Ex-Premie Forum 7 Archive
From: Sep 29, 2001 To: Oct 04, 2001 Page: 4 of: 5


Nigel -:- Rebuttal to Appleyard (ot) -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 19:42:27 (EDT)
__ Jim -:- A fuller reply -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 23:30:43 (EDT)
__ Pat:C) -:- What a marmite of shite -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 15:34:11 (EDT)
__ __ Jim -:- Here, Here! -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 20:46:12 (EDT)
__ __ __ Pat:C) -:- I still hate rock n roll -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 03:46:49 (EDT)
__ __ JHB -:- Who said this??????? -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 18:44:57 (EDT)
__ __ __ Jim -:- Read between the lines, John -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 20:53:35 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ JHB -:- I see what you're saying.... -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 05:15:28 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Reconciliation - On Topic -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 00:45:56 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Pat:C) to Scott and JHB -:- Terrorists as cultic magical thinkers -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 03:45:07 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Extradition from Europe -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 15:00:18 (EDT)
__ __ Moley -:- No, no, no Pat -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 16:11:45 (EDT)
__ __ __ Jim -:- That's unfair criticism, Moley -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 21:16:26 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Moley -:- Jim - your view of human nature - not everyones -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 03:25:55 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- No evidence at all, Moley -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 14:14:09 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Barbara -:- What's a wog? -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 14:50:09 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ berni -:- Re: What's a wog? -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 17:34:01 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Barbara -:- Thanks Berni and Pat D. -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 00:41:23 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ PatD -:- Re: What's a wog? -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 20:43:27 (EDT)
__ __ __ Pat:C) -:- Post-modernism, Moley -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 16:20:07 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Francesca :C) -:- With 'ya there, Pat -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 17:09:54 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Moley -:- Re: Post-modernism, Moley -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 16:43:44 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Why are you talking about this NOW? -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 21:21:34 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Moley -:- Re: Why are you talking about this NOW? -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 03:41:56 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Wrong. -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 01:02:30 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ berni -:- What you say is true, Moley -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 05:20:15 (EDT)
__ __ __ Scott T. -:- Re: No, no, no Pat -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 16:19:20 (EDT)
__ Jim -:- What a crock, Nige -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 11:37:06 (EDT)
__ __ Moley -:- Jim - address the problem rationally -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 14:49:43 (EDT)
__ __ __ Jerry -:- Kyoto -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 16:52:27 (EDT)
__ __ __ Scott T. -:- Moley's rational approach -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 16:36:53 (EDT)
__ __ __ Pat:C) -:- How nice to see you, Moley -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 15:42:39 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Rick -:- outrageous -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 17:55:17 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- This is a stereotype, of what?? -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 01:11:54 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Rick -:- Re: This is a stereotype, of what? -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 01:45:34 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Re: This is a stereotype, of what? -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 09:39:41 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Rick -:- Re: This is a stereotype, of what? -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 10:10:21 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Re: This is a stereotype, of what? -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 12:28:18 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Rick -:- Re: This is a stereotype, of what? -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 14:54:56 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- This isn't a stereotype -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 21:23:32 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Rick -:- Re: This isn't a stereotype -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 22:06:30 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Re: This isn't a stereotype -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 22:25:04 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- WhatEVer -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 21:51:36 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Rick -:- Re: WhatEVer -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 00:59:47 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Re: WhatEVer -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 23:31:42 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Francesca :C) -:- Pat, that was GENOCIDE -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 16:39:05 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Your post says it all, Fran -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 22:01:50 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Francesca :C) -:- WhatEver -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 00:47:29 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Moley -:- Re: How nice to see you, Moley -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 16:31:19 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Pat:C) -:- Mo;ey and Fran we'll have to agree to disagree -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 17:37:54 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Moley -:- Re: Mo;ey and Fran we'll have to agree to disagree -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 18:56:40 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Oh, god, how could I forget??! -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 22:04:02 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Francesca :C) -:- Still too black and white Pat -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 18:39:26 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Rick -:- Yeah, Moley and Francesca -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 18:01:18 (EDT)
__ __ Dermot -:- Ha THE BBC Audience -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 12:13:10 (EDT)
__ __ __ Jim -:- Damn good question, Dermot -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 22:11:13 (EDT)
__ __ __ Dermot -:- And PS.... -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 12:24:01 (EDT)
__ __ __ the other bobo -:- What are you saying JIm? -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 12:56:46 (EDT)
__ Dermot -:- Jeeze Nige....BRAVO -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 04:02:07 (EDT)
__ Scott T. -:- On a lighter note... -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 23:06:50 (EDT)
__ __ Mickey the Pharisee -:- Re: On a lighter note... -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 15:02:00 (EDT)
__ __ __ Scott T. -:- Re: On a lighter note... -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 15:37:14 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Pat:C) -:- You had bad Vietnamese food, Scott -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 16:10:29 (EDT)
__ Scott T. -:- Thou doest protest a smidge too much. -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 22:52:05 (EDT)
__ PatD -:- Appleyard disease -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 22:50:24 (EDT)
__ __ Nigel -:- Pat D - and EVERYONE -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 17:55:04 (EDT)
__ __ Nigel -:- Re: Appleyard disease -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 03:25:13 (EDT)
__ __ __ Scott T. -:- Not quaranteened to Appleyard, unfortunately. -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 11:28:30 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ cq -:- Hey, Scott, am I being anti-British? -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 14:37:05 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Come on, Chris! -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 22:07:54 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ cq -:- talk about WHAT, you ask? -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 15:14:54 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Re: Hey, Scott, am I being anti-British? -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 15:41:47 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ cq -:- Why not just answer the question? (nt) -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 14:21:02 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Because you aren't paying me enough. -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 22:18:37 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Moley -:- Exactly cq. [nt] -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 15:31:28 (EDT)
__ __ __ JHB -:- Pat D(orrity) was Bin Liner -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 05:02:34 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Nigel -:- Yes, I remember now. Ta, John. -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 05:36:24 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ PatD -:- Re: Yes, I remember now. Ta, John. -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 17:49:05 (EDT)
__ __ __ Peg -:- Youj are clever aren't you??? -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 04:17:58 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ peg -:- Oh dear that came out bitchy! -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 04:48:24 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Nigel -:- hey - no sweat.. -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 16:25:47 (EDT)
__ Rick -:- Re: Rebuttal to Appleyard (ot) -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 20:33:49 (EDT)
__ __ berni -:- Re: Rebuttal to Appleyard (ot) -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 05:19:18 (EDT)

