan blood to protect Bin Laden.  It is utterly understandable
>and reasonable that the proposed donors are taking their plasma
>elsewhere.  I wish them luck.

Ditto.  Of course blaming the US for all the fleeing Afghans (as I 
may have implied earlier) isn't entirely honest.  In the end it's the 
Taliban attitude which frightens the people.  Still, US politicians 
should have realised the consequences of their single-track minded 
attitude, and therefore at least share the blame for what happens now.
Threathening a psychotic parent who mistreats his child, will only 
lead to more child-abuse in the family -- after all that's what 
"psychotic" does, isn't it?  So even though the parent is directly 
responsible, the one making the threats is, at least, an ignorant 
fool to think that his threats will actually solve anything.

>The Taliban could avoid all kinds of trouble and in fact gain
>international praise by simply kicking Bin Laden out of their
>country.
>[..]
>They should not
>put him up or put up with him and if they had a modicum of
>responsibility they would not.  But then I can't think of anyone
>anywhere who claim that the Taliban are a responsible leadership.
>What do you think HJ?

Sure the Taliban are a bunch of crazy bastards.  If your beard isn't 
long enough you can get killed.  Women aren't allowed to visit 
school.  Etc.  Not what I would call "responsible leadership", no, 
obviously.
As far as you statement goes that they should be grateful to the US 
for helping kick out the Russians...  I think the cold war, 
anti-soviet area of US politics is one of the shadiest and most 
debatable areas of international politics ever, and I'm simply not 
willing to get into a discussion on that subject.
However, I think it's naive to really expect gratitude from 
fundamental Muslims.  Not even naive, but bizarre...  Bin Laden is a 
fundamentalist, as are the Taliban, and for fundamentalists the US is 
the Big Evil.  Now add 1 and 1, and make sure you get to 2...

>If you want to object to someone's behavior why don't you object to
>the Taliban or Bin Ladin.

Of course I do.  I NEVER said or implied otherwise, and implying that 
I would somehow condone such terrorist and psychotic groups is... 
well, insulting, to put it mildly.
The only thing I said in my initial post was that US politicians (and 
Bush in particular) seem to adopt the same short-sighted attitude 
that they accuse others of having.
That's not anti-American, it's not pro-fundamentalist, or whatever. 
It's just an appeal to common sense, hoping that we will not stoop to 
the level of "doing to others what they've done unto you".  "An eye 
for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" may have had some merit 3000 years 
ago, when nomads roamed the desert, but it is NOT a solution now, in 
a globalised and (hopefully) civilised world where every country can 
annihilate every other country with a push on a button.

Isn't it time we elevated ourselves beyond the level of tribal rage 
and patriotic narrow-mindedness?  Most will now probably say "yes of 
course, but then 'the others' have to behave decent as well".  Why do 
so little people understand that this attitude of "we will if you 
will" will _never_ solve the endless spiral of violence and abuse in 
which we've been caught ever since we descended from the trees?
In an ideal world, some influential people would be able to adopt 
Gandhi's attitude of non-violence.  Unfortunately the world is not 
ideal, and the people at the top don't even know how to spell 
'Gandhi'...  And even if they did, then the masses that elected them 
would soon kick them out and make sure a more vengeful leader would 
come to power.

>But after all it is easy to understand why Western Europeans might
>have a different take on all this than US citizens.  After all they
>don't have the gun pointed at them.  OTOH some day some African
>victim of the diamond cartel sponsored wars might decide that Bin
>Laden's tactics look pretty smart and that they have nothing to loose
>anyway so "why not just start dropping some airliners on Belgium?"
>It will be interesting to hear the European take on terrorism then.

If anything like this happened e.g. in the Netherlands, I'm sure many 
people would cry for revenge as well.  I hope that our political 
leaders would have the sense to refrain from joining the masses.  And 
if they didn't, then I would write the same message I wrote earlier.

>For Europeans on the other hand the sophist sniping that has
>been going on around this incident is inexcusable.

I fail to see how a few critical remarks regarding the somewhat 
simplistic and risky utterings of the US president can be considered 
to be "sophist sniping".

>Our western European critics bitch and whine about Bush's behavior in
>this crisis but are very low on specifics regarding what he should be
>doing different.   Go slow?  He has been.  Investigate?  Being done.
>Do not act unilaterally but work with other countries to build
>consensus and coordinate effort?  Being done.  Use all diplomatic
>channels.  Being done.

I confess that I probably wouldn't know what to do in a situation 
like this either.  However, that's probably one of the reasons I'm 
not a world-leader.

So, ok, we start fighting terrorism on a global scale.  Fine.  But 
why now?  Why didn't we do so earlier?  Or do we need 6000 dead 
before we get our asses moving?  Maybe it's the other way around: 
deep down inside we don't really care for all the injustice in the 
world, and don't really want to make an effort to stop it... until it 
hits us personally.
Who's being hypocritical then?  And if we're talking "personally", 
then fine, but why then do we all of a sudden have to view this one 
attack as an attack on the entire western world, our democratic 
standards and way of living, and so on, and so forth?
Don't get me wrong: in a sense I don't mind the entire western world 
(including my own country) joining forces in an attempt to "wipe out 
evil" (even though it's a pointless undertaking).  I only try to 
point out that it still _is_ a two-sided coin, and not a one-sided 
one, as some want us to believe.

And if we're busy fighting terrorism, why not get to grips with all 
other forms of evil as well?  After all, terrorism is just one of the 
many forms that "crimes against humanity" takes.  So while we're at 
it, we might as well start fighting the Taliban, not because they 
provide shelter for bin Laden, but because they commit horrid crimes 
against their own people.  And then we'll tackle China (for obvious 
reasons).  And there are quite a few Central- and South-American 
countries who condone or actively support large-scale drug dealers. 
The number of drug-victims in the western world probably far exceeds 
the number of victims in the WTC, so we have a rather compelling 
reason to "smoke them out of their holes" too, haven't we?  And while 
we're at it, how about the countries actively supporting the 
terrorist acts the Israelis commit against the Palestines?  So nuke 
the US for supplying bombs to Israel.  And to solve the entire issue, 
we might as well nuke the Palestines too, since they commit acts of 
terrorism against Israel.  Oh, and violence doesn't stop at "bodily 
harm" but includes psychological terror and harm as well, so are you 
people going to wipe out the Ku Klux Klan too (should be peanuts, 
with all the info the FBI and CIA probably got on these people)? 
After all, they learn their children to hate the other 99% of the 
world population, and yell 'white power' when they're only 6 years 
old.  Isn't that a form of gross abuse, and aren't such subcultures 
the breeding ground for hatred and violence?

Et cetera -- this list could go on, and on, and on... probably 
including every possible country, nation and group...

The bottomline is: violence will never be wiped out, especially not 
by using more violence.  Maybe indeed it is a 'good thing' to erase 
psychopaths like bin Laden.  Fine, let's do so.  Just don't think 
that _anything_ will be solved after that.  New young psychopaths are 
yelling 'white power' or 'praise Allah, kill the Americans', or ..., 
as we speak.  A new generation is learning how to operate the 
laboratories that produce heroin.  New soldiers are being trained, 
learning to 'obey and kill without thinking'.  Etc.

The solution?  I don't know...  The only possible solution I 
personally can think of, is when we finally _refuse_ to answer 
violence with violence.  One person, one nation, one culture has to 
start acting sensibly... finally, for the first time in human 
history.  But then, as I wrote earlier, the government starting to 
act sensibly would probably soon be overthrown by the people crying 
for revenge.  Dead-lock?  Probably...  And that's why I said that the 
sorrow never stops.  The human condition is a sad one.

>  >  >So please think twice before you dispense your anti-American comments.
>>
>>I do think twice.
>
>May once  or three times or some odd number would work better for you.

As a mathematician, I do prefer prime numbers...

>I am tired of watching Americans get crucified by: European pseudo
>intellectuals looking for prey

I fail to see how my post could be interpreted this way.

>I just can't believe that Americans are the evil perpetrators of 
>some scheme for world domination

No-one said you are.  At least _I_ didn't.

>  >Does anyone really believe the Palestines will ever cooperate with the US?
>
>#1 Palistine is not Afghanistan.

Out of context...  I reacted to "whoever is not with us, is with the 
terrorists".  Since the Palestines (just an example) will never be 
"with the US", they're therefore implied to support the terrorists. 
A completely moronic accusation.

>#2. The US cannot control the Israelis or the Palestinians.  The US
>has been trying to use what influence it has over Israel for years to
>get them to lighten up on the Palestinians, because among other
>things, Israeli belligerence causes the US problems as well, but
>every time things start to move in a positive direction extremists on
>one side or the other start killing people.  It is ridiculous to
>blame the US for that.  But don't let that stop you. It never stops
>anyone else.

Isn't there something... weird... going on when on the one hand the 
US government conducts peace talks in the middle-east, and at the 
same time provides the bombs that have been terrorising the 
Palestines for some 50 years now?
But don't let _that_ stop you...

>#3.  I will not deny that history has been unfair to them but the
>Palestinians have at some time to take some responsibility for their
>own actions.

Agreed.  But: ditto for the Israelis.  It's however the Israelis who 
receive US weapons-support, not the Palestines.

>In the climate of political correctness prevailing in the West it is
>not popular to believe that one Ideology may have more merit than
>another but in fact its does seem that some ideologies do in fact
>work better than others.

Agreed.  I have no trouble confessing I'm glad to live in Holland, 
and not in Afghanistan, or quite a few other countries.  So what? 
Are we now entitled to say that "we are better than they are"?  Or do 
we now have the right to bomb the sh*t out of "the others"?  I mean, 
even if you and I agree that a western democracy is preferable to 
some particular different system, then what consequence does that 
have and what is being legitimised then?

>  >Saying that anyone who doesn't like the US is therefore "with the
>>terrorists" is, imo, a horrible and shortsighted thing to do.
>
>True but so is playing apologist for the terrorists cause.

Did I _ever_ _anywhere_ in my postings play apologist for the 
terrorist cause?  I refuse to get angry, but at times it _does_ take 
some effort...


regards,
HJ
-- 
     Hendrik Jan Veenstra
     email: mailto:h@...
     www:   http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html

Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye

2001-09-23 by LogicBaby

Sorry, Marc I am a Palestinian, The Palestinians are UNDER MILITERY
OCCUPATION, do you know what that means? I hope you don¹t have to deal with
this in your lifetime, the Palestinians are fighting to get there freedom
and land which has been populated by Russian and Ethiopian immigrants in the
illegal settlements throughout the west-bank under the teachings of Zionism
"God signed the land in there name ", all the Palestinian wants is the
implementation of UN resolutions and a just solution, but all they get is
bombs  "made in the US", Israel is the only colonization regime left on
earth in this century "imagine the us being a British colony", its a country
where it discriminate against its own citizens on the basis of religion and
origin "ask the Arabs with Israeli passports", remember South Africa...., I
don¹t care what religion, color you are but in Israel they do, Beit Jala and
Beit Lahem are towns filled with Palestinians who are Christians not even
Muslims, they are constantly bombarded in "ACTS OF SELF-DEFENCE by the
Defense Army", These are occupied lands, the settlements around them are
illegal under international laws, but Israel is fully supported by US
foreign policy no matter how wrong they go, nothing against the American
people or there faith, religion or color, but I doubt that they really know
who there government are supporting, blame it on the "free" media
organizations .....

> Don't paint the Palestinians as innocents
> when they're not.

[L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye (longish)

2001-09-23 by Dennis Gunn

At 4:06 PM +0200 9/23/01, Hendrik Jan Veenstra wrote:
>Thoughts from the mind of Dennis Gunn, 9/23/01:
>
>>   >Whatever happened to "unguilty until proven guilty"?  Isn't that the
>>>basis for our judicial system?  As far as I know, no guilty persons
>>   >have yet been found, and evidence still is inconclusive.
>>
>>[...] Bin Laden has been video taping himself making
>>threats that came true and calling on his followers to kill Americans
>>where ever and when ever possible for about ten years now.  It is
>>idiocy of the first order to call this man innocent.
>
>I can't remember calling him innocent.  He may well be guilty of
>various crimes or acts of terrorism, but we're talking about _this_
>particular act right now.  Has he been proven guilty "beyond a
>reasonable doubt"?  No.
>Bin Laden has been no.1 on the FBI's most-wanted list for quite some
>time now, but did they ever really open such a man-hunt on him
>before?  No.  Why do it now?  Because he's the _most likely_
>candidate for the WTC-bombing.  As I said before: fair enough that
>they want him, and fair enough that they already wanted him earlier,
>before the attack.
>However, the way the US government goes about with it's
>chesthair-cowboy language mainly gives the impression that they
>simply need someone to be guilty.

Someone is guilty.  These things don't happen by themselves.

>Very human: whenever something
>horrible happens, we all want a face to blame.  Some anonymous group
>of fanatics just won't do -- it has to have a name and a face.  It
>has to be something you can wipe of the face of the earth, if only
>for the satisfaction and "sense of justice" of the people.  The
>history of mankind is full of this (understandable) mechanism.  And
>when we can't find someone to blame, we blame some god -- "the wrath
>of god" has always had great explanatory power.
>The fact that "the masses" cry for revenge and want a face attached
>to the horror that came over them is, once again, very understandable
>and very human.  But, call me naive, from world-leaders I would
>expect a somewhat more rational attitude than these gut-level
>instinctive reactions.

