The Logic Off Topic list

>might be a small part of a much larger
>American agenda in the middle east (not explained to the press for
>political reasons)

I've noticed that people from repressive regimes often think there is a 
conspiracy in everything. I think the "American agenda" is to maintain 
stability in the region and prevent world terror. The various governments 
have a secret plan to stay in power rather than be strung up by fanatical 
mobs and have their countries returned to 5th century standards of 
living. There it is, I let the cat out of the bag. Now you know the 
secret motivation. Damn, I shouldn't have opened my big mouth. 


Spectro-bin-Laden wrote
>The following is taken from an article which is based on a letter
>sent  to Al-Quds al-Arabi, an Arabic newspaper published in
>London entitled "Declaration of the World Islamic Front for Jihad
>against the Jews and the Crusaders" and can be viewed at:
>
>"Since God laid down the Arabian peninsula, created its desert,
>and surrounded it with its seas, no calamity has ever befallen
>it like these Crusader hosts that have spread in it like locusts,
>crowding its soil, eating its fruits, and destroying its verdure;

Lets see, blaming a group of foreigners for a locust attack - however the 
very first line mentions deserts which are mostly barren by definition. I 
see, so the crusaders brought the locusts in locust cages and then set 
them lose to devour the sand of the desert, and then after that, the dry 
barren desert was changed into ...... a dry barren dessert. Very 
rational. Actually, maybe the locusts were the only source of protein in 
the dessert and these were a gift for the occupiers of Christian holy 
sites. Primitive people always ascribe God to anything they can't 
understand or control. 

Spectro, why don't you try debating with valid issues and sound facts. I 
am wondering why some of the most anti-American speakers are also unable 
to debate using facts and sound reasoning.

On Thu, 11 Oct 2001 GAmoore@... wrote:

> >might be a small part of a much larger
> >American agenda in the middle east (not explained to the press for
> >political reasons)
> 
> I've noticed that people from repressive regimes often think there is a 
> conspiracy in everything. I think the "American agenda" is to maintain 
> stability in the region and prevent world terror. The various governments 
> have a secret plan to stay in power rather than be strung up by fanatical 
> mobs and have their countries returned to 5th century standards of 
> living. There it is, I let the cat out of the bag. Now you know the 
> secret motivation. Damn, I shouldn't have opened my big mouth. 

My response was to Dennis, who was confused about why anyone would find
his analogy to be a gross oversimplification of the political situation at
hand.  What I said was that it's naive to believe it's as simple as all
that... and it is.  There's a lot to the story beyond what they're telling
us in the press briefings, which isn't to say that there's a deliberate
conspiracy here... just that (among other things) there has to be a clear
and to-the-point statement of purpose and motive on behalf of the
government to its people for the purpose of gaining support for its
actions.  That statement is obviously not going to include (for any of
several reasons) long-winded detail clarifying the exact nature of the
conflict, all of our motives for overthrowing the Taliban and installing a
US-friendly government in its place (That some Muslims will surely see as
another "puppet"), the suspected master plans of various extremist
dictators that must be thwarted, a history of Islam since the Crusades,
what our relationship is with all these other middle-eastern governments,
etc., etc., etc... all very relevant and all very absent from too much
public opinion, discourse, and less-than-modestly suggested plans of
action.  (I heard one ex-military political commentator say the solution
to end terrorism is to /nuke/ Iran (!))

No, to hear the cheerleaders summarize it, faultless innocent USA suffered
a horrible unprovoked attack by misguided cowards, so we're bombing their
country because they won't surrender a suspect.  What's not to understand?

...Which means that there's going to be a lot of public discourse at a
level where participants aren't working with all the relevant 
facts...  because they haven't any insight on what's going on beyond what
they've heard from the political speeches and rallying cries from
public officials that have everything to gain from a supportive public in
accomplishing a long list of political ends (one of which, I concede, is
ending terrorism).

A lot of insight can be gained from listening to what political
commentators on all sides have to say about it... The history of the
conflict from several points of view, including (and perhaps most
importantly) those of the terrorist-sympathizers themselves.

Accepting a distorted, simplified version of the truth, and
underestimating what we're up against by failing to question and
investigate is as dangerous to our own proper understanding as it is to
that of the oppressed underclasses in the Middle East when they believe
unquestioningly the propaganda spread by bin Laden or the Taliban.
We've seen what they can do when they believe his simplified version
of what motivates US military action in the Middle East-- "infidels
declare war on Islam."  Of course, we don't believe we're declaring war on
Islam... any more than they believe they're declaring war on freedom.
These are just bullshit war cries, not explanations or just causes.
They're just there to get people to fight.  Not unlike kids on a
playground saying something like "Dude, did you hear what Mikey said about
your mom?  I'd kick his ass!"

"Dude, when bin Laden sent his cowards to destroy the WTC and the
Pentagon, he was attacking us because we're FREE!  Let's bomb his ass!"

"Dude, America is occupying the holyland, starving millions with an Iraqi
embargo, supporting Israel's terrorism of Palestine, and CRUSADING against
Afghanistan because they're trying to destroy Islam!  Let's Jihad!"

Both false, but both believed.  Both also succeed at motivating war.