Pat:C) -:- New from Visions International -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 18:49:12 (EDT)
__ Francesca :C) -:- Dear Premies: Hay--loooooo! [nt] -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 01:15:23 (EDT)
__ Timmi -:- Re: New from Visions International -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 00:21:36 (EDT)
__ suchabanana -:- m:'When we are happy, the issues don't matter.' -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 21:56:50 (EDT)
__ __ janet -:- Re: m:'When we are happy -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 05:17:29 (EDT)
__ __ __ Timmi -:- Re: m:'When we are happy -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 13:36:59 (EDT)
__ Brian S -:- Fill in the blanks yourself -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 21:37:43 (EDT)
__ __ gerry -:- Sheesh, Brian... -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 22:21:58 (EDT)
__ Nigel -:- Go on, premies - tell us you're not embarrassed... [nt] -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 20:31:02 (EDT)

Pat:C) -:- Taliban Terrorists and Jim Jones -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 14:40:19 (EDT)
__ Cynthia -:- Re: Taliban Terrorists and Jim Jones -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 10:32:49 (EDT)
__ __ Pat:C) -:- Hi, Cynthia -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 14:09:59 (EDT)
__ JohnT -:- Performance of death -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 16:41:48 (EDT)
__ __ Sir Dave }( -:- I disagree -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 22:14:48 (EDT)

Rick -:- Differences of Political Opinion OT -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 12:19:01 (EDT)
__ Nigel -:- Re: Differences of Political Opinion OT -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 09:21:01 (EDT)
__ __ Rick -:- Aunt Dottie Stinks -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 17:10:15 (EDT)
__ __ __ Nige -:- Re: Aunt Dottie Stinks -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 18:41:08 (EDT)
__ PatD -:- Basic Political beliefs -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 19:50:26 (EDT)
__ __ Rick -:- Re: Basic Political beliefs -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 20:07:31 (EDT)
__ __ __ PatD -:- That's right Rick ...At the moment [nt] -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 19:22:36 (EDT)
__ Dermot -:- To EVERYONE -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 17:51:49 (EDT)
__ JHB -:- I disagree with one thing. -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 15:47:15 (EDT)
__ __ salsa -:- Re: I disagree with one thing. -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 01:08:43 (EDT)
__ __ __ JHB -:- I'll look at it.? -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 04:34:36 (EDT)
__ __ Dermot -:- That's it John [nt] -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 16:35:12 (EDT)
__ __ Rick -:- Re: I disagree with one thing. -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 15:57:24 (EDT)
__ Scott T. -:- Meaningful debate about meaning. -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 14:57:45 (EDT)
__ Dermot -:- 'as fortunate or liberal'?? :) -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 13:47:01 (EDT)
__ Vera -:- possible reason for the polarity -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 13:30:04 (EDT)
__ __ Sir Dave -:- Mass slaughter yes but not of civilians -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 16:10:38 (EDT)
__ __ __ Scott T. -:- Re: Mass slaughter yes but not of civilians -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 20:54:45 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Vera -:- Evidence for my claims re Gulf War slaughter -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 10:19:29 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Sir Dave }( -:- Re: Evidence for my claims re Gulf War slaughter -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 12:43:53 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Vietnamese Eats -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 13:09:15 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- You asked for it. -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 12:36:46 (EDT)
__ __ __ JohnT -:- kill ratio -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 17:06:07 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Re: kill ratio -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 21:00:18 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Sir Dave -:- Overkill perhaps -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 22:05:04 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Re: Overkill perhaps -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 22:14:55 (EDT)
__ __ __ Dermot -:- 1/6th of all forces were Brits Dave [nt] -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 16:38:03 (EDT)
__ __ Scott T. -:- Re: possible reason for the polarity -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 15:04:04 (EDT)
__ the other bob -:- Re: possible reason for the polarity -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 14:04:00 (EDT)
__ __ Dermot -:- Good post, Vera [nt] -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 13:52:19 (EDT)
__ __ __ Scott T. -:- It's completely inaccurate, Dermot. -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 15:10:03 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- not 'nt' -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 15:16:24 (EDT)
__ __ Vera -:- Possible reason for the polarity -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 13:39:28 (EDT)
__ __ __ Scott T. -:- Why are you posting this drivel twice? -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 15:21:34 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Dermot -:- Scott, untie you shoelaces -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 16:31:37 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- You've discredited yourself. -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 20:51:01 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- When you think I'm fully rational -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 03:53:26 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Thanks. -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 09:58:17 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Mel Bourne -:- UNICEF Iraqi child mortality 500,000 -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 00:39:13 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Mel Bourne -:- Cambridge University .. Iraqi children -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 02:40:18 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Sir Dave }( -:- You didn't read me right -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 05:27:19 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Mel Bourne -:- Your right Dave.... -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 08:53:11 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Mel Bourne the meek. -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 02:19:28 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Mel Bourne -:- Re: Mel Bourne the meek. -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 03:36:33 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Wonder of wonders -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 09:55:05 (EDT)
__ Scott T. -:- Re: Differences of Political Opinion OT -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 12:34:05 (EDT)
__ bobo - the other bob -:- Why I do not support U.S. govmt. -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 13:27:28 (EDT)
__ __ Scott T. -:- What does this have to do with the thread topic? [nt] -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 14:37:27 (EDT)
__ __ __ Vera -:- My reply to Scott & Sir Dave -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 15:15:04 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Case closed. -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 11:36:43 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Old-Ex72 -:- Re: My reply to Scott & Sir Dave -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 06:44:09 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Vera -:- a valedictory message -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 13:52:39 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Vera congratulating Vera? -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 12:20:36 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Old-Ex -:- Re: Vera congratulating Vera? -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 04:55:38 (EDT)
__ __ other bobo -:- not running with the crowd -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 14:32:56 (EDT)