And, hey what do you know, practically from the very first the US 
administration said that they could not be %100 certain who the 
culprit was and that they did not expect getting Bin Laden to end the 
problem.  They didn't need you to help them figure that out.


>  >Dead or alive is just common sense.
>
>'Dead' is never common sense.  There may be cases when killing
>someone may be the only possible way out (are there really?) but it's
>never "common sense".

Disagree.

>  >  >Still the US president (of all people) calls for murder...
>>
>>Complete sophist bullshit.  Get a grip.
>
>Enlighten me...

Impossible.

>Saying you want someone "dead or alive" doesn't
>provide justification for killing a person?

Entirely beside the point as you well know it is the actions of that 
person (over a number of years in this case) and continuing threat he 
poses that provide the justification.


>I surely must be missing
>something.

No you are just willfully ignoring something

>Mind you, I don't argue the fact that the world would be a better
>place without BL and the likes of him.  Of course it would.  And
>maybe we will all be happy when he's dead.  Fine.  But that's not the
>issue.

It is exactly the issue which is why you are dancing around it so 
frantically trying to show how it isn't.

>  >  >  and thereby already
>>>makes completely innocent victims...
>>
>>Where is the tense in this sentence are we talking future or present
>>because AFAIK the US has yet to have fired a shot.  Lots of people in
>>the US have been fired upon though.
>
>Present tense.  Tens of thousands unguilty citizens fleeing their
>homes.  See a previous post.
>
>>Alright lets put things in perspective.  6 thousand people have just
>>been killed
>>[...]
>>that the Afghan's psyches have been twisted by so many years of
>>poverty, war and brutality from their leaders that instead of seeing
>  >Bin Laden as the sick fuck the folks where he comes from know him to
>>be Bin Laden probably just seems like another pretty normal guy to
>>them.
>
>And you call that "perspective"?  Judging an entire people whom you
>know _nothing_ about?

More bullshit.   I am not judging anyone I am simply pointing out the 
brutal reality of recent Afghan history and speculating why Bin Laden 
might feel at home there and be more accepted there than elsewhere. 
Do you have a better answer?  If so lets here it.

>Surely that must justify upcoming bombings of
>Afghanistan, right?

Is bullshit your first or second tongue?  The "upcoming bombings" 
might not even come up if the "leadership" can be convinced that they 
really do not need that kind of trouble.

>I don't care how the Afghan people think about Bin Laden.  They're
>poor, suppressed, terrorised by their own government, and massively
>under-informed.  Their perspective on bin Laden or whoever is
>completely inconsequential.

Huh?  It means everything in the world.  If they don't feel he is 
worth defending it is going to be much more difficult for their 
"leadership" to get them to fight for him effectively and quite easy 
for their "leadership" to give him the bum's rush when they realize 
they do not really want him bad enough to be worth the trouble.   On 
the other hand if the poor suckers think he is the greatest thing 
since tits and sneakers then it is a huge problem for the US.  It is 
of quite a great deal of consequence what they think.  However the 
fact that the Afghanis are fleeing does not bode well for the Taliban.



>  >I agree that it is sad that innocent Afghani people are probably
>>going to suffer and I truly hope that there is some way of avoiding
>>that. I have yet to see anything that vaguely resembles a real
>>solution being proposed by anyone.  Sticking your head in the sand is
>>not going help.
>
>Agreed.  However, killing bin Laden, no matter how satisfactory, also
>isn't going to help. The problem is way, way bigger than this one
>person, and goed back decades (or longer) in world history.  The
>arrogant attitude of christians  suppressing muslims dates back to
>the crusades, at least.

Bullshit self flagellation.  In the US and Europe Islam is tolerated 
and protected by law.  Islam is the fastest growing religion in the 
world and it seems I have heard it said that Muslims , correct me if 
I am wrong I don't know the exact stats, probably outnumber 
Christians.  On the other hand in some Islamic countries like for 
example Afghanistan Christianity is a capitol offence.  So who is 
suppressing whom?


>  >It is the Taliban that said they were willing to shed every last drop
>>of Afghan blood to protect Bin Laden.  It is utterly understandable
>>and reasonable that the proposed donors are taking their plasma
>>elsewhere.  I wish them luck.
>
>Ditto.  Of course blaming the US for all the fleeing Afghans (as I
>may have implied earlier) isn't entirely honest.  In the end it's the
>Taliban attitude which frightens the people.  Still, US politicians
>should have realised the consequences of their single-track minded
>attitude, and therefore at least share the blame for what happens now.
>Threathening a psychotic parent who mistreats his child, will only
>lead to more child-abuse in the family -- after all that's what
>"psychotic" does, isn't it?  So even though the parent is directly
>responsible, the one making the threats is, at least, an ignorant
>fool to think that his threats will actually solve anything.

Your characterization of the US politicians so called "single track 
minded attitude" as being the problem in this case is truly bizarre. 
Also in this case the "psychotic parent" is threatening us as much as 
the child so your analogy falls way short.


>  >The Taliban could avoid all kinds of trouble and in fact gain
>>international praise by simply kicking Bin Laden out of their
>>country.
>>[..]
>>They should not
>>put him up or put up with him and if they had a modicum of
>>responsibility they would not.  But then I can't think of anyone
>>anywhere who claim that the Taliban are a responsible leadership.
>>What do you think HJ?
>
>Sure the Taliban are a bunch of crazy bastards.  If your beard isn't
>long enough you can get killed.  Women aren't allowed to visit
>school.  Etc.  Not what I would call "responsible leadership", no,
>obviously.
>As far as you statement goes that they should be grateful to the US
>for helping kick out the Russians...  I think the cold war,
>anti-soviet area of US politics is one of the shadiest and most
>debatable areas of international politics ever, and I'm simply not
>willing to get into a discussion on that subject.
>However, I think it's naive to really expect gratitude from
>fundamental Muslims.  Not even naive, but bizarre...  Bin Laden is a
>fundamentalist, as are the Taliban, and for fundamentalists the US is
>the Big Evil.  Now add 1 and 1, and make sure you get to 2...

Well now that you have admitted the fact that they are totally 
irrational you can stop pretending that rational policies and gentle 
persuasion are going to go anywhere at all with them.

>  >If you want to object to someone's behavior why don't you object to
>>the Taliban or Bin Ladin.
>
>Of course I do.  I NEVER said or implied otherwise, and implying that
>I would somehow condone such terrorist and psychotic groups is...
>well, insulting, to put it mildly.

Did I imply that?  All thought I did was suggest a more appropriate 
group against whom to lodge your complaints than the one you have 
chosen.

>The only thing I said in my initial post was that US politicians (and
>Bush in particular) seem to adopt the same short-sighted attitude
>that they accuse others of having.

How so?  Has Bush asked people to crash passenger planes into office 
buildings?   The only very specific gripe with any real world basis 
you seem to have is that you don't like the way he talks which under 
the circumstances is really pretty mild.  All the rest is just 
speculation about attitudes that is pretty unjustified since:

>  >Our western European critics bitch and whine about Bush's behavior in
>>this crisis but are very low on specifics regarding what he should be
>>doing different.   Go slow?  He has been.  Investigate?  Being done.
>>Do not act unilaterally but work with other countries to build
>>consensus and coordinate effort?  Being done.  Use all diplomatic
>>channels.  Being done.
>
>I confess that I probably wouldn't know what to do in a situation
>like this either.  However, that's probably one of the reasons I'm
>not a world-leader.

So what exactly are the *actions* to which you are objecting?


>Isn't there something... weird... going on when on the one hand the
>US government conducts peace talks in the middle-east, and at the
>same time provides the bombs that have been terrorising the
>Palestines for some 50 years now?

Not really.  In the real world you can't turn this stuff off like a 
light bulb.  Especially conflicts that have been going on for 1000s 
of years.  Like you said it's bigger than us.

>But don't let _that_ stop you...

As a matter of fact the sick violent fucks who kill each other over 
drugs in the US use uzis and Chinese machine guns but we don't blame 
the Israelis or the Israelis for that either, we blame the people 
shooting each other.
-- 


                                 Dennis Gunn
                                 Mightyjohn@...

                  check out  MIGHTY JOHN HENRY's album "hot air head"
                                                    info at
                        http://www.twics.com/~mightyjo/home.html

Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye

2001-09-23 by Spectro

Firstly let me preface my potentially confrontational statements
by saying that I was deeply disturbed by the attacks earlier this month.
My heartfelt sympathies go out to all who were or are close to someone
who lost their lives in this great tragedy.  I initially promised myself
to stay out of this debate but the numerous posts I have read on the
topic on this list have prompted me to do otherwise...

Dennis Gunn wrote:

>Americans are easy targets.  We are wealthy, largely uninformed about
>the world outside our borders, under-versed in history and geography,
>often loud and crass,  etc.... but I just can't believe that
>Americans are the evil perpetrators of some scheme for world
>domination, we aren't that organized.  We are however irrationally
>portrayed that way day in and day out around the world and the result
>is that some poor suckers actually end up buying into the whole Great
>Satan theory after which anything becomes possible for them.  And the
>extended results are what we are witnessing.

Though the US is a great an influential country, not all its influences
on the rest of the world are seen as positive elements. It is fairly easy
to see how any or all of the following examples (among lots of others)
can give rise to resentment...

Lets see: A nation that consumes resources at a rate such that if the whole
world was doing it, things  would be completely unsustainable within
a very short period of time.  And earlier this year, George W walked away
from the Kyoto protocol on Greenhouse Emissions. What do you read from
that?

A nation that built much of its wealth and proseperity on the back of a
largely unwilling, indentured labour force.  The US walked away from
the Racism conference in South Africa recently. Why is that?

A nation that for  a large part of the last century  has had its snout in the
the middle easts 'gold pot' and directly or otherwise has created instability
in that region for that time, largely to ensure it's supply of fuel is
not profoundly disturbed.  If Bin Laden is  responsible in any way for the
recent  attacks, then you can bet he has done this in part because  he has
a problem with the US's 'puppet' King in Saudi Arabia who is generally
disliked  by a large part of the population. The Islamic world, particularly
the more fundamentalist elements have a big problem with that given
the regions significance to the Muslim faith. Lets not forget Israel,
Palestine, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Iraq...

A nation that touts itself  as the worlds  only 'superpower' and is planning
a missile defense system that will make things stay that way, unfortunately
forcing many other 'wannabe' superpowers' to be somewhat more  paranoid
and react accordingly...

Exportation on a tremendous scale of largely vaccuous entertainment and
'lifestyle choices' , which promote values many who are not similarly
inclined see as selfish, unquestioning, frequently violent and irresponsible.

There are plenty of other examples but I'm sure you get the picture.

In simple terms, there are some basic motivations behind these examples:
greed, profit and  exploitation,  often cleverly disguised as 'freedom and
opportunity'. The US isn't the only nation doing this, but it does so on a
typically grander scale and thus stands tallest. Until this changes,  (if it
ever does) there will be a problem, and at some time some where, the US
will be seen as the 'Great Satan' you refer to.

If nothing else can come of this, perhaps it is an opportunity for
Americans (and us all) to be less 'indulgently wealthy' and more 'ethically
wealthy', learn about world events and insist on being informed about them
by the largely self obsessed media. Learn history and geography, be less
loud and more humble...

This won't stop madmen, but it will definitely make the more reasonable
individuals around them far more difficult to convince that their way is
right.

S.

Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye

2001-09-23 by marc lindahl

> From: LogicBaby <basharar@...>
>
> So, What do you mean?!! The Palestinians have creative places, films, arts
> and so on but they have brutal Military occupation and a raciest state
> called Israel backed by US Tax money to deal with, they have apaches and
> F-16 bombing there towns every night and every small town is cut from the
> outside world with big holes on the roads and military forces, how creative
> can you get? Its very simple Israel needs to Pull out of the west bank, east
> Jerusalem and Gaza in accordance with UN resolutions, Illegal settlements
> needs to go, very simple, but as long as there is no one to stop them the
> bloodshed will keep going and extremism will grow on both sides.

Maybe you're too young to remember that Yassir Arafat practically invented
airline hijacking in the '70's.  Don't paint the Palestinians as innocents
when they're not.  It's that type of black & white thinking that has
permeated all sides of conflicts in the middle east for 1000's of years, and
obviously hasn't lead to any solutions.

Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye

2001-09-23 by marc lindahl

> From: Spectro <spectro@...>
> 
> A nation that built much of its wealth and proseperity on the back of a
> largely unwilling, indentured labour force.  The US walked away from
> the Racism conference in South Africa recently. Why is that?

Before they walked out, they had agreed on language that 'slavery should
have always been a crime against humanity' - a position that avoids monetary
claims.  I personally support what we call in the US "Reparations" but the
US has made it clear (going so far as putting it in the Constitution) that
they're not paying the slaves back for their free labor.

The issue was that the conference wanted to equate Zionism and genocide.
Again, the Middle East, again Israel, Palastine, and their respective
supporters.