-Denizen

This is very true, Sandi-man hussain had a green light to go and capture
some disputed oil fields on the Kuwaiti boarders, but everyone was surprised
that he has gone too far. The Gulf war was about oil companies not about
people and its being paid for until this day "there is nothing for free",
morals only come to work when they serve some interests... In the west there
seems to be a democracy and its true that you can say what you like, but
most ordinary people are just brain washed by the media and "MOST OF the"
media is in fact tightly controlled unlike what it seems to be. I can say
this from comparing events  about Palestine reported on CNN and Al-jazeera
Arabic network, CNN always does a good job at hiding some facts and
presenting the news out of context so you think what they want you to
think....


> Similarly, it is said that Saddam Hussein invaded Koweit only because
> Americans assured him that they wouldn't react.

>I've noticed that people from repressive regimes often think there is a
>conspiracy in everything. I think the "American agenda" is to maintain
>stability in the region and prevent world terror.

Maybe that's why America has a habit of supporting and financing the 
most brutal dictatures in the world, including the Taliban regime 
until recently ?

According to some, the "American agenda" is very obvious :

- control the pipelines between Central Asia republics and Indian ocean
- install military bases so that they can balance Russia and China, 
which in the long run are their main obstacles for world domination
- fight recession by militarization of the economy
- break all anti-imperialist resistance in the world.

In light of this it makes perfect sense to finance terrorism because 
it gives you a good reason to intervene militarily.

Similarly, it is said that Saddam Hussein invaded Koweit only because 
Americans assured him that they wouldn't react. Similarly, it is said 
that Churchill allowed the state of Israel to be created in Palestine 
because he knew it would cause a tension such that England would be 
"forced" to intervene militarily, preventing Palistine to become 
independant (following other English colonies) and leave England's 
sphere of influence. I don't know if all this is true, but to me it 
doesn't sound more crazy than USA fighting for freedom all around the 
world.

>Spectro-bin-Laden wrote

Anything goes

>Primitive people always ascribe God to anything they can't
>understand or control.

The most "primitive people" are the ones who believe there is such a 
thing as "primitive people".

GA Moore wrote:

>Primitive people always ascribe God to anything they can't
>understand or control.

Kind Sir ... be very careful indeed what you choose to say about primitive 
people for _I_ am one of them.

What I cannot control is that, entirely because of the colour of my skin, I 
am immersed in a world in which 1/3rd of the people I meet are unfailingly 
unpleasant to me for no reason I can understand. WHY exactly?

I therefore ascribe to the god in which I believe the following myth: that 
they are all really very pleasant people underneath it all ... but that at 
present they are just plain ignorant and that one day everyone I meet will 
be kind to me because they will all know more, and that in knowing more 
they will be wiser. What is wrong, Sir, with such a myth and with such a 
prayer? And ... what is wrong with subscribing to a god who gives one the 
strength to continue thinking and behaving like that? What is wrong with 
it, exactly?

Thank you very much but that is one myth that I fully intend to keep 
clinging on to. I shall do so because the alternatives -- that I actually 
DESERVE the way I am being treated, or else that those who do such things 
are unredeemably evil and bigoted and everlastingly incapable of holding 
and sustaining any degree of kindness towards one so different from 
themselves -- those alternatives seem to me to be far too horrible to 
contemplate.

You ... you believe what you like.

I cannot understand or control why people are so objectionable to me on so 
many occasions that I can do nothing about; but I ascribe to the gods in 
whom I believe the fact that there does indeed exist something worthy and 
noble within them that it is my DUTY to perceive and my DUTY to react to 
rather than the manner in which they have chosen to conduct themselves. And 
... as I do for all of those persons, so do I intend to do for you. Thank 
you very much but I fully intend to keep on being 100% primitive in that 
regard.

>... why don't you try debating with valid issues and sound facts. I
>am wondering why some of the most anti-American speakers are also unable
>to debate using facts and sound reasoning.

Well it may be, and it may not be, that _I_ am one of those whom you have 
chosen to style an 'anti-American', but I am fast getting beyond caring, to 
be honest what your opinion is. I subscribe, with every fibre of my body, 
and with every shred of belief in the gods to whom I dedicate my life, as I 
am sure you would also say that you do to the following grand myth:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, 
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, 
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".

Well -- it's very obvious to me that a goodly number of people that I bump 
into do not believe that that myth applies to me. No, Sir, they do not. 
Would that they did. My life would be a lot easier. So ... which of us is 
the more primitive, Sir ... me for holding to fast to that great myth of 
our time even in the face of provocation, or they for deciding, 
arbitrarily, that its courtesies should not be extended to me? And please 
do not even begin to try to tell me that I am imagining this kind of 
treatment. I am not quite as primitive -- by which you clearly meant stupid 
-- as that. I am quite sure I could debate the history of structuralism 
within linguistics with any of them but it doesn't seem to do me a shred of 
good, actually.

And then ... regarding the question of facts and exactly what they are. 
There is a philosophical study that I am quite sure you are at least 
vaguely familiar with called epistemology. Its first great proponents were 
Plato and Aristotle who both tried to systematize the nature of facts and 
what one could do with them. They were concerned with 'rational reasoning' 
once 'facts' had been gathered together so that further facts could be 
elucidated. Clearly, any attempt at rational reasoning in order to produce 
facts requires a beginning. Plato felt that there must be at least one 
First and Ultimate Fact that simply cannot be argued with. Therefore ... 
what is a First and Ultimate Fact? Without such a thing there is surely no 
basis to proceed further. So ... that is what those ancient thinkers 
attended to. Where is such a First and Supremely Almighty Unarguable Fact 
to be found?