Salam -:- Maryan Investment -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 11:26:38 (EDT)
__ G -:- Maryan or Myrine? or maybe Marine? -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 13:12:47 (EDT)
__ __ Salam -:- Re: Maryan or Myrine? or maybe Marine? -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 04:05:53 (EDT)


Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 19:42:27 (EDT)
From: Nigel
Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk
To: All
Subject: Rebuttal to Appleyard (ot)
Message:
Rarely have I read so many ill-formed and ill-informed sentiments masquerading as political analysis, and subsequently being praised by folk who should know better, as appeared in the Sunday Times article by Brian Appleyard. Even if there were (and I stress if there were) out there somewhere a movement of lefty intellectuals ever-ready to knife Uncle Sam at the drop of a baseball cap, surely the most patriotic US citizen would not want Brian Appleyard on their side in an argument…

His essay, frequently bordering on the hysterical, is desperate, poorly-argued and vacuous polemic; his apparent aim to smear his usual targets (liberal/left commentators who have ever criticised aspects of American policy) with the charge of knee-jerk Yankophobia, and who are thus irrational and easily dismissible. Saves having to deal with real criticisms or quality analysis from the left. To this end, Appleyard applies the classic techniques of straw-man argument and circular logic. Mix in a pinch of confused, self-contradiction and you have the recipe for a long career in the Murdoch fold.

…where even the byline-writers are not immune to Appleyard’s broad-brush muddle-brained thinking, headlining his piece thus:

The USA saved Europe from the Nazis, defeated communism and keeps the West rich. Bryan Appleyard analyses why it has become the land of the loathed Why do they hate America?

Actually, combined allied forces saved Europe from the Nazis (with America only joining the game late in the second half. The Soviet campaign on the eastern front was at least as vital to Hitler’s downfall); Soviet communism collapsed through its own failures, and America may keep itself rich (or some of itself), but certainly not the West – where poverty is doing just fine in too many European countries to mention. Why do they hate America? – well, actually, it is only Brian Appleyard assuming but not showing that ‘they’ do. Whoever they are. Aah -such sweet circularity…

But to the piece itself:

From the outset, Appleyard fails to define what he means by ‘Anti-American’. Is it hostility to her foreign policy, to the behaviour of certain multinationals, to her gun laws, Disney, McDonald’s, chewing-gum or just a general dislike of American culture? This oversight allows him to make all manner of absurd logical connections, culminating in the ridiculous comparison between Islington (home of his mythical ‘chattering classes’) and the Taliban. It further allows him to tar his own bete noir (ie. all left-wing, and even moderately liberal journalists) with the same brush as a couple of hot-head non-entities somebody spoke to on a street somewhere.

Let’s take a look at his villains, and the evidence he presents to support his argument.

The nastiest sentiments quoted are these: an unnamed Lebanese businessman Appleyard read in a piece by an Italian journalist reckons 90% of all-known Arabs think ‘America’ got what it deserved’. This same journo reckons 90% is ‘an understatement’. That some guy in the Lebanon dislike the States is hardly shock-horror-headline stuff, given Beirut’s recent history. That a well-educated visiting Italian will cheerfully characterise an even greater percentage of Arabs as sharing his opinion suggests she too much be suffering advanced symptoms of Appleyard Disease.

Then there is the New Statesman editorial which allegedly ‘[suggested] that bond dealers in the World Trade Center had it coming’. Funny, if the New Statesman really did say that, Appleyard doesn’t avail himself of the opportunity to quote the offending passage. Surely a more powerful quote for his purposes than the Lebanese guy. Or perhaps the piece was, in reality, innocuous?

We don’t have much, so far, do we? Shame then, that the best of Appleyard’s evidence for irrational hatred hinges on a couple of quotes off the street in the wake of the outrage. (Notice he cites the liberal/left Guardian as the source, not clarifying that they were merely reporting rather than endorsing these minority views amongst a pile of others..)

Or here are two more venomous voices, both quoted in The Guardian. Patricia Tricker from Bedale: 'Now they know how the Iraqis feel.' And Andrew Pritchard from Amsterdam: 'If the US's great peacetime defeat results in defeating America's overweening ego as the world's sole remaining superpower, it will be a highly productive achievement.' Would that achievement be the dead children, Andrew, or the crushed firemen?

The latter of these quotes is admittedly vile. But one sick swallow does not a Summer of Hatred make.

The rest of Appleyard’s evidence is worse than flimsy:

He cites the typical ‘hand-picked moron’ in the audience of BBC’s Question Time. The only audience filtering for that programme is simply to ensure a representative cross-section of political views. Appleyard is the only person, from right or left, I have ever known to question QT’s integrity in two decades on the air. Which perhaps says something about the depth of his prejudices. Anyway:

The Yankophobes were too villanously stupid to get the message. Barely 48 hours after thousands of Americans are murdered, we see the BBC's Question Time with its hand-picked morons in the audience telling Philip Lader, the former US ambassador, that 'the world despises America'. The studio seethes with ignorance and loathing. Lader looks broken.

