At 9:32 AM +0200 10/9/01, Sascha Franck wrote:
>Not even that the US has the highest energy consumption per person, it also
>has the (way!) highest meat consumption per person and we all know that this
>is an ecological tragedy (7 plant calories for 1 meat calory without even
>thinking about the results of that) which also causes an economical tragedy
>for some parts of the world (producing the required plant calories).
>
>And yes, such things (and their follow-ups) are the reason for the US to be
>one of the major targets for terrorism.
Utter nonsense. There is simply no foundation for this statement as
it relates to this incident and, as I have said before, I strongly
suggest you look at exactly how much sympathy the terrorists actions
have gained for *their* causes before you start intimating they were
acting to promote *your* causes. As much as I may sympathize with
and, yes, support the environmental movement this type of tactic
makes me embarrassed to admit any kind of association with anyone in
it.
>Also, now we all have to agree with the US (at least allmost all the
>european governments do), but what about let's say Kyoto? "Oh, sorry, we are
>the US, our economical wealth is more important than some stupid environment
>protection".
>But with the WTC attacks everybody expects us to be and agree with you, eh?
>Not me, sorry (don't get me wrong, I'm with all the poor innocent people
>being killed in the WTC).
I have no idea what you are saying. Do you think the WTC attack had
something to do with Kyoto. What is the connection in your mind
between these issues. Is it something like being opposed to the use
of toilet paper because of the harmful effects of pulp mills on the
environment and therefore not being able to take the side of butt
wipers when they are attacked by other butt wipers because you are
militant butt washer?
>What about the Taliban? They have existed before, they have been as bad
>before. Did anybody EVER care about that? The answer simply is no. First
>time people were interested was when the "Shelter Now" employees were
>arrested.
Wrong on all counts. There has been an international uproar about
their activities for years. Until now there have simply been no
legitimate grounds for intervention that the Muslim world would agree
with. If recent events added to their track record do not qualify in
your book as grounds for intervention I guess we don't have much to
talk about.
>What about bin Laden? Since when has he been announcing his fight against
>the US? Certainly not only since 09|11|2001. Has the mighty CIA done
>anything against that? Again the answer is no because none of their famous
>agents wants to live surrounded by fatalist muslims, only wants to breath
>hot and dusty air without any women and alcohol around (this is not like a
>OO7/Timothy Dalton movie). So the El-Quaida hasn't been infiltered at all
>(neither has ANY islamic fundamentalistic organisation been infiltered).
So what are you saying? Are you complaining because the CIA was not
active enough? I'm pretty sure that if they had been more active you
would be bitching about *that* so it's pretty clear there would be no
pleasing you either way. Why didn't *you* infiltrate the Taliban?
>Also, as long as it was good for their position, the US government has
>supported radical fundamentalists in Afghanistan (the Mudjahiddin fighting
>the former USSR). Now, all of a sudden they are bad, huh?
What "all of a sudden"?!?! Have you been following the news relating
to the for the past few years at all?
>Don't tell me you care about peace in the world, ALL the western countries
>(usually) only care about things when their OWN interests/people are
>attacked. I can't stand those pseudo "we are the saviour of peace in the
>world" approaches any longer.
Don't tell me you know what *I* care about because you clearly don't.
--
Dennis Gunn
Mightyjohn@...
check out MIGHTY JOHN HENRY's album "hot air head"
info at
http://www.twics.com/~mightyjo/home.htmlMessage
Re: [L-OT] OT^2 - Thanks
2001-10-09 by Dennis Gunn