Of course ... they could not find any such fact although many candidates 
were offered. And ... without a first such fact it's a bit hard to grasp 
what on earth use is served by rational reasoning, frankly.

But ... to this matter Plato took what is called the 'naturalistic' 
approach. He and his followers have always insisted that there are certain 
things that simply ARE. Since the whole thing was ultimately bound up with 
language, it became an argument about words and how words could have 
meaning. Plato tried to argue that it is just 'obvious' that apple is apple 
from the sound of the word and because it simply does evoke the image of 
apple because that's what the sound does. The French say 'pomme' for 
example and somehow come up with exactly the same image. This one-to-one 
connection between sound and object is plainly ridiculous which even Plato 
was forced to concede ... although the naturalist philosophy has always had 
its proponents. Aristotle took a different approach. It is called 
'conventionalism'. On this approach ... well ... at some point or other 
there might have been some kind of grand council meeting amongst all the 
people who had desired to use language, and they just came to some kind of 
generalized agreement that when this particular sound was made, that 
particular thing was meant. In the Aristotelian or conventionalist 
approach, the association between word and idea is entirely arbitrary. Of 
course, the problem here is that there is no record anywhere in any human 
folk memory or anywhere else that any such meeting ever took place. And 
even if it did ... so what? Why should any such convention be felt to bind 
generations yet unborn in perpetuity?

Deciding what a 'fact' is is clearly very slippery.

There is a fallacy in epistemology and language regarding the history of 
words. It is called 'the etymological fallacy'. This means that just 
because a word used to mean one thing at one time does not mean that it is 
obliged to keep on meaning the same thing ever afterwards. Nevertheless ... 
the etymology of words is a most interesting subject that I would commend 
to anybody. It gives a very good guide to how the users of words have 
thought throughout both their history and the history of those words.

In this respect the word 'fact' is of very particular interest. The word 
'fact' means 'a thing done'. In its more active sense, a 'fact' is merely 
an act that has been undertaken ... or else a deed that has been engaged 
upon ... or else a feat that has been performed. A fact is something that 
is created by an activity or an interaction. Even Plato, perhaps the 
biggest naturalist there has ever been, was forced to concede that much.

Please observe, Sir, that a 'fact' is not some pristine 'thing' that exists 
'out there' in all its pristine glory. A cursory review of epistemology 
would indicate that much, although there are those who stick to the strict 
Platonic approach and still try to argue the point. No, Sir. A 'fact' is 
quite something else. A 'fact' is a deliberate act of 'noticing' and 
'regarding' by someone or some body who is particularly interested in that 
fact. Facts, after all, go in cohorts, and facts therefore and immediately 
lead to the thorny issue of the classification of facts which is another 
great epistemological study. On what basis are things, and so-called facts, 
to be classified? And ... what is to be done with the system of 
classification itself. Is it also a fact or what?

So ... such issues have been evaded, for otherwise one cannot proceed, the 
business of 'pertinent facts', however they have been gathered, is so that 
a person can then go forth and try to build a 'rational theory' based upon 
those observations. So therefore ... Euclid, as but one example, observed 
the 'fact' that two parallel lines, if drawn on and on in perpetuity will 
never meet. This 'fact' was in fact a myth of gargantuan proportions 
because such a thing cannot by its very nature ever be observed by any 
human. One must therefore take it on trust. Or not ... as is one's choice. 
But nevertheless, upon this 'fact' or myth of truly cosmic proportions, the 
Ancient Greeks constructed a system of geometry -- a geometry -- that has 
lasted until today and is still held up as a symbol of excellence and sound 
reasoning. Although ... how one can reason soundly upon a myth of such 
stature is a topic widely debated in the mathematical logic and the 
philosophy of mathematics. That this 'theory' or 'fact' regarding parallel 
lines was entirely bogus was eventually demonstrated by Janos Bolyai, Karl 
Friedrich Gauss, Bernhard Riemann and a few other eighteenth century and 
later geometers of note who were eventually able to construct perfectly 
valid systems of geometry -- i.e. systems of reasoning -- based upon other 
'facts' (also of course great myths) which did not accept Euclid's 
trenchant declaration about parallel lines.

And ... in our own era Albert Einstein has constructed a most beautiful 
theory of light and relativity based upon the fact, an assumption of metric 
space, that 'the time it takes for light to travel from A to B is equal to 
the time it takes to travel from B to A'. Probably totally bogus that 
declaration, tucked away in a footnote to his paper somewhere, but since it 
explains the observed universe better than pretty much anything else I for 
one am happy to accept it as a working proposition.

The primitive and tribal person that I am, though, would like to point out 
to one and all that probably in a few generations or so someone else with 
come up with an equally startling new 'fact' that we will all then happily 
accept.

One person's 'fact' is another person's 'myth', Sir.

Me ... I come from a primitive culture where we have a plethora of gods and 
stupidities that we use to guide our lives. In spite of that, I have done 
absolutely everything I can to learn about the world in which I live, and 
to try to understand the thought patterns of those who control my life 
because they have absolute control of this planet and absolute control of 
my society and they somehow think it appropriate to go around assassinating 
the leaders of my country who struggle for the right of self-determination 
so that the only thing left for us is for complete idiots to take control 
-- and then to be told that it's all our fault because we can't get 
effective leaders. It gets a tad annoying after a while as I'm sure you 
will agree. May the gods and the Ancestors protect me from becoming a 
terrorist in response to that kind of rank stupidity.