Er, excuse me, Brian, but isn’t the whole point of your article to make the very same point that the world (or much of it) hates America? Perhaps the guy was a moron. So what does that make you?

From thereonin the analysis gets really desperate. Even the moderate, far-from-radical journalist Rosie Boycott, and the widely respected environmentalist George Monbiot have to face Appleyard’s deranged prosecution.

Or we have the metropolitan elite on Newsnight Review sneering at Dubya Bush. 'So out of touch,' Rosie Boycott, the journalist, hisses, 'there was no sense of his feeling for people.'

Ms Boycott is no more or less metropolitan or elite than is Appleyard himself - and doesn’t that ‘hisses’ give the game away somewhat? Whatever. A negative comment about Dubya is no more anti-American than a negative comment about Clinton (which BA is himself happy to provide later)

Or here's George Monbiot in The Guardian: 'When billions of pounds f military spending are at stake, rogue states and terrorist warlords become assets precisely because they are liabilities.' I see; so the United States, the victim of this attack, is to be condemned for somehow deviously making money out of it. I'll run it up the flagpole, George, but I suspect only the Question Time audience will salute.

Out of context, the Monbiot quote lacks clarity (but I discern no Anti-American sentiment there). Appleyard seeks to provide it – with near-comical results. If Monbiot meant what Appleyard presumes he means, I believe he would have said it himself.

And so on…

Till we get to the lefties he really hates (all of them writers – wonder why?) but for whom he cannot find the evidence to condemn. First: Gore Vidal. Whether because he envies Vidal’s vastly superior political nous, his superior writing ability, or publishing record, Appleyard, truly, madly deeply hates Gore Vidal. Strangely, then, he restricts his accusation to the limp epithet ‘Europhile posing’. I am sure Mr Vidal is quaking in his fur-lined Russian boots.

Rushdie and Amis’s offence is – strangely – that of voicing pro-American sentiments, but doing it when Clinton was in office. Which, obviously, doesn’t count, so damn them too…
Perhaps to disguise his anti-left agenda, Appleyard also throws a token punch at an American right-wing anti-American.

The Rev Jerry Falwell has already made common cause with the terrorists by blaming the attack on 'the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays, and the lesbians'. To Falwell modern America really is the Great Satan.

Yes, Falwell is probably as stupid and misanthropic as the terrorists, but his agenda is not really Anti-American, so much as anti secular/liberal. The preacher would hate those trends in society wherever they were found to occur – even a reformed Afganistan. Waste of words.

In the time-honoured tradition of poor thinkers, and perhaps sensing his own failure to make a valid point in two thousand words, Appleyard then enlists the help of some brains smarter than his own

As Jon Ronson recently demonstrated in his book, Them: Adventures with Extremists, almost every crazed cult in the world believes there is a global Jewish conspiracy run from Hollywood and Wall Street. Those bien-pensant chatterers are, I'm sure, anti-racists all, but they are swimming in deeper, darker, crazier waters than they imagine.

Ronson’s book is great (what I have read of it). Appleyard’s citation here is wholly irrelevant, and – I am sure – not an endorsement that author will cherish.

George Orwell noted in 1941: 'In so far as it hampers the British war effort, British pacifism is on the side of the Nazis and German pacifism, if it exists, is on the side of Britain and the USSR. Since pacifists have more freedom of action in countries where traces of democracy survive, pacifism can act more effectively against democracy than for it. Objectively the pacifist is pro-Nazi.' Elsewhere he wrote of the 'unadmitted motive' of pacifism as being 'hatred of western democracy and admiration of totalitarianism'.

Orwell was spot-on fifty-years ago, and anyway that was fifty years ago. Opposing one war is NOT the same thing as pacifism. Pacificism is about opposing all war on principle. Are any of his despised Anti-Americans doing that? If they are, we don’t get to hear from them. If they are not, the Orwell passage is just filler.

Most laughably, Appleyard quotes Churchill: As Winston Churchill said, the Americans usually do the right thing once they have tried all the alternatives.

Was Sir Winston damning with faint praise or ‘praising with faint damnation’. Hard to tell, but his words are a hardly a tribute likely to instil much confidence world-wide given the current crisis. What might those ‘alternatives’ be?

Perhaps the depths of Mr Appleyard’s political confusion are best illustrated by one paragraph:

How strange, I thought, even then. They wore Levi jeans, drank Coke, watched American television and listened to American music. Something inside them loved America, even as something outside them hated her. They were like fish that hated the very sea in which they swam - the whisky, in Samuel Beckett's words, that bore a grudge against the decanter. Like the Beirut elite, they wanted to have their hamburgers and eat them, to bite the Yankee hand that fed them.

No, Brian, the point is this: if these anti-Vietnam protesters were to express a dislike of all things American, you could justifiably accuse them of Yankophobia. The irony is all in your head. That a person can read Updike, watch the Simpsons and listen to Dylan whilst making negative observations about the policies of a particular administration, probably suggests that they – unlike you – are dealing in issues rather than clichéd right-wing stereotypes.

Nige the not-remotely anti-American leftie.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 23:30:43 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: A fuller reply
Message:
Rarely have I read so many ill-formed and ill-informed sentiments masquerading as political analysis, and subsequently being praised by folk who should know better, as appeared in the Sunday Times article by Brian Appleyard. Even if there were (and I stress if there were) out there somewhere a movement of lefty intellectuals ever-ready to knife Uncle Sam at the drop of a baseball cap, surely the most patriotic US citizen would not want Brian Appleyard on their side in an argument…

His essay, frequently bordering on the hysterical, is desperate, poorly-argued and vacuous polemic; his apparent aim to smear his usual targets (liberal/left commentators who have ever criticised aspects of American policy) with the charge of knee-jerk Yankophobia, and who are thus irrational and easily dismissible. Saves having to deal with real criticisms or quality analysis from the left. To this end, Appleyard applies the classic techniques of straw-man argument and circular logic. Mix in a pinch of confused, self-contradiction and you have the recipe for a long career in the Murdoch fold.