> 
> A nation that for  a large part of the last century  has had its snout in the
> the middle easts 'gold pot' and directly or otherwise has created instability
> in that region for that time, largely to ensure it's supply of fuel is
> not profoundly disturbed.


That's a cynical view.  Of course, energy supply is part of the situation,
but also, the lessons learned from WWI teach the world that you can't
isolate yourself from conflict in another part of the world, because it
might grow to involve you on a larger scale, and also, that you can't ignore
the poverty of a defeated enemy for the same reason.  There's more to
politics than money.

> US's 'puppet' King in Saudi Arabia who is generally
> disliked  by a large part of the population.

Can you site a source for this ridiculous claim?


> Exportation on a tremendous scale of largely vaccuous entertainment and
> 'lifestyle choices' , which promote values many who are not similarly
> inclined see as selfish, unquestioning, frequently violent and irresponsible.

Things only get exported when there's a demand for them.  What does that say
about the world?  You can't blame those that 'give the people what they
want'.   Also, there are plenty of other countries that export violent
movies, etc. -- for example, the "Mad Max" series...


> In simple terms, there are some basic motivations behind these examples:
> greed, profit and  exploitation,  often cleverly disguised as 'freedom and
> opportunity'. The US isn't the only nation doing this, but it does so on a
> typically grander scale and thus stands tallest. Until this changes,  (if it
> ever does) there will be a problem, and at some time some where, the US
> will be seen as the 'Great Satan' you refer to.

First off, what some call greed, profit, and exploitation, others call a
free market economy.  Second, that's not why some extremists call the US the
'great Satan' -- it's because we don't conform to their corrupt vision of
Islam.

> 
> If nothing else can come of this, perhaps it is an opportunity for
> Americans (and us all) to be less 'indulgently wealthy' and more 'ethically
> wealthy', learn about world events and insist on being informed about them
> by the largely self obsessed media. Learn history and geography, be less
> loud and more humble...

Become Communists?


> 
> This won't stop madmen, but it will definitely make the more reasonable
> individuals around them far more difficult to convince that their way is
> right.

There will always be madmen and criminals, and idiots that follow them and
give their life to them.  Discarding our ideals won't make them go away.
The ostrich that sticks it's head in the sand thinks that's the reasonable
thing to do - who's to convince them they're being unreasonable?

Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye

2001-09-23 by Wilson Zorn

> > > In fact, Churchill was then viewed by many in much the same way as
Bush
> is
> > > now.
> > >
> >
> > With a 76% approvals rating at home?  I think not!
>
> I dont know what the statistics are in Europe, but I have heard much
> criticism of Bush over here, and it was to this European comment that I
drew
> the analogy, not to his undoubted US support.
>

Churchill was not popular at home during the time you quoted and that was
why he was largely ignored/ridiculed despite being right.  That's all, I
just thought it was a bad analogy or at least people might misunderstand it
not knowing those facts.  If you mean Churchill was as unpopular in mainland
Europe as Bush is there now, okay.

Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye

2001-09-23 by dchapsk@aol.com

In a message dated 9/23/01 1:45:53 AM, Groovey@... writes:

<< Imagine a hijacked 747 with a nuclear weapon as its payload?? I'd rather
not- >>

I think this was the premise of an almost released comedy, titled "Big 
Trouble"  by Disney owned Touchstone Pictures.  It stars Tim Allen and an 
all-star cast.  Sept. 21 was the intended release date before it was pulled.  
 That's this weekend! 

The studio has pushed it's release to next year.

Since then, the FBI has warned all of the movie studios of a terrorist threat 
it received, to the effect that if the US initiates military actions against 
Afganistan, there will be a bombing at one of the major  movie studios.

Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye

2001-09-23 by Wilson Zorn

Can we do that with Christian militant fundamentalists as well?  Can I start
shooting now?  Please advise, I'm ready, thanks.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Cover" <vista500@...>
To: <logic-ot@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2001 6:47 AM
Subject: Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye


> It's called wipe out fundamentalist time!
> -One Pissed-Off Veteran
> Run for Canada, LogicBaby!!
> http://Humangnome.com
> Come and get it!!
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: LogicBaby
>   To: logic ot yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2001 3:16 AM
>   Subject: Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye
>
>
>   Dear Dennis;
>
>   > #1 Palistine is not Afghanistan.
>   True, completely agree.
>   > #2. The US cannot control the Israelis or the Palestinians.  The US
>   > has been trying to use what influence it has over Israel for years to
>   > get them to lighten up on the Palestinians, because among other
>   > things, Israeli belligerence causes the US problems as well, but
>   > every time things start to move in a positive direction extremists on
>   > one side or the other start killing people.  It is ridiculous to
>   > blame the US for that.  But don't let that stop you. It never stops
>   > anyone else.
>   On the Night of Spetember 11th, 3 Palestinian villiges where invaded at
>   night, 30 people killed and dozens injured all with American weapons and
TAX
>   money, It only took some serious phone calls to Sharon and Gang to cool
it
>   down....
>
>
>
>   > #3.  I will not deny that history has been unfair to them but the
>   > Palestinians have at some time to take some responsibility for their
>   > own actions.  There are lots of examples of people who have overcome
>   > worse situations by acting in a positive rational way.  The
>   > Vietnamese for example just blow me away with the way they have been
>   > able to keep their society together through all they have been
>   > through in the last century but another example might be the
>   > Palestinian's adversaries the Jews who have historically had some
>   > pretty tough times too but no matter how tough things get they always
>   > appeared to keep institutions like schools (like the Vietnamese) and
>   > research and art functioning kept looking for creative ways to deal
>   > with their problems.
>   So, What do you mean?!! The Palestinians have creative places, films,
arts
>   and so on but they have brutal Military occupation and a raciest state
>   called Israel backed by US Tax money to deal with, they have apaches and
>   F-16 bombing there towns every night and every small town is cut from
the
>   outside world with big holes on the roads and military forces, how
creative
>   can you get? Its very simple Israel needs to Pull out of the west bank,
east
>   Jerusalem and Gaza in accordance with UN resolutions, Illegal
settlements
>   needs to go, very simple, but as long as there is no one to stop them
the
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>   bloodshed will keep going and extremism will grow on both sides.
>
>   Peace
>
>
>         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>               ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
>
>   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye

2001-09-23 by marc lindahl

> From: LogicBaby <basharar@...>
> 
> Sorry, Marc I am a Palestinian

Well, that explains your world-view....
I'm not saying I agree with US policy... and I can tell you that the people
of the united states are not of a single mind when it comes to our Israel
policy - that's the great thing about our freedom of speech.

But also, can you deny that Palestinians have engaged in terrorist acts,
such as hijackings and bombings?  Regardless of whether you think they are
justified?


> illegal settlements throughout the west-bank under the teachings of Zionism

I agree that the strategy of these settlements disturbs me... it seems to be
similar to how China is wiping out Tibet by importing Chinese from other
places to 'dilute' the population.

> all the Palestinian wants is the
> implementation of UN resolutions and a just solution, but all they get is

That's not true of all Palestinians, is it?  Don't some of them want to rid
the world of Israel?  I don't think you can claim Palestine is of one mind
on issues like that, just as with any people.

>, Israel is the only colonization regime left on
> earth in this century

You need to bone up on the current state of the world, friend, it's not the
only one left.

Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye

2001-09-23 by Wilson Zorn

----- Original Message -----
From: "marc lindahl" <marc@...>
To: <logic-ot@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2001 10:15 AM
Subject: Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye


>
>
> > From: LogicBaby <basharar@...>
> >
> > So, What do you mean?!! The Palestinians have creative places, films,
arts
> > and so on but they have brutal Military occupation and a raciest state
> > called Israel backed by US Tax money to deal with, they have apaches and
> > F-16 bombing there towns every night and every small town is cut from
the
> > outside world with big holes on the roads and military forces, how
creative
> > can you get? Its very simple Israel needs to Pull out of the west bank,
east
> > Jerusalem and Gaza in accordance with UN resolutions, Illegal
settlements
> > needs to go, very simple, but as long as there is no one to stop them
the
> > bloodshed will keep going and extremism will grow on both sides.
>
> Maybe you're too young to remember that Yassir Arafat practically invented
> airline hijacking in the '70's.  Don't paint the Palestinians as innocents
> when they're not.  It's that type of black & white thinking that has
> permeated all sides of conflicts in the middle east for 1000's of years,
and
> obviously hasn't lead to any solutions.
>

Arafat did popularize the terrorist method though it did predate Palestinian
terrorism.  There have been many periods of calm in the Mideast,
particularly when tolerant Sultanates ruled the area.  And when they weren't
thinking in black and white of course.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye

2001-09-23 by Dennis Gunn

At 2:34 AM +1000 9/24/01, Spectro wrote:
>Firstly let me preface my potentially confrontational statements
>by saying that I was deeply disturbed by the attacks earlier this month.
>My heartfelt sympathies go out to all who were or are close to someone
>who lost their lives in this great tragedy.  I initially promised myself
>to stay out of this debate but the numerous posts I have read on the
>topic on this list have prompted me to do otherwise...




Rather than confrontational they are just kind of tactless and dumb 
since they mostly have absolutely nothing to with the motivations of 
the people who did the crime.  An awful lot of them really don't 
amount to too much more than you using the incident as a soap box for 
your own personal causes.  Like:

>Lets see: A nation that consumes resources at a rate such that if the whole
>world was doing it, things  would be completely unsustainable within
>a very short period of time.  And earlier this year, George W walked away
>from the Kyoto protocol on Greenhouse Emissions. What do you read from
>that?


I suggest you think about exactly how much sympathy the terrorists 
have won for their cause by this crime before you start claiming that 
it was carried out to further your causes.  This is particularly 
stupid in light of the fact that OPEC has always done it's best to 
*encourage* oil consumption.  Muslims don't mind people buying their 
oil at all.


>
>Exportation on a tremendous scale of largely vaccuous entertainment and
>'lifestyle choices' , which promote values many who are not similarly
>inclined see as selfish, unquestioning, frequently violent and irresponsible.

Although most American TV makes me want to blow up the TV station I 
generally just turn off the tube and read a book instead.   I guess 
other people have that choice too.
-- 


                                 Dennis Gunn
                                 Mightyjohn@...

                  check out  MIGHTY JOHN HENRY's album "hot air head"
                                                    info at
                        http://www.twics.com/~mightyjo/home.html

Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye (longish)

2001-09-23 by dchapsk@aol.com

In a message dated 9/23/01 8:22:18 AM, basharar@... writes:

<< There is no difference between a person, an ideology or a government that
puts itself in the shoes of God and says if you are with me then you are
good if against me then evil......The victim here is human soles...
 >>

Ironically, this is similar to the statement Bush made to congress. 
You are either with the US in our fight against terrorism or you are with the 
terrorists.

"The first casualty of war is the truth."

Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye

2001-09-23 by LogicBaby

Good to hear that you are not blindly defending your government...
> I'm not saying I agree with US policy... and I can tell you that the people
> of the united states are not of a single mind when it comes to our Israel
> policy - that's the great thing about our freedom of speech.

I am against ALL acts of terror or attacks against civilians, the killing of
human soul is not justified, true the palestinians engaged in hijacking in
the past "mainly the 70s era, and thanks to hollywood for the extra
magnifications", its WRONG, but on the other side of the coin, Israel
practiced ethnic cleansing since day 1, WHOLE palestinian villigas where
just wipped off the map with its people, Today you only see Aloe trees in
there places, something about the Aloe trees and the memory of the
people.....
> But also, can you deny that Palestinians have engaged in terrorist acts,
> such as hijackings and bombings?  Regardless of whether you think they are
> justified?

Thanks Marc
>> I agree that the strategy of these settlements disturbs me... it seems to be
> similar to how China is wiping out Tibet by importing Chinese from other
> places to 'dilute' the population.

No Palestinians have recognized the state of israel within the 1967 boarders
in return for israel withdrawing of the land occupied in 1967,"Land for
PEACE" was the logo, but nothing of that has happened and extreemist are
gaining popularity these days on both sides, thanks to Bush's total Bias....
We have communist, socialist, and religious parties BTW, just like the US
have Democrats, KKK and UFO cults....

> That's not true of all Palestinians, is it?  Don't some of them want to rid
> the world of Israel?  I don't think you can claim Palestine is of one mind
> on issues like that, just as with any people.


Lets name the rest, Taiwan?
> You need to bone up on the current state of the world, friend, it's not the
> only one left.
> 
Cheer up:)

Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye

2001-09-23 by Wilson Zorn

----- Original Message -----
From: "marc lindahl" <marc@...>
To: <logic-ot@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2001 10:34 AM
Subject: Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye


>
>
> > From: Spectro <spectro@...>
> >
> > A nation that built much of its wealth and proseperity on the back of a
> > largely unwilling, indentured labour force.  The US walked away from
> > the Racism conference in South Africa recently. Why is that?
>
> Before they walked out, they had agreed on language that 'slavery should
> have always been a crime against humanity' - a position that avoids
monetary
> claims.  I personally support what we call in the US "Reparations" but the
> US has made it clear (going so far as putting it in the Constitution) that
> they're not paying the slaves back for their free labor.
>

This is accurate so far as it goes but the government did promise 40 acres
and a mule, which was never delivered.  This is the basis for many's call
for reparations.