Try myths, Mr. Moore. Maybe ... human beings are not defined by the facts 
they hold in common but rather by the myths they are jointly prepared to 
recognize and subscribe to.

I have my stock of myths. I subscribe to the myth that one day I will walk 
up and be living in a truly glorious and wonderful world in which everybody 
makes an effort to try to understand everybody else -- and in which I am 
not obliged to read any more fatuous and ludicrous pronouncements about my 
forefathers and my ancestors. That is my myth, Sir. And I am surely 
entitled to it.

I can't say that your facts are of any great interest to me any more. My 
myth is a lot more comforting to me and I just pray that tomorrow a few 
more people will share it.

But then again ... what do I know? Me ... I am just a primitive man. Born 
into a primitive tribe. Most of my compatriots are still stuck in the wilds 
of Africa. And yes ... we're probably all really rather stupid, actually. 
Many of us ... and I mean members of my own extended family here ... are 
still unable able to read. Probably because they're stupid, or something. 
You know. Primitive. Never heard of Plato. How much more primitive can you get?

The genetic evidence is very clear, Sir, that every human being on this 
planet was descended from a small group of no more than about 500 women who 
lived in north central Africa several million years ago. From there, the 
whole of this species, in which I am intemperate enough to include myself, 
spread out. And then, one fine day, some of them crossed the seas in ships 
and went back to where they came from. And for some reason that still 
baffles almost an entire continent those who returned started raping and 
pillaging and stealing and denying us our very humanity. They are still 
doing it. Why, for God's sake? Oh yes ... because we were primitive then, 
and we are still primitive now. Yes. That must be it. We are so primitive 
that when we were fighting for our independence every leader we threw up 
with a voice that could be heard somehow and mysteriously came to a sticky 
end just so that the goods and resources could keep flowing out of Africa. 
We, of course, were way too stupid to notice such a thing and we certainly 
deserved the tyrants and despots who those good people selected and 
supported to govern us instead. Probably, we deserved it.

I am, Sir, a primitive person. And I am proud of my heritage. Why should I 
not be? We make great music, to begin with. In case you hadn't noticed.

Mostly, though, I identify with my primitive ancestors because I have seen 
with my own eyes how civilized people conduct themselves. There is just way 
too much of it that is not at all to my liking. It is not to my liking for 
I suffer almost daily from the wounds and the humiliations that they choose 
to inflict on me in their 'oh-so-civilized' way. The fact that I can debate 
Nietzche with any of them, even with you, Sir, if you wanted, just doesn't 
seem to matter, much, actually when it comes time to find a job or buy a 
house or any of those other little things.

If I were to ask the other members of this group who was the more 
primitive, you for making that remark or me for writing this email, what do 
you think they would all say, Sir? And please do not prevaricate and begin 
with justifications about what you actually meant. I know what you meant. I 
have been called primitive before and I know exactly what the word means 
and what people mean by it. They mean by it my parents. That is what they 
mean. MY parents.

The next time, kind Sir, that you feel like sending off an email with some 
fatuous and ridiculous remark about 'primitive people'. be so kind as to 
remember that one of them is a member of the Logic Off-Topic Users Group 
and will be reading what you have to say about him and his family.

It was you, Sir, who pointed out that the best way to have a peace is to 
ready yourself for war. Well ... I am readying myself. My hand is rising, 
Sir. You just make another foolish remark like that and we shall all see 
what I do with it and which part of your anatomy it comes down upon and at 
what speed. I would like it to come down extended in friendship, actually, 
Sir, and to embrace you with it ... but I am finding it very difficult 
indeed to do that right now. Probably because I am just a primitive.

Who knows. Maybe tomorrow I will be as civilized as you are. I can only 
hope so, Sir.

All I can promise to do is make the effort. And I WILL make the effort. 
What you choose to do tomorrow and how you choose to treat other people on 
this list is entirely your business. What I promise is that I will be 
kinder and more considerate to them tomorrow than I have been today. That 
is what I have learned from my gods and from my ancestors.

Kool Musick
Keep Musick Kool


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

GAmoore@... rote:
>
>Spectro-bin-Laden wrote
>>The following is taken from an article which is based on a letter
>>sent  to Al-Quds al-Arabi, an Arabic newspaper published in
>>London entitled "Declaration of the World Islamic Front for Jihad
>>against the Jews and the Crusaders" and can be viewed at:
>>
>>"Since God laid down the Arabian peninsula, created its desert,
>>and surrounded it with its seas, no calamity has ever befallen
>>it like these Crusader hosts that have spread in it like locusts,
>>crowding its soil, eating its fruits, and destroying its verdure;
>
>Lets see, blaming a group of foreigners for a locust attack - however the
>very first line mentions deserts which are mostly barren by definition. I
>see, so the crusaders brought the locusts in locust cages and then set
>them lose to devour the sand of the desert, and then after that, the dry
>barren desert was changed into ...... a dry barren dessert. Very
>rational. Actually, maybe the locusts were the only source of protein in
>the dessert and these were a gift for the occupiers of Christian holy
>sites. Primitive people always ascribe God to anything they can't
>understand or control.

Real Clever. That's a truly pathetic analysis. Do you even know why
that quotations is there? I doubt it. No, you just see it as some kind
of literal statement to be ridiculed (and misinterpreted) as  a lame
argument.