…where even the byline-writers are not immune to Appleyard’s broad-brush muddle-brained thinking, headlining his piece thus:

The USA saved Europe from the Nazis, defeated communism and keeps the West rich. Bryan Appleyard analyses why it has become the land of the loathed Why do they hate America?

Actually, combined allied forces saved Europe from the Nazis (with America only joining the game late in the second half. The Soviet campaign on the eastern front was at least as vital to Hitler’s downfall); Soviet communism collapsed through its own failures, and America may keep itself rich (or some of itself), but certainly not the West – where poverty is doing just fine in too many European countries to mention. Why do they hate America? – well, actually, it is only Brian Appleyard assuming but not showing that ‘they’ do. Whoever they are. Aah -such sweet circularity…

You're minimizing the positive American contributions to the world. Allied forces may have fought the war, you Brits may have sacrificed more, even more so did the Russians. But the U.S. won the thing. They saved your collective ass, quite frankly. But, I know, the time for thanksgiving is long, long gone. That was, after all, fifty years ago already.

As for Soviet communism collapsing on account of its own failures, do you actually think that collapse would have occured were it not for the long, protracted and costly cold war, complete with its several hot spots? I don't. The U.S. stood up to communism with unparalleled vigour and determination. They made many strategic mistakes along the way, some tragic, but the fact is they won. This was a major victory for the States yet you don't even begrudge it a nod. Hm.

'Keeping the west rich' is an interesting comment I'm not sure I really understand. I'll pass on that one.

But to the piece itself:

From the outset, Appleyard fails to define what he means by ‘Anti-American’. Is it hostility to her foreign policy, to the behaviour of certain multinationals, to her gun laws, Disney, McDonald’s, chewing-gum or just a general dislike of American culture? This oversight allows him to make all manner of absurd logical connections, culminating in the ridiculous comparison between Islington (home of his mythical ‘chattering classes’) and the Taliban. It further allows him to tar his own bete noir (ie. all left-wing, and even moderately liberal journalists) with the same brush as a couple of hot-head non-entities somebody spoke to on a street somewhere.

I don't think so. I think the 'anti-Americanism' he's assailing is inherently amorphous and does encompass a bit of all of the above. It's a default sneer, a shared prejudice with enough unspoken premises that allows those of like mind to discuss finer points without even mentioning the big assumptions. Of course America is a crass, Imperialist bully. Of course Madonna and 'N Sync are vile and so, uh, AMERICAN.

Yesterday, we sat down with a friend for a moment at a sidewalk cafe. My letter to the Martlet had just been published and my friend's friend, Krista, a nice, young dread-locked student, had just had a cartoon of hers printed as well. What was it? A picture of the Statue of Liberty wearing a Ku Klux Klan hood. Why, I asked. Her answer was 'because of all the racism in the States' She looked at me as if I was forcing her to state the obvious. I mean, come on, doesn't the cartoon speak for itself?

Let’s take a look at his villains, and the evidence he presents to support his argument.

The nastiest sentiments quoted are these: an unnamed Lebanese businessman Appleyard read in a piece by an Italian journalist reckons 90% of all-known Arabs think ‘America’ got what it deserved’. This same journo reckons 90% is ‘an understatement’. That some guy in the Lebanon dislike the States is hardly shock-horror-headline stuff, given Beirut’s recent history. That a well-educated visiting Italian will cheerfully characterise an even greater percentage of Arabs as sharing his opinion suggests she too much be suffering advanced symptoms of Appleyard Disease.

Yes, how dare they guesstimate like that? I get your point. It's inflammatory and perhaps unfair. Who really knows the numbers? What do YOU think would be a better estimate? 60 %? Funny thing -- not completely on point but I want to mention it -- the New York Times yesterday did a piece wherein they reported that the leading Islamic scholars in the States, the official opinion leaders for muslims living in the states, are saying that, because the hijackers are apparently distorting the Koran, they doubt that the hijackers were muslim at all. Their speculation? White supremicists, some cult like Aum Shinrykio or -- surprise, surprise -- the Israeli government. And these, Nige, are the educated, responsible muslims teaching in U.S. colleges. Hm, on second thought, that's not so irrelvant after all.

Then there is the New Statesman editorial which allegedly ‘[suggested] that bond dealers in the World Trade Center had it coming’. Funny, if the New Statesman really did say that, Appleyard doesn’t avail himself of the opportunity to quote the offending passage. Surely a more powerful quote for his purposes than the Lebanese guy. Or perhaps the piece was, in reality, innocuous?

Oops! Makes me think I should have quoted the NY Times article. Okay, here's the relevant part, just to be safe:

The scholars said they had not had time to judge the letters' authenticity, but, as far as the attacks themselves, they said that such atrocities violated the ethics of battle spelled out by the prophet Muhammad.

In part because of this conviction, the scholars — educated intellectuals who teach in Western institutions — remain unconvinced that Muslims, even radical militants, were behind the attacks.

Some of them even said that with the release of the letters by the Justice Department on Friday, it appeared that Muslims were being framed. The attack, they said, could have been the work of an American militia group, a religious cult like Aum Shinrikyo in Japan, or even the Israeli government.

Dr. Taha said he was skeptical that Muslims were involved 'based on who is the beneficiary of the crime,' adding: 'The Arabs, they lost a lot. A lot was jeopardized, even their relationship with the U.S.'

So what if, by chance, Appleyard isn't lying?

We don’t have much, so far, do we? Shame then, that the best of Appleyard’s evidence for irrational hatred hinges on a couple of quotes off the street in the wake of the outrage. (Notice he cites the liberal/left Guardian as the source, not clarifying that they were merely reporting rather than endorsing these minority views amongst a pile of others..)