> The issue was that the conference wanted to equate Zionism and genocide.
> Again, the Middle East, again Israel, Palastine, and their respective
> supporters.
>
>
> >
> > A nation that for  a large part of the last century  has had its snout
in the
> > the middle easts 'gold pot' and directly or otherwise has created
instability
> > in that region for that time, largely to ensure it's supply of fuel is
> > not profoundly disturbed.
>
>
> That's a cynical view.  Of course, energy supply is part of the situation,
> but also, the lessons learned from WWI teach the world that you can't
> isolate yourself from conflict in another part of the world, because it
> might grow to involve you on a larger scale, and also, that you can't
ignore
> the poverty of a defeated enemy for the same reason.  There's more to
> politics than money.
>
> > US's 'puppet' King in Saudi Arabia who is generally
> > disliked  by a large part of the population.
>
> Can you site a source for this ridiculous claim?
>

This has been reported in the news, I suppose it could be looked up but I
think if you just do a search you'll find it.  Ah, never mind, here,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1050000/1050774.st
m     I think calling Saudi Arabia a "puppet government" is rather debatable
though.

>
> > Exportation on a tremendous scale of largely vaccuous entertainment and
> > 'lifestyle choices' , which promote values many who are not similarly
> > inclined see as selfish, unquestioning, frequently violent and
irresponsible.
>
> Things only get exported when there's a demand for them.  What does that
say
> about the world?  You can't blame those that 'give the people what they
> want'.   Also, there are plenty of other countries that export violent
> movies, etc. -- for example, the "Mad Max" series...
>
>
> > In simple terms, there are some basic motivations behind these examples:
> > greed, profit and  exploitation,  often cleverly disguised as 'freedom
and
> > opportunity'. The US isn't the only nation doing this, but it does so on
a
> > typically grander scale and thus stands tallest. Until this changes,
(if it
> > ever does) there will be a problem, and at some time some where, the US
> > will be seen as the 'Great Satan' you refer to.
>
> First off, what some call greed, profit, and exploitation, others call a
> free market economy.  Second, that's not why some extremists call the US
the
> 'great Satan' -- it's because we don't conform to their corrupt vision of
> Islam.
>
> >
> > If nothing else can come of this, perhaps it is an opportunity for
> > Americans (and us all) to be less 'indulgently wealthy' and more
'ethically
> > wealthy', learn about world events and insist on being informed about
them
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> > by the largely self obsessed media. Learn history and geography, be less
> > loud and more humble...
>
> Become Communists?
>
>
> >
> > This won't stop madmen, but it will definitely make the more reasonable
> > individuals around them far more difficult to convince that their way is
> > right.
>
> There will always be madmen and criminals, and idiots that follow them and
> give their life to them.  Discarding our ideals won't make them go away.
> The ostrich that sticks it's head in the sand thinks that's the reasonable
> thing to do - who's to convince them they're being unreasonable?
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye (longish)

2001-09-23 by Wilson Zorn

> Bullshit self flagellation.  In the US and Europe Islam is tolerated
> and protected by law.  Islam is the fastest growing religion in the
> world and it seems I have heard it said that Muslims , correct me if
> I am wrong I don't know the exact stats, probably outnumber
> Christians.  On the other hand in some Islamic countries like for
> example Afghanistan Christianity is a capitol offence.  So who is
> suppressing whom?
>

For religious populations http://www.noharmm.org/religiouspop.htm seems to
be in the ballpark.

Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye

2001-09-23 by Joeri Vankeirsbilck

>
>
>sorry about the rant, but at least its on the OT list. I think I'll make
>some music this afternoon with Logic to calm me down
>:-)
>
When reading many of these statements, I really feel like replying, but 
I've done that on another forum and I don't feel like going through all 
that again. I simply don't have the time for it. Opinions differ, we all 
have different information sources (all of it being biased without 
doubt) and the discussion can go on ad perpetuum.

Anyway, I want to thank everyone for continuing it over here on the OT 
forum. It's the right place and I'll definitely continue to read all 
mails 'cause it's interesting to see  all these different opinions.

Bye,
Joeri

-- 
Joeri Vankeirsbilck
joeri@...

Belway Productions      -     http://www.belway.com
List-admin   Logic-users/SoundD*ver-users/Logic-TDM

Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye

2001-09-23 by marc lindahl

> From: "Wilson Zorn" <wilson.zorn@...>
>> 
>>> US's 'puppet' King in Saudi Arabia who is generally
>>> disliked  by a large part of the population.
>> 
>> Can you site a source for this ridiculous claim?
>> 
> 
> This has been reported in the news, I suppose it could be looked up but I
> think if you just do a search you'll find it.  Ah, never mind, here,
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1050000/1050774.st
> m     I think calling Saudi Arabia a "puppet government" is rather debatable
> though.

Reading that article, it doesn't claim that the kind is generally disliked
by a large part of the population... the closest it comes is that 'it is
thought this resentment may have been behind the recent car bombs that
targeted Westerners in Riyadh.' - as we know it only takes a few to bomb
something....  but it's a well balanced overview.  Actually, during the
recent WTC event, I felt the BBC coverage was superior in many ways to the
US network's.

Re: OT Goodbye

2001-09-23 by Adrian Gill

> Oh come on! Thats horseshit. There have been attrocities as large -
> but only in time of war or natural disaster.  
> Is this really the time for anti-American propoganda?

Propaganda? I've no interest in evangelizing for any anti-American
stance. America is undoubtedly the most open, democratic country
on the planet. I look forward to the day when the world at large
enjoys the same freedoms and rights enshrined in its constitution.

But are we not to examine the credentials of those who so forthrightly
condemn state sponsored terrorism? 'Those who do not remember the past
are condemned to repeat it' etc., - when is there a time to examine
history with a view to putting the present in perspective?

Are we not justified in trying to see the context of such horrendous
violence? Don't we owe it to those poor people who's lives were
cut short so miserably that we should try and see the root causes
of such acts, that others should not ever again perish so needlessly?

> Did the US create the Russian invasian of Afganistan that lead to
> the mujhadeen?

A Saudi Arabian millionaire, Bin Laden became a militant Islamic leader
in the war to drive the Russians out of Afghanistan. He was one of the
many religious fundamentalist extremists recruited, armed, and financed
by the CIA and their allies in Pakistani intelligence to cause maximal
harm to the Russians -- quite possibly delaying their withdrawal, many
analysts suspect. Not surprisingly, the CIA preferred the most fanatic
and cruel fighters they could mobilize. The end result was to "destroy
a moderate regime and create a fanatical one.

> > Atrocities equal to and surpassing in scale that of Sept 11th
> > litter the history books. And American foreign policy has often
> > been the protagonist.

> Name ONE that wasn't a wartime act.

There are many euphemisms for war - 'Self-Defense', 'protecting one's
interests', and, by extension, those of one's client states, and the
methods can be political, economic, military. Covert or otherwise.

For the US, this is the first time since the War of 1812 that its
national territory has been under attack, even threat. Its colonies
have been attacked, but not the national territory itself. During these
years the US virtually exterminated the indigenous population,
conquered half of Mexico, intervened violently in the surrounding
region, conquered Hawaii and the Philippines (killing hundreds of
thousands of Filipinos), and in the past half century particularly,
extended its resort to force throughout much of the world. The number
of victims is colossal.

In Greece, British troops entered after the Nazis had withdrawn. They
imposed a corrupt regime that evoked renewed resistance, and Britain,
in it's post war decline, was unable to maintain control. In 1947, the
US moved in, supporting a murderous war that resulted in about 160,000
deaths...complete with torture, political exile for tens of thousands
of Greeks, what we called 're-education camps' for tens of thousands
of others, and the destruction of unions and of any possibility of
independent politics. It placed Greece firmly in the hands of US
investors and local businessmen, while much of the population had to
emigrate in order to survive.

When US forces entered Korea in 1945, they dispersed the local popular
government, consisting primarily of anti-fascists who resisted the
Japanese, and inaugurated a brutal repression using Japanese fascist
police and Koreans who had collaborated with them during the Japanese
occupation. About 100,000 people were murdered in South Korea prior
to what we call the Korean War, including 30-40,000 killed during the
suppression of a peasant revolt in one small region, Cheju Island.

Laos in the '60's: as soon as social revolution began to develop
there, Washington subjected it to a murderous secret bombing,
virtually wiping out large settled areas in operations that, it was
conceded, had nothing to do with the Vietnam War.

Parliamentary governments have been barred or overthrown, with US
support and sometimes direct intervention, in Iran in 1953, Guatemala
again in '63 (when Kennedy backed a military coup to prevent the
threat of a return to democracy), the Dominican Republic in '63 &
'65, in Brazil in 1964, in Chile in 1973...

The methods ain't pretty. What the US-run contra forces did in
Nicaragua, or what our terrorist proxies did in in El Salvador or
Guatemala, wasn't just 'ordinary' killing. A major element is brutal,
sadistic torture - beating infants against rocks, hanging women
by their feet with their breasts cut off and the skin of their face
peeled back so that they'll bleed to death, chopping peoples heads
off and putting them on stakes. The point being to crush independent
nationalism and popular forces that might bring about meaningful
democracy.

While the US government pays lip service to democracy, the real
commitment is to "private, capitalist enterprise" concluded
London's Royal Institute of International Affairs. When the rights
of investors are threatened, democracy has to go; if these rights
are safeguarded, killers and torturers will do just fine.

In Central America, the number of of people murdered by US-backed
forces since the late 1970's comes to something like 200,000 as
popular movements that sought democracy and social reform were
decimated.

In El Salvador, the number of people massacred since 1978 or since
1979 when we moved in in force is on the order of sixty thousand.
In Guatemala, the number of people massacred is on the order of a
hundred thousand. 

Some specifics:

   The Atlacatl Battalion, an elite unit was created, trained and
equipped by the US. Formed in in March 1981, when specialists
in counterinsurgency were sent to El Salvador from the US Army
school of Special Forces, from the start was engaged in mass
murder. In December '81 the unit took part in operations in which
over 1,000 civilians were killed in an orgy of murder, rape and
burning and later in the bombing of villages and murder of
hundreds of civilians by shooting, drowning and other methods.
The vast majority of victims were women, children and the elderly.

   One Cesar-Vielman Joya Martinez detailed the involvement of US
advisers and the Salvadoran government in death squad activity
much to the discomfort of the previous Bush administration which
made every effort to silence him and ship him back to El Salvador
and probable death. Other witnesses were similarly treated.
__________________

...The same grisly patterns repeat themselves in Nicaragua,
Guatemala, Honduras - in fact, there's one CIA trained battalion
in Honduras that all by itself carried out more atrocities than
Noriega ever did.

...and Panama:
Guillermo Endara, sworn in as President at a US military base on the
day of the invasion, would've received 2.4 percent of the vote if an
election were held, according to 1992 polls. His government designated
the second anniversary of the US invasion a "national day of
reflection." Thousands of Panamanians "marked the day with a
`black march' through the streets of this capital to denounce the US
invasion and the Endara economic policies," the French press agency
reported. Marchers claimed that US troops had killed 3000 people and
buried many corpses in mass graves or thrown them into the sea. The
economy has not recovered from the battering it received from the US
embargo and the invasion. A leader of the Civic Crusade, which led the
middle-class opposition to Noriega, told the Chicago Tribune reporter
that "Economic sanctions imposed by the U.S. against our will in 1987
to oust Noriega did nothing to hurt him but ruined our economy."

...The US backed dictators in the Dominican Republic, the Philippines,
Duvalier in Haiti... but so long as profits flowed out of their
countries into the US they were supported enthusiastically. The same
story with Mobutu, Ceaucescu and Saddam Hussein ... and, too, Suharto
of Indonesia...

Suharto has been "our kind of guy," as the Clinton administration 
described him, while carrying out murderous aggression and endless 
atrocities against his own people; killing 10,000 Indonesians just 
in the 1980s, according to the personal testimony of "our guy," who
wrote that "the corpses were left lying around as a form of shock
therapy." In December 1975 the UN Security Council unanimously ordered
Indonesia to withdraw its invading forces from East Timor "without
delay" and called upon "all States to respect the territorial integrity
of East Timor as well as the inalienable right of its people to
self-determination." The U.S. responded by (secretly) increasing
shipments of arms to the aggressors; Carter accelerated the arms flow
once again as the attack reached near-genocidal levels in 1978. In
his memoirs, UN Ambassador Daniel Patrick Moynihan takes pride in his
success in rendering the UN "utterly ineffective in whatever measures
it undertook," following the instructions of the State Department,
which "wished things to turn out as they did and worked to bring this
about." The U.S. also happily accepted the robbery of East Timor\ufffds oil
(with participation of a U.S. company), in violation of any reasonable
interpretation of international agreements.

And so it remained, through atrocity after atrocity, In 1997 he made
his first mistake. One thing was he was beginning to lose control.
If your friendly dictator loses control, he's not much use. The other
was, he developed an unsuspected  soft spot. The International
Monetary Fund (IMF), meaning the U.S., was imposing quite harsh
economic programs which were punishing the general population for
the robbery carried out by a tiny Indonesian elite, and Suharto,
for whatever reason, maybe fearing internal turmoil, was dragging
his feet on implementing these.