>Spectro, why don't you try debating with valid issues and sound facts. I
>am wondering why some of the most anti-American speakers are also unable
>to debate using facts and sound reasoning.

That is probably because some of the most pro-American speakers (namely
yourself and Mr Gunn) insistently twist and corrupt selected elements of my
posts while quite often ignoring the overall point, in order to find some  way
to make  me  look like  something I am not (and often insult me in the
process).
I can understand  your anger, though your twisted selective logic confounds me.

And by the way, what sound facts and reasoning do you call on to refer to me
as 'Spectro-bin-Laden'.  Swallow your own medicine or don't bother me...


S.

>>>"Since God laid down the Arabian peninsula, created its desert,
>>>and surrounded it with its seas, no calamity has ever befallen
>>>it like these Crusader hosts that have spread in it like locusts,
>>>crowding its soil, eating its fruits, and destroying its verdure;
>>Lets see, blaming a group of foreigners for a locust attack - however the
>>very first line mentions deserts which are mostly barren by definition. I
>>see, so the crusaders brought the locusts in locust cages and then set
>>them lose to devour the sand of the desert, and then after that, the dry
>>barren desert was changed into ...... a dry barren dessert. Very
>>rational. 
>Real Clever. That's a truly pathetic analysis. Do you even know why
>that quotations is there? I doubt it. No, you just see it as some kind
>of literal statement to be ridiculed (and misinterpreted) as  a lame
>argument.

If its not to be taken literally, then it should be taken figuratively. 
In this context, it would imply that the Crusaders were the cause of all 
their problems. Again, I ask, is that rational? Thats like the Europeans 
blaming all the crime on the Turks, Gypsies, or Jews depending on the 
decade. There is always some group to blame for your own problems, isn't 
there?

>No, to hear the cheerleaders summarize it, faultless innocent USA suffered
>a horrible unprovoked attack by misguided cowards, so we're bombing their
>country because they won't surrender a suspect.  What's not to understand?

I heard a commentator today describe it nicely. Imagine a factory that 
turns out terrorists like Al Quaeda. They take in Allegerians, Egyptians, 
etc and turn them into terrorists. It takes a lot of work and luck to 
catch each one of these guys as they enter the US with bombs or try to 
bomb something. We really can't keep up with all of them. So its 
necessary to shut down the factory. 

Each 5,000 pound GBU-28 'bunker buster' ordance is a good start on 
curtailing the output of the factory.

By the way, who voted for the Taliban anyway? They are no different than 
Al Capones taking charge of the place by force.

On Fri, 12 Oct 2001 GAmoore@... wrote:

> >No, to hear the cheerleaders summarize it, faultless innocent USA suffered
> >a horrible unprovoked attack by misguided cowards, so we're bombing their
> >country because they won't surrender a suspect.  What's not to understand?
> 
> I heard a commentator today describe it nicely. Imagine a factory that 
> turns out terrorists like Al Quaeda. They take in Allegerians, Egyptians, 
> etc and turn them into terrorists. It takes a lot of work and luck to 
> catch each one of these guys as they enter the US with bombs or try to 
> bomb something. We really can't keep up with all of them. So its 
> necessary to shut down the factory. 
> 
> Each 5,000 pound GBU-28 'bunker buster' ordance is a good start on 
> curtailing the output of the factory.

No effort that focuses on destruction of soldiers, politicians, weapons,
or facilities will succeed in preventing future attacks.  So long as there
is such anger, determination, and misunderstanding on both sides, the
conflict will continue.

> By the way, who voted for the Taliban anyway? They are no different than 
> Al Capones taking charge of the place by force.

Agreed.  But isn't that the way things usually work?  Doesn't might make
right?  Did the Native Americans vote for Europe? :-)

-Denizen

>  > Similarly, it is said that Saddam Hussein invaded Koweit only because
>  > Americans assured him that they wouldn't react.

At 6:01 AM +0800 10/12/01, LogicBaby wrote:
>This is very true, Sandi-man hussain had a green light to go and capture
>some disputed oil fields on the Kuwaiti boarders, but everyone was surprised
>that he has gone too far.

And this is the typical quality of distortion that people use to vilify the US.

Hussein asked a highly elliptical question to a low level diplomat 
who not only did not seem to understand what was being asked but in 
no way had the authority to approve of the action.  Yes she made a 
mistake in her response.  No that does not make the US responsible 
for the invasion of Kuwait.   The people who do the action are 
responsible are they not?

If you ask a traffic cop at an intersection if he minds if you go 
through the intersection and, thinking you mean after the light 
changes,  he nods his head, does that make it OK for you to 
immediately push the pedal to the floor knowing you will run over and 
kill 50 pedestrians?


>  The Gulf war was about oil companies not about
>people and its being paid for until this day "there is nothing for free",
>morals only come to work when they serve some interests... In the west there
>seems to be a democracy and its true that you can say what you like, but
>most ordinary people are just brain washed by the media and "MOST OF the"
>media is in fact tightly controlled unlike what it seems to be.

Yes we're mostly  just zombies marching in lock step to the evil beat 
of the CNN drum.

>I can say
>this from comparing events  about Palestine reported on CNN and Al-jazeera
>Arabic network, CNN always does a good job at hiding some facts and
>presenting the news out of context so you think what they want you to
>think....