Or here are two more venomous voices, both quoted in The Guardian. Patricia Tricker from Bedale: 'Now they know how the Iraqis feel.' And Andrew Pritchard from Amsterdam: 'If the US's great peacetime defeat results in defeating America's overweening ego as the world's sole remaining superpower, it will be a highly productive achievement.' Would that achievement be the dead children, Andrew, or the crushed firemen?

The latter of these quotes is admittedly vile. But one sick swallow does not a Summer of Hatred make.

One sick, lonely, isolated, one-of-a-kind swallow, not indicative in the least of his flock? I think not, unfortunately. No, no statistics to back me up, but, well, what do YOU think, Nige? How unrepresentative and singular is that opinion? I'm afraid it's far too common here in Canada judging from letters to editors, talk on the street, etc.

The rest of Appleyard’s evidence is worse than flimsy:

He cites the typical ‘hand-picked moron’ in the audience of BBC’s Question Time. The only audience filtering for that programme is simply to ensure a representative cross-section of political views. Appleyard is the only person, from right or left, I have ever known to question QT’s integrity in two decades on the air. Which perhaps says something about the depth of his prejudices. Anyway:

The Yankophobes were too villanously stupid to get the message. Barely 48 hours after thousands of Americans are murdered, we see the BBC's Question Time with its hand-picked morons in the audience telling Philip Lader, the former US ambassador, that 'the world despises America'. The studio seethes with ignorance and loathing. Lader looks broken.

Er, excuse me, Brian, but isn’t the whole point of your article to make the very same point that the world (or much of it) hates America? Perhaps the guy was a moron. So what does that make you?

Don't be silly. He's mentioning the anti-American sentiment to criticize it, not disseminate it. Really, Nige.

From thereonin the analysis gets really desperate. Even the moderate, far-from-radical journalist Rosie Boycott, and the widely respected environmentalist George Monbiot have to face Appleyard’s deranged prosecution.

Or we have the metropolitan elite on Newsnight Review sneering at Dubya Bush. 'So out of touch,' Rosie Boycott, the journalist, hisses, 'there was no sense of his feeling for people.'

Ms Boycott is no more or less metropolitan or elite than is Appleyard himself - and doesn’t that ‘hisses’ give the game away somewhat? Whatever. A negative comment about Dubya is no more anti-American than a negative comment about Clinton (which BA is himself happy to provide later)

Or here's George Monbiot in The Guardian: 'When billions of pounds f military spending are at stake, rogue states and terrorist warlords become assets precisely because they are liabilities.' I see; so the United States, the victim of this attack, is to be condemned for somehow deviously making money out of it. I'll run it up the flagpole, George, but I suspect only the Question Time audience will salute.

Out of context, the Monbiot quote lacks clarity (but I discern no Anti-American sentiment there). Appleyard seeks to provide it – with near-comical results. If Monbiot meant what Appleyard presumes he means, I believe he would have said it himself.

I think Monbiot meant just what Appleyard's presuming. Do you have an alternative interpretation? What?

And so on…

Till we get to the lefties he really hates (all of them writers – wonder why?) but for whom he cannot find the evidence to condemn. First: Gore Vidal. Whether because he envies Vidal’s vastly superior political nous, his superior writing ability, or publishing record, Appleyard, truly, madly deeply hates Gore Vidal. Strangely, then, he restricts his accusation to the limp epithet ‘Europhile posing’. I am sure Mr Vidal is quaking in his fur-lined Russian boots.

Colourful but not much more. Vidal's rankled many a ... (what do you rankle?) with his praise for Timothy McVeigh's 'dedication' and 'courage'. I can understand the disdain for Vidal in light of that. Whatever.

Rushdie and Amis’s offence is – strangely – that of voicing pro-American sentiments, but doing it when Clinton was in office. Which, obviously, doesn’t count, so damn them too…
Perhaps to disguise his anti-left agenda, Appleyard also throws a token punch at an American right-wing anti-American.

The Rev Jerry Falwell has already made common cause with the terrorists by blaming the attack on 'the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays, and the lesbians'. To Falwell modern America really is the Great Satan.

Yes, Falwell is probably as stupid and misanthropic as the terrorists, but his agenda is not really Anti-American, so much as anti secular/liberal. The preacher would hate those trends in society wherever they were found to occur – even a reformed Afganistan. Waste of words.

I think Appleyard's essential argument is against unjustified anti-American sentiment wherever it lies which sentiment can, in any way, tone down the gravity of the terrorists' offence. This makes perfect sense in that light.

In the time-honoured tradition of poor thinkers, and perhaps sensing his own failure to make a valid point in two thousand words, Appleyard then enlists the help of some brains smarter than his own

As Jon Ronson recently demonstrated in his book, Them: Adventures with Extremists, almost every crazed cult in the world believes there is a global Jewish conspiracy run from Hollywood and Wall Street. Those bien-pensant chatterers are, I'm sure, anti-racists all, but they are swimming in deeper, darker, crazier waters than they imagine.

Ronson’s book is great (what I have read of it). Appleyard’s citation here is wholly irrelevant, and – I am sure – not an endorsement that author will cherish.

What are you talking about?? Many people who hate the States do indeed subscribe or at least entertain these conspiracy theories. Not all but a significant share, I bet. It's worth mentioning in the context of addressing anti-American sentiment in general.

George Orwell noted in 1941: 'In so far as it hampers the British war effort, British pacifism is on the side of the Nazis and German pacifism, if it exists, is on the side of Britain and the USSR. Since pacifists have more freedom of action in countries where traces of democracy survive, pacifism can act more effectively against democracy than for it. Objectively the pacifist is pro-Nazi.' Elsewhere he wrote of the 'unadmitted motive' of pacifism as being 'hatred of western democracy and admiration of totalitarianism'.