Then came a  series of rather dramatic events. They weren't much
reported, but they were noticed in Indonesia.
In February 1998, the head of the IMF, Michel Camdessus, flew
into Jakarta and effectively ordered Suharto to sign onto the IMF
rules. Shortly after that, in May 1998, Madeleine Albright telephoned
Suharto and told him that Washington had decided that the time had
come for what she called a "democratic transition," meaning, Step
down. Four hours later, he stepped down. This isn't just cause and
effect. There are many other factors. It's not just pushing buttons.
But it does symbolize the nature of the relationship.
__________________

Africa:
South African attacks supported by the U.S. during the Reagan years,
when it caused over $60 billion in damage and 1.5 million deaths in
neighbouring states according to a UN Commission, not to speak of
some events at home and with ample U.S./UK support. 

...And Saddam:
Throughout the period of his worst crimes, Saddam remained a favoured
ally and trading partner of the US and Britain, which furthermore
abetted these crimes.  The Reagan Administration even sought to
prevent congressional reaction to the gassing of the Kurds,
including the (failed) plea of Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Chairman Claiborne Pell that "we cannot be silent to genocide
again" as the world was when Hitler exterminated Europe's Jews.

So extreme was Reaganite support for their friend that when a ABC
TV correspondent revealed the site of one of Saddam's biological
warfare programs a few months after Halabja, Washington
denied the facts, and the story died. There were no passionate calls
for a military strike against this brutal killer and torturer.
Quite the contrary: much of what was known, including US support,
was downplayed or not reported.

...Palestine:
In Palestine, the enduring illegal occupation by Israel would have
collapsed long ago were it not for American backing and the
long standing support for Israel's brutal military occupation,
now in its 35th year: Washington's decisive diplomatic, military,
and economic intervention in support of the killings, the harsh and
destructive siege over many years, the daily humiliation to which
Palestinians are subjected, the expanding settlements designed to
break the occupied territories and take control of the resources,
the gross violation of the Geneva Conventions, and other actions
that are recognized as crimes throughout most of the world.

Iraq:
The destruction of infrastructure and banning of imports to repair it
has caused disease, malnutrition, and early death on a huge scale,
including 567,000 children by 1995, according to UN investigations;
UNICEF reports 4,500 children dying a month in 1996. In a bitter
condemnation of the sanctions (January 20, 1998), 54 Catholic Bishops
quoted the Archbishop of the southern region of Iraq, who reports that
"epidemics rage, taking away infants and the sick by the thousands"
while "those children who survive disease succumb to malnutrition."
The Bishop\ufffds statement, reported in full in Stanley Heller\ufffds journal
The Struggle, received scant mention in the press. The U.S. and
Britain have taken the lead in blocking aid programs \ufffd for example,
delaying approval for ambulances on the grounds that they could be
used to transport troops, barring insecticides to prevent spread of
disease and spare parts for sanitation systems. Meanwhile, western
diplomats point out, "The U.S. had directly benefited from [the
humanitarian] operation as much, if not more, than the Russians and
the French," for example, by purchase of $600 million worth of Iraqi
oil (second only to Russia) and sale by U.S. companies of $200
million in humanitarian goods to Iraq. They also report that most of
the oil bought by Russian companies ends up in the U.S.

========================================================

And, unfortunately, this is only a fraction...

I think we're all agreed that massive injustices take place all over
the world on a daily basis. Just let's not accept so readily and at
face value what our governments and media would have us believe.

Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye

2001-09-23 by Mike Cover

Raising yo kids to become sand terrorists??  Best you construct more tents, Omarr...you'll be goin back to the desert where you've been for ages!
Proud to be American and of Irish decent who was King of Prom at Jewish HighSchool...and if I could join the defense forces, I sointenly would!!
VetMIke
Show quoted textHide quoted text
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: LogicBaby 
  To: logic ot yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2001 9:40 AM
  Subject: Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye


  Sorry, Marc I am a Palestinian, The Palestinians are UNDER MILITERY
  OCCUPATION, do you know what that means? I hope you don¹t have to deal with
  this in your lifetime, the Palestinians are fighting to get there freedom
  and land which has been populated by Russian and Ethiopian immigrants in the
  illegal settlements throughout the west-bank under the teachings of Zionism
  "God signed the land in there name ", all the Palestinian wants is the
  implementation of UN resolutions and a just solution, but all they get is
  bombs  "made in the US", Israel is the only colonization regime left on
  earth in this century "imagine the us being a British colony", its a country
  where it discriminate against its own citizens on the basis of religion and
  origin "ask the Arabs with Israeli passports", remember South Africa...., I
  don¹t care what religion, color you are but in Israel they do, Beit Jala and
  Beit Lahem are towns filled with Palestinians who are Christians not even
  Muslims, they are constantly bombarded in "ACTS OF SELF-DEFENCE by the
  Defense Army", These are occupied lands, the settlements around them are
  illegal under international laws, but Israel is fully supported by US
  foreign policy no matter how wrong they go, nothing against the American
  people or there faith, religion or color, but I doubt that they really know
  who there government are supporting, blame it on the "free" media
  organizations .....

  > Don't paint the Palestinians as innocents
  > when they're not.


        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
       
       

  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye

2001-09-23 by Teddy Kumpel

that is a supremely wise thing to say. thank you.

I am American... but I am not represented by my own government in the least.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> nothing against the American
> people or there faith, religion or color, but I doubt that they really know
> who there government are supporting, blame it on the "free" media
> organizations .....

Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye

2001-09-23 by marc lindahl

> From: Teddy Kumpel <teddybut@...>
> 
> I am American... but I am not represented by my own government in the least.

Did you vote in the last election?

Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye

2001-09-23 by Teddy Kumpel

>> 
>> I am American... but I am not represented by my own government in the least.

> marc lindahl <marc@...>
> Did you vote in the last election?

are you going to say something aggressive after I answer?

[L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye

2001-09-24 by Dennis Gunn

At 8:28 PM +0000 9/23/01, Adrian Gill wrote:
>Propaganda? I've no interest in evangelizing for any anti-American
>stance. America is undoubtedly the most open, democratic country
>on the planet. I look forward to the day when the world at large
>enjoys the same freedoms and rights enshrined in its constitution.
>
>But are we not to examine the credentials of those who so forthrightly
>condemn state sponsored terrorism? 'Those who do not remember the past
>are condemned to repeat it' etc., - when is there a time to examine
>history with a view to putting the present in perspective?
>
>Are we not justified in trying to see the context of such horrendous
>violence? Don't we owe it to those poor people who's lives were
>cut short so miserably that we should try and see the root causes
>of such acts, that others should not ever again perish so needlessly?
>

Impressive post.  Thank you for supporting your statements so 
articulately.  Some of them strike me as somewhat slanted but I lack 
the knowledge to refute any of them.
-- 


                                 Dennis Gunn
                                 Mightyjohn@...

                  check out  MIGHTY JOHN HENRY's album "hot air head"
                                                    info at
                        http://www.twics.com/~mightyjo/home.html

Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye

2001-09-24 by marc lindahl

> From: Teddy Kumpel <kumpkin@...>
> 
>>> 
>>> I am American... but I am not represented by my own government in the least.
> 
>> marc lindahl <marc@...>
>> Did you vote in the last election?
> 
> are you going to say something aggressive after I answer?

It's a simple yes or no question... in some countries, you know you're
represented by your goverment because of your social status, caste, or
political affiliations.  In the USA, you know you're represented when you
vote.  People here no longer get killed for voting, so there's no reason not
to do it.  I'm just wondering, when you claim not to be represented, whether
you tried to be or not, or pursued other avenues of representation.  Should
I assume by your answer that you didn't vote?  After all, like free speech,
it's your right in the US.

Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye

2001-09-24 by Wilson Zorn

The article indicates, "In the current Arab climate of hostility to Israel
and its US backers, many Saudis resent their government's friendship with
the West. "  "Many" I take to be "large", though whether it's a majority or
simply significant, it's unclear.  However, the article also states, "Their
immediate problem is unemployment. Unofficially it is running at more than
25%. " and "For the last few years per capita income has been falling and
many poor Saudis are getting poorer. "  It is almost unheard of in any
nation for these conditions not to result in a large portion of the
population not disliking the leadership.


----- Original Message -----
From: "marc lindahl" <marc@...>
To: <logic-ot@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2001 12:46 PM
Subject: Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye


>
>
> > From: "Wilson Zorn" <wilson.zorn@...>
> >>
> >>> US's 'puppet' King in Saudi Arabia who is generally
> >>> disliked  by a large part of the population.
> >>
> >> Can you site a source for this ridiculous claim?
> >>
> >
> > This has been reported in the news, I suppose it could be looked up but
I
> > think if you just do a search you'll find it.  Ah, never mind, here,
> >
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1050000/1050774.st
> > m     I think calling Saudi Arabia a "puppet government" is rather
debatable
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> > though.
>
> Reading that article, it doesn't claim that the kind is generally disliked
> by a large part of the population... the closest it comes is that 'it is
> thought this resentment may have been behind the recent car bombs that
> targeted Westerners in Riyadh.' - as we know it only takes a few to bomb
> something....  but it's a well balanced overview.  Actually, during the
> recent WTC event, I felt the BBC coverage was superior in many ways to the
> US network's.
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye

2001-09-24 by marc lindahl

> From: Adrian Gill <adrian@zarathustra.u-net.com>
>
> There are many euphemisms for war - 'Self-Defense', 'protecting one's
> interests', and, by extension, those of one's client states, and the
> methods can be political, economic, military. Covert or otherwise.

... and I can see that your definition is, "anything the US has even remote
involvment in, regarless of context, where lives were lost; tally them up as
the fault of the US."

and I can also see clearly, the implication that, because of this fraudulent
toll you've tallied, the US shouldn't complain if a few thousand of our own
are taken.

Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye

2001-09-24 by marc lindahl

> From: "Wilson Zorn" <wilson.zorn@...>
> 
> The article indicates, "In the current Arab climate of hostility to Israel
> and its US backers, many Saudis resent their government's friendship with
> the West. "  "Many" I take to be "large", though whether it's a majority or
> simply significant, it's unclear.

Yes it is, and a prime example of how media can subtly 'slant' a story.

>  However, the article also states, "Their
> immediate problem is unemployment. Unofficially it is running at more than
> 25%. " and "For the last few years per capita income has been falling and
> many poor Saudis are getting poorer. "  It is almost unheard of in any
> nation for these conditions not to result in a large portion of the
> population not disliking the leadership.

Under what you or I might take as accompanying circumstances.  But this
thought occurred to me -- does unemployment equal poverty in Saudi Arabia?
I don't know, but it's a very rich place, and they might have a gold
embroidered safety net.
(http://www.ain-al-yaqeen.com/issues/19971124/feat8en.htm)
I'm reminded of visiting Norway years ago, and seeing these clean, well
dressed youth hanging out on park benches.  My friend said "those are the
heroin addicts."  In NYC, put it this way, junkies wish they had it so good!

Indications are that Saudis live very much in the so-called first world:
http://www.ifc.org/camena/saudi.htm
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0107947.html

I have yet to dig up anything that supports the claim of 25% unemployment,
but it's undeniable that, like most countries, Saudi Arabia is complex and
changing:
http://www.ndu.edu/inss/strforum/forum125.html

None of which support eminent revolt...

Re: [L-OT] Re: Goodbye Apologies

2001-09-24 by Dennis Gunn

In a personal mail Joeri pointed out what he regarded as some 
offensive remarks I made with regard to the ideas of Hendrik Jan 
Veestra.  I strongly disagree with Hendrik but Joeri is right there 
is no need for that or to lower the level of debate.  Even if for no 
other reason than overly strong language makes the user (me) look 
foolish.  My apologies to Hendrik.
-- 


                                 Dennis Gunn
                                 Mightyjohn@...

                  check out  MIGHTY JOHN HENRY's album "hot air head"
                                                    info at
                        http://www.twics.com/~mightyjo/home.html

Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye

2001-09-24 by Wilson Zorn

I do not state that Saudi Arabia faces imminent revolt.  Far from it.

Some of these links don't seem terribly independent, particularly
ain-al-yaqeem - take a look through their stories.  NDU's a pretty good
resource though and despite what some think is fairly independent.

The NDU article along with the article at
http://www.fas.org/asmp/profiles/saudi_arabia.htm both highlight how the
public welfare rises and falls with oil and its fortunes.  The problem is
not so much that people are turned into the streets but that as the social
state declines you generally increase unrest; it's all about relative
deprivation.  The standard of living in France in 1798 was pretty good
all-in-all, but it was a hell of a lot worse than it had been a generation
prior.  The French of that day still lived very much in the first world, so
to speak, as well.

You do have an underlying problem very similar to the Shah's Iran.  Saudi
Arabia is a brutal totalitarian state by all accounts and like many of those
the level of dissent is usually there but masked.  You might recall that
popular opinion (not academic opinion) considered the Shah's Iran quite
stable.