Is Al-jazeera unbiased?
-- 


                                 Dennis Gunn
                                 Mightyjohn@...

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

At 4:18 PM -0500 10/11/01, denizen@... wrote:
>
>No, to hear the cheerleaders summarize it, faultless innocent USA

My analogy did not include anything like this.



>suffered
>a horrible unprovoked attack by misguided cowards, so we're bombing their
>country because they won't surrender a suspect.  What's not to understand?

This is a rather gross over simplification of a gross over 
simplification isn't it?

>
>Accepting a distorted, simplified version of the truth, and
>underestimating what we're up against by failing to question and
>investigate is as dangerous to our own proper understanding as it is to
>that of the oppressed underclasses in the Middle East when they believe
>unquestioningly the propaganda spread by bin Laden or the Taliban.

Only what you call a gross over simplification did pretty much cover 
the salient points.  And while objecting to the simplicity have 
failed to point out the inaccuracy.

  Yoonchi indignantly asked why the focus had shifted.  Ok I did not 
answer directly.

You have an important objective that is your focus.  Someone places 
an large tough obstacle between you and your objective. The immediate 
focus naturally becomes the task of overcoming the obstacle.

This is, as they say , "not rocket science".
-- 


                                 Dennis Gunn
                                 Mightyjohn@...

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

> >No, to hear the cheerleaders summarize it, faultless innocent USA
suffered
> >a horrible unprovoked attack by misguided cowards, so we're bombing their
> >country because they won't surrender a suspect.  What's not to
understand?
>
> I heard a commentator today describe it nicely. Imagine a factory that
> turns out terrorists like Al Quaeda. They take in Allegerians, Egyptians,
> etc and turn them into terrorists. It takes a lot of work and luck to
> catch each one of these guys as they enter the US with bombs or try to
> bomb something. We really can't keep up with all of them. So its
> necessary to shut down the factory.

errr... but taking the analogy further - wasnt it America that built the
factory in the first place? who do you think it was trained, armed and
funded the mujahedin (sp?)?

>
> Each 5,000 pound GBU-28 'bunker buster' ordance is a good start on
> curtailing the output of the factory.

These are nuclear weapons we are talking about here. How do you think the
fallout of these devices will affect the innocent afghans America *seems* so
concerned about? The fallout and residual radiation would decimate the
people far more than the many deaths and injurys from old minefields already
covering most of afghanistan.

> By the way, who voted for the Taliban anyway? They are no different than
> Al Capones taking charge of the place by force.

Taliban are a corrupt regime no doubt about that, but why make the afghans
suffer even more?

--
Mark Lennox
Consultant

ENDUSER
Guinness Enterprise Centre
Taylor's Lane
Dublin 8
Ireland
--
e-mail : mark@...
phone  : (+353 1) 4100 665
direct : (+353 1) 4100 707
fax : (+353 1) 4100 985
web    : http://www.enduser.ie
--

At 9:54 AM +0100 10/12/01, Mark at Enduser wrote:
>  > Each 5,000 pound GBU-28 'bunker buster' ordance is a good start on
>>  curtailing the output of the factory.
>
>These are nuclear weapons we are talking about here. How do you think the
>fallout of these devices will affect the innocent afghans America *seems* so
>concerned about? The fallout and residual radiation would decimate the
>people far more than the many deaths and injurys from old minefields already
>covering most of afghanistan.

I think you are making a mistake there.  I am pretty sure that it is 
not the case that those are nuclear, but I am not an authority on 
ordinance.  The subject does not normally interest me.  Never the 
less there is no way the US gov would be ready to accept political 
fallout of using nukes in this kind of conflict however much they 
might want to.  They have enough problems already.
-- 


                                 Dennis Gunn
                                 Mightyjohn@...

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

Mark Lennox :
>errr... but taking the analogy further - wasnt it America that built the
>factory in the first place? who do you think it was trained, armed and
>funded the mujahedin (sp?)?

Did the US invade Afganistan in 1980 and execute a brutal war? No that was 
Russia.
The US and the Arab world supported the resistance fighters - it did not 
create them. 
I explained in my other recent post that the Pakistani's demanded that the US 
support only the most radical faction - which ended up backfiring.



>> Each 5,000 pound GBU-28 'bunker buster' ordance is a good start on
>> curtailing the output of the factory.
>
>These are nuclear weapons we are talking about here. How do you think the
>fallout of these devices will affect the innocent afghans America *seems*
>so
>concerned about? The fallout and residual radiation would decimate the
>people far more than the many deaths and injurys from old minefields already
>covering most of afghanistan.


No..... of course its not nuclear. Don't you think someone would protest 
nuking Afganistan? Its just a big bomb 2.5 Tons. A nuke would have the power 
of tens of thousands of tons of TNT.


>> By the way, who voted for the Taliban anyway? They are no different than
>> Al Capones taking charge of the place by force.
>
>Taliban are a corrupt regime no doubt about that, but why make the afghans
>suffer even more?


Its their own people who suffer and the people of the world. No one voted the 
Taliban into office, they took force at the point of a gun. So you think its 
better to just let them kill a few thousand civilized people every month? Is 
that a better solution?

> > I heard a commentator today describe it nicely. Imagine a factory that
> > turns out terrorists like Al Quaeda. They take in Allegerians, 
> Egyptians,
> > etc and turn them into terrorists. It takes a lot of work and luck to
> > catch each one of these guys as they enter the US with bombs or try to
> > bomb something. We really can't keep up with all of them. So its
> > necessary to shut down the factory. 