Orwell was spot-on fifty-years ago, and anyway that was fifty years ago. Opposing one war is NOT the same thing as pacifism. Pacificism is about opposing all war on principle. Are any of his despised Anti-Americans doing that? If they are, we don’t get to hear from them. If they are not, the Orwell passage is just filler.

There's a qualified pacifism at play here. Most people acknowledge that the U.S. should, indeed must, take some military action now. But many who detest the U.S. complain already that they're operating at a moral discount given their own 'bad' history or they're bound to over-react such is the nature of U.S. military bloodlust. I think it's these kind of pacifistic ideas Appleyard's addressing and I think he makes a good point.

Most laughably, Appleyard quotes Churchill: As Winston Churchill said, the Americans usually do the right thing once they have tried all the alternatives.

Was Sir Winston damning with faint praise or ‘praising with faint damnation’. Hard to tell, but his words are a hardly a tribute likely to instil much confidence world-wide given the current crisis. What might those ‘alternatives’ be?

No, Nige, like it or not, he's damning with faint praise. It's better than nothing. Hey, I wonder if Churchill, wherever he may be now, thinks fifty years is a long time ...

Perhaps the depths of Mr Appleyard’s political confusion are best illustrated by one paragraph:

How strange, I thought, even then. They wore Levi jeans, drank Coke, watched American television and listened to American music. Something inside them loved America, even as something outside them hated her. They were like fish that hated the very sea in which they swam - the whisky, in Samuel Beckett's words, that bore a grudge against the decanter. Like the Beirut elite, they wanted to have their hamburgers and eat them, to bite the Yankee hand that fed them.

No, Brian, the point is this: if these anti-Vietnam protesters were to express a dislike of all things American, you could justifiably accuse them of Yankophobia. The irony is all in your head. That a person can read Updike, watch the Simpsons and listen to Dylan whilst making negative observations about the policies of a particular administration, probably suggests that they – unlike you – are dealing in issues rather than clichéd right-wing stereotypes.

But, as I said this morning, no one's just 'making negative observations about the policies of a particular administration'. Appleyard's responding to something much broader, much deeper ingrained. And it does call into question how much people can enjoy what they will from American culture and still dislike it so.

Nige the not-remotely anti-American leftie.

No, Nige, not even remotely.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 15:34:11 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: What a marmite of shite
Message:
Okay so marmite is a more polite word than crock. It's the fancy French word for a crock or clay Dutch oven just like the picture on the Marmite label. A marmite is used to make rendered stock mostly. You put all sorts of delicious things into it and cook it until it is concentrated. Or it can be used as a melting pot. Too funny that most Americans I know hate Marmite.

Anyway, yes, Nigel, Appleyard can be criticised from the academic ivory towers. He is probably all that you say he is. I am not familiar with him. Possibly he is the Brit equivalent of our knee-jerk reactionary dinosaurs over here like some of the the writers for William Buckley's ''National Review.'' I won't argue with you on that.

What I will argue with you about is this. I enjoyed his ''emotional'' article because it was a refreshing change from some of the silly new-agey feel-good self-righteous holier-than-thou totally irrelevant and impertinent stuff posted here lately. What the ivory tower academicians here seem to forget is that the WTC attack roused emotions to such a point that many of us thought first of plain old revenge and only later of practicalities and politics.

I forgive the Brits because they can't help feeling superior to us wogs and were not personally touched but find it very hard to swallow the Americans who blame America. Sure the US has made some ugly mistakes in foreign policy. They did not support the ANC until 20 years after the UK did. But did Mandela send planes crashing into the WTC? And the ANC was and is very anti-American but what they did was rouse the people against their oppressive government just as Al-Qaed should be doing with theirs.

No matter what the US did, the Islamic cultists would have hated us. Bin Laden has repeatedly said that capitalism is anathema to Islam. His philosophy is a toxic mix of fundamentalist religion and envious Marxism. To him the US is THE very symbol of capitalism and the global economy.

And all I read here is ''Yes, the Al-Qaed does have a point.'' Maybe in a few weeks time I'll go back to wanting to appease them and be diplomatic but right now I would be emotionally dishonest if I said anything other than that they must be exterminated.

It is against the backdrop of ''blame America'' that Appleyard's essay was a refreshing change. At any other time I may well have agreed with you - that he is jingoistic reactionary. But right now I cannot hear a single argument that convinces me that we drew this attack up ourselves and that has been the gist of 90% of the posts here recently. So, yes, I'm feeling touchy and needed to read some nice rah-rah pro-American stuff.

But I won't be doing much more politcal debating here as I am convinced that my words are falling on deaf ears. And I do not fool myself into thinking that I have much influence on the power-structure of the world. Not all of it pleases me but neither am I so pessimistic and paranoid as to see conspiracy theories, plots, schemes, cover-ups and general American venality. No, I'm an optimist and see that even the fat cats at the very top are not innately evil or stupid but are not too dissimilar from myself.

As I said to Scott in a post below regarding all the doom and gloom expressed here: ''I don't sweat the details. I don't have the time which is why this discussion has become too academic for my tastes. Mistakes will be made as they always are. It's called learning. I just hope that the Shrub is still capable of learning from his mistakes and his father's. I'm an optimist. I trust evolution. It got us this far and can take us much further.''

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 20:46:12 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: Here, Here!
Message:
Or is it 'Hear, Hear!' Never did get that.