The most thorough article I could find that was reasonably objective was at
http://www.biu.ac.il/SOC/besa/meria/journal/1999/issue4/jv3n4a4.html .This
is a LOT of reading if you're not too interested but if interested it seems
to sum up the various issues pretty well.

Is it stable/durable?  Perhaps, perhaps not.  There is no factual way to
know.

But I think factually there simply are a lot of issues and there are a
"large" number that oppose the government in a fundamental way.

----- Original Message -----
From: "marc lindahl" <marc@...>
To: <logic-ot@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2001 9:21 PM
Subject: Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye


>
>
> > From: "Wilson Zorn" <wilson.zorn@...>
> >
> > The article indicates, "In the current Arab climate of hostility to
Israel
> > and its US backers, many Saudis resent their government's friendship
with
> > the West. "  "Many" I take to be "large", though whether it's a majority
or
> > simply significant, it's unclear.
>
> Yes it is, and a prime example of how media can subtly 'slant' a story.
>
> >  However, the article also states, "Their
> > immediate problem is unemployment. Unofficially it is running at more
than
> > 25%. " and "For the last few years per capita income has been falling
and
> > many poor Saudis are getting poorer. "  It is almost unheard of in any
> > nation for these conditions not to result in a large portion of the
> > population not disliking the leadership.
>
> Under what you or I might take as accompanying circumstances.  But this
> thought occurred to me -- does unemployment equal poverty in Saudi Arabia?
> I don't know, but it's a very rich place, and they might have a gold
> embroidered safety net.
> (http://www.ain-al-yaqeen.com/issues/19971124/feat8en.htm)
> I'm reminded of visiting Norway years ago, and seeing these clean, well
> dressed youth hanging out on park benches.  My friend said "those are the
> heroin addicts."  In NYC, put it this way, junkies wish they had it so
good!
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>
> Indications are that Saudis live very much in the so-called first world:
> http://www.ifc.org/camena/saudi.htm
> http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0107947.html
>
> I have yet to dig up anything that supports the claim of 25% unemployment,
> but it's undeniable that, like most countries, Saudi Arabia is complex and
> changing:
> http://www.ndu.edu/inss/strforum/forum125.html
>
> None of which support eminent revolt...
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye

2001-09-24 by Wilson Zorn

PS - all of which to say is that it's not a "ridiculous claim" that many
dislike the leader of Saudi Arabia.  It may even be an incorrect claim, when
all's said and done and you read through the many links and ideas, but it is
not "ridiculous".

That, in the end, is all I was trying to get across.  Just trying to keep
facts straight.  You can certainly ignore a number of my conclusions and
side comments below.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Wilson Zorn" <wilson.zorn@...>
To: <logic-ot@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2001 10:29 PM
Subject: Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye


> I do not state that Saudi Arabia faces imminent revolt.  Far from it.
>
> Some of these links don't seem terribly independent, particularly
> ain-al-yaqeem - take a look through their stories.  NDU's a pretty good
> resource though and despite what some think is fairly independent.
>
> The NDU article along with the article at
> http://www.fas.org/asmp/profiles/saudi_arabia.htm both highlight how the
> public welfare rises and falls with oil and its fortunes.  The problem is
> not so much that people are turned into the streets but that as the social
> state declines you generally increase unrest; it's all about relative
> deprivation.  The standard of living in France in 1798 was pretty good
> all-in-all, but it was a hell of a lot worse than it had been a generation
> prior.  The French of that day still lived very much in the first world,
so
> to speak, as well.
>
> You do have an underlying problem very similar to the Shah's Iran.  Saudi
> Arabia is a brutal totalitarian state by all accounts and like many of
those
> the level of dissent is usually there but masked.  You might recall that
> popular opinion (not academic opinion) considered the Shah's Iran quite
> stable.
>
> The most thorough article I could find that was reasonably objective was
at
> http://www.biu.ac.il/SOC/besa/meria/journal/1999/issue4/jv3n4a4.html .This
> is a LOT of reading if you're not too interested but if interested it
seems
> to sum up the various issues pretty well.
>
> Is it stable/durable?  Perhaps, perhaps not.  There is no factual way to
> know.
>
> But I think factually there simply are a lot of issues and there are a
> "large" number that oppose the government in a fundamental way.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "marc lindahl" <marc@...>
> To: <logic-ot@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2001 9:21 PM
> Subject: Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye
>
>
> >
> >
> > > From: "Wilson Zorn" <wilson.zorn@...>
> > >
> > > The article indicates, "In the current Arab climate of hostility to
> Israel
> > > and its US backers, many Saudis resent their government's friendship
> with
> > > the West. "  "Many" I take to be "large", though whether it's a
majority
> or
> > > simply significant, it's unclear.
> >
> > Yes it is, and a prime example of how media can subtly 'slant' a story.
> >
> > >  However, the article also states, "Their
> > > immediate problem is unemployment. Unofficially it is running at more
> than
> > > 25%. " and "For the last few years per capita income has been falling
> and
> > > many poor Saudis are getting poorer. "  It is almost unheard of in any
> > > nation for these conditions not to result in a large portion of the
> > > population not disliking the leadership.
> >
> > Under what you or I might take as accompanying circumstances.  But this
> > thought occurred to me -- does unemployment equal poverty in Saudi
Arabia?
> > I don't know, but it's a very rich place, and they might have a gold
> > embroidered safety net.
> > (http://www.ain-al-yaqeen.com/issues/19971124/feat8en.htm)
> > I'm reminded of visiting Norway years ago, and seeing these clean, well
> > dressed youth hanging out on park benches.  My friend said "those are
the
> > heroin addicts."  In NYC, put it this way, junkies wish they had it so
> good!
> >
> > Indications are that Saudis live very much in the so-called first world:
> > http://www.ifc.org/camena/saudi.htm
> > http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0107947.html
> >
> > I have yet to dig up anything that supports the claim of 25%
unemployment,
> > but it's undeniable that, like most countries, Saudi Arabia is complex
and
> > changing:
> > http://www.ndu.edu/inss/strforum/forum125.html
> >
> > None of which support eminent revolt...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye (longish)

2001-09-24 by GAmoore@aol.com

Hendrik wrote
>However, the way the US government goes about with it's 
>chesthair-cowboy language mainly gives the impression that they 
>simply need someone to be guilty.

Its so easy to consider America so war like and primitive. However, in 
1915 and 1940, the view in America was we want to stay out of yet another 
war created in Europe. 1950 US army is very poor condition, gues what the 
North Koreans almost push the South Koreans into the sea. Vietnam, 
partitioned into two countries like Korea and Germany, but the North 
wants to attack. Why is it the US doesn't start wars, it finishes them?

Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye

2001-09-24 by Mike Cover

To see what we're up against, with the growing home-grown infection of Islam's fundamentalist-terrorist, whose sole..  taking over the humankind's collective minds by Talabalizing, or at the least,  eliminating/terminating those that challenge Asahma Bin Laden's brand of terror...

The Nazi's appealed to a zealotry that was easily aroused...spiritual purity...to a boiling point...and defeated countries and subcultures in the 30's ...  
This new war with Islamic Extremism...the Lucifer Principle..the struggle for The Global Brain is now "Prime Time", thanks to WTC. 
We're ready to R&R with Mr. T!

...No territorial enemy this time...the "cells" are everywhere...the virus is among-us!  The Islamic Extremist love aspects of technology. ie: Cars=Car Bombs  Airplanes=Petrol Bombs...but...
They won't like our treatment of their leaders, spiritual or military...ready to go to their Valhalla...their paradise!?  What battlegrounds will there be...facing the challenge of this first 21st Century Battle for the Stone Age?
Well...You Asked For It!
http://humangnome.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye

2001-09-24 by Hendrik Jan Veenstra

Thoughts from the mind of marc lindahl, 9/24/01:

>  > From: Adrian Gill <adrian@zarathustra.u-net.com>
>>
>>  There are many euphemisms for war - 'Self-Defense', 'protecting one's
>>  interests', and, by extension, those of one's client states, and the
>>  methods can be political, economic, military. Covert or otherwise.
>
>... and I can see that your definition is, "anything the US has even remote
>involvment in, regarless of context, where lives were lost; tally them up as
>the fault of the US."

I think you completely miss the point.  Someone wrote that the US has 
only killed 'recently' in war-acts.  The problem is one of the old 
chicken & egg.  A countries is in tumoil (or in war with another 
country).  The US feels its interests are being threatened, and steps 
in to secure... whatever, oil supply, other interests.  At the onset, 
it was _not_ (NOT) their war, but they _choose_ to intervene. 
Obviously, you now suddenly can say that anything the US does is a 
war-act (ignoring the simple fact that they mingled in a war not 
their own, out of their own free will).  And so all of a sudden all 
the killing is justified, since it's just "war acts"???

Reasoning this way, you can always justify any killing: first call 
the entire situation 'war', and then defend each act as an 
'unavoidable war-act'.  How's that for logic...


cheers,
HJ, amazed at what his one, rather innocent posting has brought about...
-- 
     Hendrik Jan Veenstra
     email: mailto:h@...
     www:   http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html

Re: [L-OT] Re: Goodbye Apologies

2001-09-24 by Hendrik Jan Veenstra

Thoughts from the mind of Dennis Gunn, 9/24/01:

>In a personal mail Joeri pointed out what he regarded as some
>offensive remarks I made with regard to the ideas of Hendrik Jan
>Veestra.  I strongly disagree with Hendrik but Joeri is right there
>is no need for that or to lower the level of debate.  Even if for no
>other reason than overly strong language makes the user (me) look
>foolish.  My apologies to Hendrik.

Thanks.  You needn't have done this in public -- all the more kudo's 
to you.  No-one needs to agree with anyone, but we're all entitled to 
our opinions, as long as we state them at least moderately 
intelligently (which most of us here do).


cheers,
HJ
-- 
     Hendrik Jan Veenstra
     email: mailto:h@...
     www:   http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html

Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye (longish)

2001-09-24 by Hendrik Jan Veenstra

Thoughts from the mind of GAmoore@..., 9/24/01:

>Hendrik wrote
>>However, the way the US government goes about with it's
>>chesthair-cowboy language mainly gives the impression that they
>>simply need someone to be guilty.
>
>Its so easy to consider America so war like and primitive.

Why is it that so few are able to distinguish between 1) themselves 
as individuals, 2) their people as a collection of individuals bound 
by a few square miles of land and a handful of cultural treats, and 
3) their country as a political entity?

I never said America is war-like and primitive.  Maybe I _think_ so, 
but I didn't _say_ it.  What I _did_ say was that George W. Bush 
utteres primitive and potentially damaging sentences.  This might say 
something about Bush's brain-state (an individual: item 1).  It might 
even say something about the brain-state of the political entity 
(item 3).  It has, however, very little to do with the US nation 
(item 2).
Taking my remarks to mean that I accuse "you people" (US people) of 
being warlike and primitve has therefore little validity.

>Why is it the US doesn't start wars, it finishes them?

This proposition is still very much open to debate.  See a.o. Adrian 
Gills' post.

Apart from that, the above remark has nothing to do with my remarks 
regarding the language the US government sees fit to use.  For all I 
care the US may have saved the world a zillion times before.  That's 
not what I was arguing about.


cheers,
HJ
-- 
     Hendrik Jan Veenstra
     email: mailto:h@...
     www:   http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html

Re: Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye

2001-09-24 by GAmoore@aol.com

I've heard that too. Its no democracy.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>PS - all of which to say is that it's not a "ridiculous claim" that many
>dislike the leader of Saudi Arabia.  It may even be an incorrect claim, when
>all's said and done and you read through the many links and ideas, but it is
>not "ridiculous".

Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye

2001-09-24 by marc lindahl

> From: "Wilson Zorn" <wilson.zorn@...>
> 
> PS - all of which to say is that it's not a "ridiculous claim" that many
> dislike the leader of Saudi Arabia.  It may even be an incorrect claim, when
> all's said and done and you read through the many links and ideas, but it is
> not "ridiculous".

Well, you've convinced me, it's not ridiculous as I had thought.  And it's
obvious that the political climate is tied to energy production, and thus to
the world economic cycles.  It seems they are slowly evolving from a kingdom
(the recent constitution), but is it too slow or not enough, etc. etc. -
shows the difficulty of the region.

Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye

2001-09-24 by marc lindahl

> From: Hendrik Jan Veenstra <h@...>
> 
> I think you completely miss the point.

No, I saw the underlying agenda for what it clearly was.


> it was _not_ (NOT) their war, but they _choose_ to intervene.


As I said in a previous post - learning the lessions of WW-I and II, that
you can't have a totally isolationist policy, and wait for things to get out
of hand.

> Obviously, you now suddenly can say that anything the US does is a
> war-act (ignoring the simple fact that they mingled in a war not
> their own, out of their own free will).  And so all of a sudden all
> the killing is justified, since it's just "war acts"???

Your "logic" makes every makes every effort to cloud the situation, and not
distinguish between terrorism, war, interventions, police actions, or other
forms of participation.

Re: Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye (longish)

2001-09-24 by GAmoore@aol.com

>>Its so easy to consider America so war like and primitive.