Very nice description.

> > Each 5,000 pound GBU-28 'bunker buster' ordance is a good start on
> > curtailing the output of the factory.

Aha. So what's the "factory" in your opinion?
If you mean the factory = trainingcamps, then I say it's useless to bomb 
it because those trainingcamps are nothing more but a few bricks etc and 
they'll be relocated anyway.
If you mean the factory = an ideology, then I say it's useless to bomb 
Afghanistan because you will only strengthen the ideology. Take away the 
reasons why the people turn to that ideology. That's the only solution 
in the long rong.


-- 
Joeri Vankeirsbilck
joeri@...

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

The Taliban had a ban on barbers doing the Titanic cut! hehehehh.....
I think they need enlightenment more than force, think Japan after world war
2.

> 
> Then what is wrong with the US using the same tactics as the Taliban used
> to take power - brute military force. At least the US will allow women to
> get medical care, and not have laws about laughing too loud. Did you ever
> see that video of a woman accused of fooling around ... taken into the
> middle of the soccer field and shot in the head.

>> By the way, who voted for the Taliban anyway? They are no different than 
>> Al Capones taking charge of the place by force.
>
>Agreed.  But isn't that the way things usually work? 

The Palestinians sure didn't vote to be kicked out of their homes.

> Doesn't might make right?
> Did the Native Americans vote for Europe? :-)

Then what is wrong with the US using the same tactics as the Taliban used 
to take power - brute military force. At least the US will allow women to 
get medical care, and not have laws about laughing too loud. Did you ever 
see that video of a woman accused of fooling around ... taken into the 
middle of the soccer field and shot in the head.

On Fri, 12 Oct 2001 GAmoore@... wrote:

> Denizen wrote :
> >Not inconsequential, but the US policy I see questioned more
> >frequently is that which allowed such disapproval in the Muslim world
> >to develop in the first place.  With as much as we've apparently done
> >to piss these people off, I think we'd have suffered the same fate
> >sooner or later, availability of Rancho Afghanistan Terrorism Camp or
> >not.
> 
> Its really pathetic what happened yesterday. This Saudi Prince comes 
> here, visits the WTC, and gives $10 million, and simply hands out a 
> leaflet saying the US needs to reconsider its biased view - and he is 
> humiliated by having his money returned. Then today on CNN, I heard 
> Winston Churchill III (grandson of the famous WWII leader) take a very 
> pro-Palestinian stand and say essentially the same thing as the Prince 
> said. 

I was looking for Prince Alwaleed bin Talal's email address to thank him
for the gesture and apologize for Giuliani's misplaced indignation.  I
probably wouldn't have sent him anything, but I was irritated enough to
put at least that much energy into it :)  I'd heard all sorts of terrible
things about Guiliani before the attack... how unfairly people have been
treated since he took office... his conservative agenda to "clean up" NYC
... which resulted in the closure of a legendary nightclub in Chelsea
I'd been wanting to check out just weeks before my first visit.
(Twilo: Where Sasha and John Digweed had residencies) But then I saw him
on TV at a press conference on 9-11 and he seemed like pretty a nice guy,
well-spoken and sensitive... even though I knew that away from the
ennobling context of crisis, he was probably still a self-righteous 
dick.  I suppose this ridiculous gesture of his, a spit in the face of
a powerful ally offering a generous gift and a sincere expression of
regret on behalf of his people, is just another sign that we're slowly
returning to normalcy, and my cue to start being irritated by his
foolishness again.  I can't understand why people refuse to accept the
possibility that these attacks could have a motive.  Ignoring that motive
can only perpetuate the problem.  It's a lot easier to tolerate stupidity
like this when it's coming from conservative political commentators where
it's harmless and expected... but to have prominent public officials in a
position to act on their pride-blinded whims is more than I can take...
without bitching about it :-)

-Denizen

Mr. Joeri wrote :
>> > turns out terrorists like Al Quaeda. They take in Allegerians, 
>> Egyptians,
>> > etc and turn them into terrorists. It takes a lot of work and luck to
>> > catch each one of these guys as they enter the US with bombs or try to
>> > bomb something. We really can't keep up with all of them. So its
>> > necessary to shut down the factory. 
>

>Aha. So what's the "factory" in your opinion?
>If you mean the factory = trainingcamps, then I say it's useless to bomb 
>it because those trainingcamps are nothing more but a few bricks etc and 
>they'll be relocated anyway.

But it will slow them down, and we can watch with satellite imagery and 
"predator" drone survelience planes.

>If you mean the factory = an ideology, then I say it's useless to bomb 
>Afghanistan because you will only strengthen the ideology. Take away the 
>reasons why the people turn to that ideology. That's the only solution 
>in the long rong.


Thats the risk right there as you have put your finger on it. The US must 
walk a fine line - destroying the right people and bases, but not 
appearing to be too militaristic. Actually, the US has known of these 
camps for years - after the various other terror attacks on our 
embassies, the WTC attack in 93 and the bombing of the USS Cole. However, 
they didn't want to have a full attack because of world opinion I 
suppose. However, it got to the point after Sept 11, that they need to 
take the risk because the alternative is unacceptable. 

The US invaded Panama under Bush's father. For a short while it was ugly 
and some civilians were inadvertently killed. However, in the end, it put 
the country right and it now enjoys a democracy. 