Someone famous once said "I am a soldier, so that my sons can be artists 
and musicians". 

However, it seems the musicians don't like the means required to keep the 
peaceful secure land that allows for free thought and comfortable lives 
around the world.

Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye

2001-09-24 by Hendrik Jan Veenstra

Thoughts from the mind of marc lindahl, 9/24/01:

>  > Obviously, you now suddenly can say that anything the US does is a
>  > war-act (ignoring the simple fact that they mingled in a war not
>>  their own, out of their own free will).  And so all of a sudden all
>>  the killing is justified, since it's just "war acts"???
>
>Your "logic" makes every makes every effort to cloud the situation, and not
>distinguish between terrorism, war, interventions, police actions, or other
>forms of participation.

No, it's the original poster who failed to make this distinction.  If 
one says the US only killed people in war-acts, then clearly such a 
person considers every armed conflict to be war-acts.  That's 
precisly the viewpoint I was _opposing_.  Many of these so-called 
"war acts" were simply interventions in defence of e.g. US interests, 
etc.

Besides, isn't it the US _itself_ that's now talking about war?  CNN: 
"America's new war".  Etc.  Isn't that the exact same failure to 
distinguish between 'war' proper, and actions against terrorism, 
which you accuse _me_ from?


HJ
-- 
     Hendrik Jan Veenstra
     email: mailto:h@...
     www:   http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html

Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye

2001-09-24 by marc lindahl

> From: Hendrik Jan Veenstra <h@...>
> 
> No, it's the original poster who failed to make this distinction.  If
> one says the US only killed people in war-acts, then clearly such a
> person considers every armed conflict to be war-acts.  That's
> precisly the viewpoint I was _opposing_.  Many of these so-called
> "war acts" were simply interventions in defence of e.g. US interests,
> etc.

You need to go back and read what I asked.  It was a clear question.  Tell
you what, why don't you venture a distinction between terrorism and war?

Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye

2001-09-25 by Wilson Zorn

An impressionist writing piece?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Cover" <vista500@...>
To: <logic-ot@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2001 12:37 AM
Subject: Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye


> To see what we're up against, with the growing home-grown infection of
Islam's fundamentalist-terrorist, whose sole..  taking over the humankind's
collective minds by Talabalizing, or at the least,  eliminating/terminating
those that challenge Asahma Bin Laden's brand of terror...
>
> The Nazi's appealed to a zealotry that was easily aroused...spiritual
purity...to a boiling point...and defeated countries and subcultures in the
30's ...
> This new war with Islamic Extremism...the Lucifer Principle..the struggle
for The Global Brain is now "Prime Time", thanks to WTC.
> We're ready to R&R with Mr. T!
>
> ...No territorial enemy this time...the "cells" are everywhere...the virus
is among-us!  The Islamic Extremist love aspects of technology. ie: Cars=Car
Bombs  Airplanes=Petrol Bombs...but...
> They won't like our treatment of their leaders, spiritual or
military...ready to go to their Valhalla...their paradise!?  What
battlegrounds will there be...facing the challenge of this first 21st
Century Battle for the Stone Age?
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> Well...You Asked For It!
> http://humangnome.com
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

RE: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye

2001-09-25 by Adam Pendse

> Personally, I think Britain should have pulled out of Northern Ireland and
> let them get on with it.

The Portuguese irresponsibly pulled out of Angola after hundreds of years to
"let them get on with it" which led to the bloodiest of ( vastly ignored)
on-going civil wars.
Britain should have acted more responsibly for the mess they made in Ireland
sooner.

> In fact, Catholic, Protestant- who cares?? Part of UK or part of a united
> Ireland- does it really matter that much. I think these people have
> forgotten what it is all about,  however, those who committed the
> terrorism and those who supported it should be punished.

Terrorist to some, soldier to another. No IRA - no peace-plan. Sad, but
true.
Bush needs to get the Bogey-man fast, so Bin Laden is a dead man innocent or
not.

Best regards,
Adam P

Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye

2001-09-25 by Hendrik Jan Veenstra

Thoughts from the mind of marc lindahl, 9/24/01:

>  > From: Hendrik Jan Veenstra <h@...>
>>
>>  No, it's the original poster who failed to make this distinction.  If
>>  one says the US only killed people in war-acts, then clearly such a
>>  person considers every armed conflict to be war-acts.  That's
>>  precisly the viewpoint I was _opposing_.  Many of these so-called
>>  "war acts" were simply interventions in defence of e.g. US interests,
>>  etc.
>
>You need to go back and read what I asked.  It was a clear question.

In the post I replied to, you didn't ask anything.  You just 
'accused' me of something which I was trying to _refute_.  So imo we 
_agree_.  Gosh...

>Tell you what, why don't you venture a distinction between terrorism and war?

War is an armed conflict between nations -- i.e. political entities 
each occupying a piece of land and each having its own government.
Terrorism is any form of violent attack by a (often minority) group 
on another group.  The group being attacked can be a nation, but as 
soon as the attacker also is anation, it's called 'war'.  Usually the 
terroist action is not condoned by the terrorist group's government 
(if it exists -- with international groups, it makes no sense to talk 
about "its government" of course).
If the terrorists are 'native' to a country (i.e. not an 
international country-less group), and if their country condones 
their actions, then the situation is somewhat unclear.  If such 
terrorists attack a nation (instead of some particluar group of 
individuals), then this nation has every reason to declare war to the 
condoning government.


Surely someone can find some falacy in the above definition.  Go 
ahead.  Maybe I should have written a two-page definition, just to 
cover all eventualities, but I don't feel like doing that right now. 
Besides, I _do_ have work to do sometimes.


cheers,
HJ
-- 
     Hendrik Jan Veenstra
     email: mailto:h@...
     www:   http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html

Definition of Terrorism

2001-09-26 by Kool Musick

Someone asked Hendrik Jan:
> >Tell you what, why don't you venture a distinction between terrorism and 
> war?


Modern -- and I do mean modern -- terrorism is felt to begin with three 
specific acts:
(1)  when the PFLP blew up two planes full of media personnel at Dawson 
Field, Jordan;
(2) when the Japanese United Red Army and the PFLP massacred 26 people at 
Lod Airport;
(3) When the Black September Palestinian group seized and murdered Israeli 
athletes in the Olympic Village.

The other important thing about those events is that 'the West' was stunned 
and did not know how to respond. That very stunned reaction is also 
considered to be a part of terrorism.

The definition of terrorism that the US uses to guide its policy is that 
given by the US Department of Defense. It is also the one accepted as a 
foundation for action by allies of the US:
"a premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against 
non-combatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine state agents 
usually to influence an audience".

Unfortunately, this definition is so broad as to be virtually useless. 
(Please also note that it was first offered in order to help define a very 
specific enemy who seemed to have come up with a new method of making their 
point). The reality is that there is no single reality called 'terrorism'. 
There are different kinds of terrorisms. Some terrorisms only concern 
specific groups (e.g. Shining Path) such that one person's terrorist is 
another's innocent citizen (only the Peruvians are really concerned with 
the Shining Path).

The above definition has been widely adopted simply because it is the 
definition used by the most powerful military power currently in existence. 
It can be and has been manipulated such that it has become little more than 
a means of stating that anyone whom a given group dislikes is automatically 
a terrorist.

Not trying to start another mini-war here.

Just offering my limited knowledge of military history to try to add to the 
attempt to define terrorism made by another master. Please don't flame me. 
If you disagree with the definition, take it up with the US State 
Department and not with me. I am just the messenger and I would rather like 
to survive.

Thank you.

Kool Musick
Keep Musick Kool

Underneath please find Hendrik Jan's attempt:
>War is an armed conflict between nations -- i.e. political entities
>each occupying a piece of land and each having its own government.
>Terrorism is any form of violent attack by a (often minority) group
>on another group.  The group being attacked can be a nation, but as
>soon as the attacker also is anation, it's called 'war'.  Usually the
>terroist action is not condoned by the terrorist group's government
>(if it exists -- with international groups, it makes no sense to talk
>about "its government" of course).
>If the terrorists are 'native' to a country (i.e. not an
>international country-less group), and if their country condones
>their actions, then the situation is somewhat unclear.  If such
>terrorists attack a nation (instead of some particluar group of
>individuals), then this nation has every reason to declare war to the
>condoning government.


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [L-OT] Re: OT Goodbye

2001-09-29 by Mike Cover

Besides, isn't it the US _itself_ that's now talking about war?  hmmm...
[Carefully and dispassionately evaluate the words of those who lead the chants of "Death to America! Death to Israel!" and more. See whether they would sound to some people "a voice of unreasoning hatred" or calm reason. Here is danger more comfortably ignored -- but that would be a fatal error.] 

Full text of speech of Ayatollah al-Udham Sayyed Ali Hussaini Khamene'i on the plight of Muslims delivered on September 26, 2001: 

the Compassionate, the Merciful. 

I welcome all the honorable members of the audience and the honorable families of the martyrs. On the occasion of the blessed month of Rajab I hope the Almighty will grant His special kindness to pious hearts and the honorable families of the dear martyrs. 

These days and nights are very valuable. They are the blessed days of the Almighty. The month of Rajab is a great opportunity for all pious hearts to strengthen their ties with the Almighty. All human beings need this spiritual communion because the forgetful heart will be targeted by the shaitan. When the shaitan takes over the mind and the spirit of a human being corruption in the world will be spread. 

The importance of piety and spirituality 

The true and deep way to combat any form of evil and corruption in the world is to be close to God and to immunize our heart and soul against the shaitan's influence and rule. If shaitan had not ruled the hearts of some of the people who originated major works in human societies, the world would have been able to see peace, mankind would have been able to see security and safety. 

All the miseries of mankind stem from being separated from God. Therefore, in Islam there are opportunities to establish a special connection with God Almighty. One such opportunity is the month of Rajab. We should value the month of Rajab. The prayers said in that month are all lessons. They are not merely tongue wagging. 

Those prayers should be heartfelt and with an awareness of their deep meaning. Let them run through your hearts and tongues. In the month of Rajab and then the month of Sha'ban, a Muslim, young, old, woman or man should have clear and close relations with God in order to prepare themselves for the [fasting] month of Ramadan. Then, the month of Ramadan becomes a divine feast. 

We should prepare before enjoying that feast. "Cleanse yourself before you walk into the tavern" [part of an old Farsi poem]. That cleansing should be done in the months of Rajab and Sha'ban so that one could arrive at the divine feast of Ramadan and benefit from it. 

If we manage to benefit from the month of Ramadan, then we can see progress in our own behavior, manners, outlook and ideology. We become our own judges and we would be able to recognize development. If we do not undergo such tests we would feel the ensuing miseries and problems with all our existence and in the atmosphere of society. We should take advantage of the month of Rajab. 

On the importance of the martyrs and the armed forces 

To you, the families of martyrs, in particular, the issue of martyrs and martyrdom is one of the most outstanding issues in Islam. Our martyrs are not people who have died in a war for hegemony. They are different from those who have been killed in ordinary wars in many parts of the world, where they have attacked the lands of others. 

There is a difference between those and our martyrs. Our country was invaded; our independence was attacked; the honor of this nation was attacked; they shouted abuse at us; all the big powers joined forces against us; the same people in the world who talk so much about peace and security today, they equipped one of the cruelest governments against us; they attacked our home, our cities, our villages, our roads, our installations; they violated our borders. 

If the armed forces had not stood strong and mobilized itself against the enemy, if the Iranian nation, in the form of Basij, had not gone to sacrifice themselves alongside the armed forces, do you know what would have become of the country? 

Do you know how the enemy would have trampled on the honor of this great nation, the dignity of this great nation and the pride of this great nation? This nation, all of us, owe our life to the combatants and the dear martyrs. The martyrs were the ones who demonstrated greater bravery and boldness. They didn't fear danger and they were martyred. Some flew to the heaven and others turned into living-martyrs [the war disabled]. It is the blood of the martyrs, the endeavor of the disabled and the effort of the combatants which brought security and peace to our country. 

Those who speak against the armed forces, who speaks against the Basij forces should understand that they are not serving the interests and the future of the country. The armed forces, be they the organized armed forces or the members of the Basij, who are prepared to enter into battle in order to defend all the people and the borders of the country, are among the most valuable groups in our society. Everyone needs them and this will be realized at the time of danger. 

In its cultural onslaught, the enemy tries to weaken and discredit the resistance of our people, and, in reality, smash the people's resistance and destroy their bastions. The most important bastion of a human being is his bastion of faith, motivation and love. You should not allow these bastions in your hearts to collapse and be destroyed by them. 

Martyrdom, is a pleasant-smelling and scented flower which can only be reached and smelled by those chosen people and those chosen by God from amongst human beings. 

The families of the martyrs should be proud of their martyrs. The ailed spouses, the bereaved mothers and fathers and the children who have never seen their father have experienced these hardships, but now they should feel proud. It was your fathers, husbands and children that were able to bring dignity to this country, which today, thank God, is very precious. If it was not for them, our situation would be different. 

Some issues have been brought up in the world today under the influence of the incidents which occurred in some cities in America. 