The bigger mistake we can all see now, was NOT invading Bagdad and 
removing Saddam Hussein. The Iraqui people would be more prosperous today 
if we had taken the heat at the time and did what someone needed to do.

>The Taliban had a ban on barbers doing the Titanic cut! hehehehh.....

Maybe the Taliban aren't so bad after all. In fact, if they banned that 
movie and that Celine Dione song, they can't be all bad.

>I think they need enlightenment more than force, think Japan after world war
>2.

Japan was completely defeated and had American occupation troops for five 
years. In fact, American troops are stationed in various naval and air 
bases all over Japan TO THIS DAY. Yokusuka naval base is only an hour 
south of Tokyo. 

Second, Japan was a modern industrialized country (maybe not socially or 
politically at the time upto MacArthurs constitution for them in 1946 or 
so), but in other ways. It was also amazing how docile they were when 
defeated - the same people that would have died to the last person to 
resist attack were harmless when told to accept defeat by the emperor. 
They are really a unique people. 

Afganistan is more like Somalia in my view - war lords, factions, famine, 
destruction, hatred. 

I think they should set up enclaves in friendly areas, get rid of the 
mines, help them start their farms and industry, rebuild. Then expand it. 
Anyone is welcome to come, but they have to turnover their weapons and 
live in peace. Then starve the rest out. They can decide to be hostile 
and dead, or start being civilized.

>I was looking for Prince Alwaleed bin Talal's email address to thank him
>for the gesture and apologize for Giuliani's misplaced indignation.

Does anyone know a way to write him? I want to write him too. Actually I 
saw him on CNN's Moneyline before I heard about the ten million. He said 
people told him not to come to the US, but he came anyway. He is 
obviously someone who is very conscientious. He refered to Bin Laden as a 
renegade and enemy of Saudi Arabia, the attacks as being criminal, and as 
a friend of the US. For an Arab to come here and donate ten million is a 
heartfelt sign. It is simply rude beyond belief to treat him as Guiliani 
did. The prince was simply honest and for fairness - and as an American 
its the same thing I ask for from my government's foreign policy.

If anyone knows how to write to the Prince, I'd appreciate knowing.

> >The Taliban had a ban on barbers doing the Titanic cut! hehehehh.....
> Maybe the Taliban aren't so bad after all. In fact, if they banned that
> movie and that Celine Dione song, they can't be all bad.


ROFL. :-)))))

-- 
Joeri Vankeirsbilck
joeri@...

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

> >I was looking for Prince Alwaleed bin Talal's email address to thank him
> >for the gesture and apologize for Giuliani's misplaced indignation.
>
> Does anyone know a way to write him? I want to write him too.


Ok ok... now both of you got me curious. What happened? :-)) We don't 
see Giuliani on TV very often in Belgium (except for CNN).

>   For an Arab to come here and donate ten million is a
> heartfelt sign.

Damned, oil prices will rise again. ;-))

> If anyone knows how to write to the Prince, I'd appreciate knowing.

Heh, I say you first learn Arabic and then consider writing him. I've 
been trying to navigate the website of Al Jazeera. Except for the 
hyperlinks (the links themselves are visible in English), there was not 
much for me to find over there. :-/

>
>
>
-- 
Joeri Vankeirsbilck
joeri@...

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

GA Moore wrote:

>They are really a unique people.
And which people is not?

>Afganistan is more like Somalia in my view - war lords, factions, famine,
>destruction, hatred.

Who from Somalia has flown planes into towers?
Who from Somalia has been accused of doing so?
Who from Somalia has been accused of aiding and abetting those who do?
Or ... am I to understand that Somalia is also soon to receive the 
inestimable benefits of yet more US attention?
In your view?

You have also kindly given a most apt description -- as far as I can divine 
-- of a certain nation not too far away from where you sit right this very 
minute where there are also people dying upon the streets from hunger and 
from enforced homelessness and from hatred even as I write these words. It 
is simply that the people who oversee such acts of brutality are given a 
far more polite description.

In my view.

Kool Musick
Keep Musick Kool


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

Joeri Vankeirsbilck wrote:

>Ok ok... now both of you got me curious. What happened? :-)) We don't
>see Giuliani on TV very often in Belgium (except for CNN).

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/1,,2001354259,00.html

Kool Musick
Keep Musick Kool



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

At 10:31 PM 12/10/01 -0400, you wrote:

>Second, Japan was a modern industrialized country (maybe not socially or 
>politically at the time upto MacArthurs constitution for them in 1946 or 
>so), but in other ways. It was also amazing how docile they were when 
>defeated - the same people that would have died to the last person to 
>resist attack were harmless when told to accept defeat by the emperor. 
>They are really a unique people. 

Hi Mr Moore,

My understanding is that the Japanese people were ruled over by a
dictatorial military regime which issued commands and expected obedience or
else. This situation had been going of for decades before 1945. The
Japanese military was modelled on the European military but obviously some
cross-fertilization of European military codes and Japanese warrior codes
occured.

I have seen documentaries on Macurthur where is was claimed that he was
immensely popular with the Japanese people in the five years he was in
charge there and that the Japanese people was preferred to his
predecessors.  It seems to me that you confuse the attitudes of the people
who, like people anywhere,  did not seek death as soldiers or as civilians
with those of their leaders.

There is no need to be amazed. 

Regards,
Murray