The wave of global propaganda, and political moves, continuously fan the flames of biased propaganda reports. World media is controlled by a particular group. World newspapers, radios and television stations are controlled by capitalists, and the rich and powerful. They are not in the hands of ordinary people, or intellectual, pious or wise people. 

They disseminate whatever they like and whatever corresponds with their own interests. They divert them into communication channels of radios, televisions, news agencies and newspapers, and spread them throughout the world and some groups, unaware of what they are doing, take up those reports . Unfortunately, some groups also help them while they do not benefit from what they are doing, but they help such waves of selfishness and arrogance. 

During the past two or three weeks and since the explosions in America turned into global and international matters, our country's officials have adopted some good stances and mentioned some good points. At the same time, I would like to mention a few points in order to inform our dear nation, which, God be praised, is quite alert. 

The first point is that the behavior and remarks of the American government and officials concerning this incident were very arrogant and pretentious and continue to be so. Their remarks do not tally with any kind of logic. Of course, their dignity has been badly harmed, their security reputation has been badly dented, but those are not adequate reasons for resorting to their arrogant image in order to compensate for their humiliation. 

They put on a very angry face to tell the people of the world that: O people of the world, we are angry and you do not dare say anything which would contradict what we are saying. No one should dare say anything different from what they are saying. They think that, through such methods, they can sideline independent people, nations and governments. 

An example of what they say is that whoever is not with us is with the terrorists. That is very wrong. No, that is not the case. Many are on the side of America and are more dangerous than many terrorists of the world. Today, the government of Israel is sheltering the most dangerous of terrorists. Those leading that government have personally ordered and taken part in the most tragic acts of terrorism. Right now they are committing acts of terrorism and they are also on the side of America. 

That is not correct that anyone who is with you is not with the terrorists. No, that is not the case. The most stubborn and evil terrorists are on your side right now. The same applies to the opposite side. Anyone who is not with us [America], is on the side of the terrorists. No, that is not right either. We are not with you and we are not on the side of the terrorists either. [People chant: Allahu Akbar, Khamene'i is the leader, death to America, death to Israel] 

Criticizing US treatment of Muslims 

The second point is that from the early hours after the incident, they made the general atmosphere of their country anti-Islamic. How did you determine in those first hours that Muslims have conducted this act? If your information apparatus is so powerful that from the early hours, the radio and television in America spoke in such a way that everyone believed that it was the work of Muslims, if you are so powerful in information gathering, then why haven't you been able to detect this widespread operation which has definitely taken months and some even say years to plan. How did you realize that it was the Muslims? 

They made the general atmosphere such that people in America attacked mosques and attacked, shot and stabbed those Muslims who had an Islamic appearance. In America and some European countries they made the atmosphere anti-Islamic. 

The American president in his first remarks said that this was a Crusade. The Crusades are the wars which the Christians set out from Europe to capture Bayt al-Muqaddas [Jerusalem]. Those wars lasted for 200 years. At the end, however, Christians and Europeans were defeated by the victorious Muslims who forced them out of the region. The crusade means the battle between Islam and Christianity. 

Why should a senior official be so inconsiderate and unrestrained in his speech if he did not have any ill intentions? Why have they accused the world Muslims of committing a terrorist and disastrous act? They, first, turn the public opinion against Islam and then, officially, tell the people not to attack the Muslims. How could this be possible? 

They have created an atmosphere under which Muslims and Arabs are condemned. They publish Arabic and Islamic names and pictures of people with Arabic attire in their dailies. Do they mean that there was no American or westerner or people with western names among those accused of committing this act? Did they all have Islamic names? Why have not they published those names? They, first, create such an atmosphere, then advise the people not to attack the Muslims and say that Muslims are good. Is such a thing possible? This is a very bad and ugly act with long-lasting repercussions which will not be rectified easily or anytime soon. 

The third point is that in these issues, they have been very demanding. Now that they have been attacked, the Americans expect the entire world to cooperate with them. Why? Because their interests have experienced a blow. Well, this is very demanding. 

Have you ever respected the interests of others, that you now expect everyone to respect yours? In today's world, is the possession of cannons, guns and missiles a permit for a government to say that: It has to be what I say and nothing else? Will the people of the world accept this? It is these that has made America detestable. 

Look and see today in which countries the people are burning the American flag. Everywhere is not Iran. This conference that was recently held in South Africa [the Durban Conference] demonstrated the feelings of the world people, organizations and the different governments. With its bullying and great demands, America has isolated itself. 

If the American interests in the Persian Gulf are threatened, everyone has to cooperate. But if the interests of the Persian Gulf countries are threatened it doesn't matter. Many times they have trampled on the interests of different countries including our country, now they are saying that the whole world has to cooperate with them because their interests have come under attack. This is a great demand. 

On Israeli terrorist acts 

The next point is that in the minds of the American officials the meaning of terrorism is wrong. They define terrorism incorrectly. They define terrorism in such a way that the massacre of the people of Sabra and Shatila - two Palestinian camps in Lebanon, in which men, women and children were all massacred one night on the orders of a person who is at present at the head of the usurper Zionist regime [Ariel Sharon] - is not terrorism. That does not constitute as terrorism in the eyes of the Americans. 

A few years ago, some people gathered in front of the UN office in Qana, in Lebanon, to stage a protest. An Israeli airplane, or helicopter, came along and killed hundreds of them, men, women and children, hungry, thirsty people. They sprayed them with bullets and killed them all. They do not consider that as terrorism. 

Many times they Israelis have kidnapped, killed people in Lebanon. That is not considered as terrorism. A few months ago the usurper government approved that certain Palestinians should be assassinated. They even mentioned the term assassination. They said they should be assassinated, and they assassinated them. They blew up their cars, they killed several people. All that is not considered as terrorism. 

Criticizing America 

But the people of Palestine, who have risen in the defense of their lands and to reclaim their violated rights, who scream with stones in their hands - they have no weapons - are called terrorists. That is the logic of the Americans. Well, that is an incorrect logic. The world will not accept that logic. 

The next point is that, they Americans say: We have no good and bad terrorists, that all terrorists are bad. But in practice they, themselves, divide terrorism into good and bad. In the skies of the Persian Gulf they shoot down an Iranian airliner with hundreds of passengers onboard, without any reason or excuse; they blow up the airplane, tear the people into pieces and drown them in the sea - a clear case of terrorism. But then they give the commander of the warship a prize. 

Where can mankind take that grievance to? Not only do they not put them on trial, not only do they not admonish them, not only do they not apologize to Iran, but they give a prize to the commander of the warship. That is good terrorism. [People chant: Death to America, several times] 

Their logic is wrong. The purport is wrong and they expect the entire world to mobilize behind them for the sake of this wrong purport. Moreover, they expect the rest of the world to help them. That is, not only they expect the world not to protest against them, but they want help from everyone too. 

On US intentions in Central Asia 

On the whole the evidences show that there is something else behind the scene of Afghanistan's issue today. They and their wrath are facing the hapless Afghanistan which has no supporters, because one man - or perhaps 10, 100 or 1,000 people inside that country - are accused of being behind the explosions in New York and other places. But behind the scene, the issue is different. 

Firstly, evidences show that the American government intends to repeat what it did in the Persian Gulf in this region, that is, in Central Asia. They intend to come and establish themselves in this region under the pretext of lack of security here. Evidences show that they intend to do so in Pakistan, the Subcontinent, the Central Asia and in Afghanistan, on the other side of our eastern borders. 

Secondly, they want to settle scores with anyone who defended the oppressed people of Palestine. This is what they are really pursuing, the rest are superficial matters. 

No help for US over Afghanistan 

The next point concern their statements in which they have demanded that Iran should help them. They have asked for various assistance, including intelligence information and other forms of help. I am surprised how they have the audacity to ask the Islamic Republic government and the Iranian nation to help them? 

Over the past 23 years, you have employed everything and all your might to inflict blows on this nation and this country. Now you expect us to help you? What help? Even if the nation of Afghanistan were not Muslims and oppressed and even if they were not our neighbor, your request for assistance would have been misplaced. Let alone the fact that the nation of Afghanistan is oppressed and deprived. Truly, one feels sorry for the people of Afghanistan. 

You the American government expect assistance from the Islamic Republic. No, we shall not offer any assistance to America and its allies in their attack on Afghanistan. [People chanting Allahu Akbar, Khamene'i is our leader, death to America, death to Israel] 

Doubting America's sincerity 

In the final analysis, we doubt the sincerity of the American government's intention to combat terrorism. It is insincere and does not tell the truth. It has other aims. 

We do not think that America is qualified to lead an international movement against terrorism. America's hands are soiled with all the crimes committed by the Zionist regime in the recent years, which it is currently continuing with utmost ruthlessness and violence. Destroying people's houses with tanks. America is supporting this. 

Such a government lacks the necessary qualification to lead an international movement against terrorism. Everybody should know this, and our country's officials have also stated this in private gatherings and meetings. I also would like to repeat it for the benefit of our public and the world. Everybody should know that Iran, the Islamic Iran, will not participate in any movement that is led by America. [People chanting Allahu Akbar, Khamene'i is our leader, death to America, death to Israel] 

Fight against terrorism is Jihad 

Of course, the fight against terrorism and the fight against those who undermine the people's security is an essential fight. It is a must. It is a Jihad. Anyone who can take part in this fight, must do so. But this is a global movement and therefore should have a moral leader. 

Over the past few days our officials have declared that we are ready to help and join this movement under the auspices of the United Nations. Yes, let me say that the UN is good but there is one condition. And that is, the UN should not be influenced by America and other major powers. Otherwise, if the UN and its Security Council or other departments were to be influenced by them by the American administration and other major powers, one could not trust the UN either. We do not have good experience over such matters in the past. 

Here, the Islamic governments shoulder a heavy burden of responsibility. They must enter the arena as a global movement against terrorism, against violation of the people's lives and against violence which infringes the daily life of human citizens. They must enter the arena as an immense humanitarian movement. This is a great obligation and the Organization of the Islamic Conference is duty-bound in this respect. We, as members of the OIC, believe that one of the essential obligations of this organization is to enter this arena, it is a must. It must, however, be present in this arena independently. It must not be a subservient to this or that power. 

On the other hand, the issue of Afghanistan's nation is raised today. The nation of Afghanistan is a Muslim nation. It is part of the Islamic ummah. 

On the plight of Afghans 

The innocent people of Afghanistan have committed no crime. Are the lives of those who died in the World Trade Center in New York more precious than those of the people of Afghanistan? Why? Is it because their collars are dirty? Is it because they have been deprived of hygiene, nourishment, peace of mind and security, all because of people who for many years were lackeys of the big powers? Is that the reason? 

Before the events in Afghanistan, the coup d'etat twenty odd years ago, those who were in power were lackeys of the big powers. Then the communists came into power; they were affiliated to the Soviet Union. And what happen then, the people know and can see. 

The interference of the powers has determined the fate of the people of Afghanistan in recent years. These are the reasons for the poverty and backwardness of the people of Afghanistan. Otherwise the people of Afghanistan are freedom loving, with a very rich and ancient culture, they are brave, very talented. 

We know the people of Afghanistan. We have lived together for centuries. We know that they are very talented people. They are not inferior to any other people in the world. And they have so many stronger points. What crime have they committed that they should be the victims of various objectives and policies? The Organization of the Islamic Conference and Islamic governments have a duty here. 

They must act wisely and rationally and do not allow the Afghan people to be harmed. Even if a few terrorists - we cannot be certain of this of course, this being a claim by the Americans - have camps there. Well, Afghan people should not have to pay for sins committed by them. Why should they be trampled on? 

We ask God to bestow His Grace on Islam the Muslims [People say Aamin]. We ask God to protect Islamic countries against their enemies [People say Aamin]. Gladly, our government and nation have been treading on its own correct path with patience, wisdom, calmness and steadfastness. Our government and nation will continue on the same correct and dignified road. May God bless this country and nation and keep them in the prayers of Hadhrat Baqiyatullah (AJ) [People chanting God is our protector and Khamene'i is our leader]. 





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  When the Khomeiniyya overthrew the Shah, the aircraft parts in the Persian warehouses were inaccessible due to their lack of computer expertise. So they purchased missiles and spare parts from Israel. The United States replaced Israel's stockpiles with newer munitions and improved models. The Contras in Nicaragua received the profits and we had the Iran-Contra scandals. 

  Israel sits to the west of the Arab nations of the Holy Land, Persia to the east. Their common interest is containing Iraq and Syria and other Arab nations, and preventing Arab unification. 

  For at least the last two years, Persian has been acquiring weapons of mass destruction from Israel, according to our sources -- biological and chemical weaponry. Of course with the sale to Communist China of American technology and weapons systems, Israel might not have needed the money from Iran, but that's just business, after all. 

  Who are America's enemies and how do they stand -- openly apart and secretly together -- against us, and what is their excuse that they feed their respective peoples? How has America been made into the appearance of the enemy of humanity? Who is really the enemy of humanity? Where will they strike next? 

  was-salaam,
  ankaboot
  -- 
  Rejoice, muslims, in martyrdom without fighting,
  a Mercy for us. Be like the better son of Adam. 






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Move to quarantaine

This moves the raw source file on disk only. The archive index is not changed automatically, so you still need to run a manual refresh afterward.