Anyway, I'm just back from a court application out of town. Starting to read through the threads. I agree with you wholeheartedly, Pat. I also think it would be a good idea if you stopped posting as a sacrificial symbolic statement. Naw, kidding about that part. The 'opposition' here would only dance on your grave. They're ruthless, Pat. Guys liek you and me, Pat, we've got to stay and keep our fingers in the dike. (??)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 03:46:49 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: I still hate rock n roll
Message:
I don't mind sticking my fingers in dykes but what you're suggesting not only sounds impossible but quite rude and uncomfortable. It would mean Locke, Jefferson, Adam Smith 101. I'm not a saint like you - can't stand the missionary position - not a good pedagogue. I guess it's back to the opera and Greek history forums where I actually learn stuff.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 18:44:57 (EDT)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: Who said this???????
Message:
Pat,

You said 'all I ever hear here is 'Yes, the Al-Qaed does have a point.'' I haven't read everyting here, but tell me who in hell said this on this forum? I haven't read a single word of support for the terrorists here.

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 20:53:35 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: Read between the lines, John
Message:
Who said it? Every person who's found in this terrorist attack a foundation to criticize the U.S. That's where it leads, John. Actually, I find it kind of amusing the way people are so happy to argue as much by implication but are horrified at the thought of being associated with such a dark sentiment.

If your brother was attacked and killed by a neighbour and I came over and said 'John, I'm deeply sorry for the loss, what the nieghbour did was dastardly' then waited a few seconds and added '...but, you know, your brother really did some nasty things in his time' I would most definitely be suggesting that the neighbour 'had a point'.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 05:15:28 (EDT)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: I see what you're saying....
Message:
Jim,

I disagree. It doesn't lead where you are fixated in believing it does. I'll repeat - I haven't read a single word supporting terrorists here, but I have read some very good analyses of how people could possibly have decided to become terrorists. It's not a question of blame. You wrote earlier that in all the conflicts that the USA has been involved in their motives have been good, from stopping Naziism to Communism. We can now look back and see that in spite of those motives, the USA didn't always get it right. That's not blame, that's trying to learn from mistakes, that only were apparent as mistakes in hindsight. We can also look back and say that many of the areas where the USA did get it right have improved the world immeasurably, at least in my opinion.

So to your analogy. Have you noticed at funerals that people who die never did anything bad? Quite properly, after a death people do not behave like you describe, and even later, when the grieving has lessened, there is no point in you telling me my brother's faults. I probably know them anyway.

But America isn't dead. America is about to embark on a very dangerous course of action, that could drastically change the world. I really hope that this is one of those occasions where America changes the world for the better. I honestly believe it can be. But rational discussion and clear minds are essential at this time. Understanding how terrorism arises is essential to wipe it out. Fortunately, I believe that the kind of discussions you dislike here, are precisely the kinds of discussions taking place in the White House and the Pentagon. It's early days, but I believe Bush has excellent advice. When we have these discussions here about the causes of terrorism, you are free to disagree, and propose other causes, but to simply attack people who are trying to understand as anti-American is wrong, and totally unhelpful.

BTW, I thought the Canadian feminist you linked to above is a whole hamper short of a picnic.

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 00:45:56 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: Reconciliation - On Topic
Message:
John:

I have read some very good analyses of how people could possibly have decided to become terrorists. It's not a question of blame. You wrote earlier that in all the conflicts that the USA has been involved in their motives have been good, from stopping Naziism to Communism. We can now look back and see that in spite of those motives, the USA didn't always get it right. That's not blame, that's trying to learn from mistakes, that only were apparent as mistakes in hindsight.

OK, we had good intentions but made mistakes, so we need to learn from our mistakes so we manifest our good intentions without messing up the world. Sounds reasonable. So I'm wondering what we're doing right now that might be done differently, since we've decided we're not going to appease anyone (big mistake) or incarcerate anyone based on their ethnicity. We're not going to push anyone off their land, or usurp their water rights or herd them onto reservations. So, what action do we need to perfect?

Understanding how terrorism arises is essential to wipe it out. Fortunately, I believe that the kind of discussions you dislike here, are precisely the kinds of discussions taking place in the White House and the Pentagon.

Well, somehow I don't think Bush and his advisors are allowing as how we oughtn't to have nicked the Red Man's land, and they aren't rehashing 'The American Dilemma' but they might be deciding whether it's a good idea to use US bases in S.A. Assuming we have a strategic necessity let's suppose the clerical establishment there says it's not a problem, and 60% of the population feels it's OK. Do we use it and just ignore the other 40% who oppose? Is it relevant to ask what's the depth of their opposition, because we don't want to piss off an extremist group? But it's a popularity contest, right, so as long as we have 60% with us then the only argument against is that we're concerned that there might be an appeal of some violent action that would fall on sympathetic ears among the minority. So do we avoid Riyadh in order to forestall such an attack on the US or our base in S.A.? Not to avoid retaliation we don't. Why? Because if we act purely to avoid violence then we send the message that we can be pushed, in which case we'll get pushed more, and more, until we're hiding under our beds. It isn't that we don't *want* to accommodate the potential terrorists. It's that we *can't*, because it would embolden their self appointed champions. So we're damned whether we do or don't, but damned more if we do.

When we have these discussions here about the causes of terrorism, you are free to disagree, and propose other causes, but to simply attack people who are trying to understand as anti-American is wrong, and totally unhelpful.

But there's a really fundamental disagreement here. What some of us are saying is that the linkage between our historical actions and those of the terrorists is not only risky but suicidal, because it legitimates terrorism as a proper negotiation technique. Surely you can see the problem with that? How long would it be before we got an offer we couldn't refuse?

Fortunately we know that the ultimate cause of terrorism is not our actions either historically or now. The ultimate cause of terrorism is 'magical thinking.' It's the conviction that something going on in your life in the everyday world is linked to great cosmic events. Not the other way around mind you, because that's just political empowerment. The basic cause of terrorism is the notion that history has you by the ears and it's marching you through the gates, swamping your individual will. It's not merely a delusion that *you* know the direction that this cosmic course must take, although that's what Hannah Arendt thought. It's more than the notion that it's *your* responsibility to compel God's will, because if that's all it were then it might be simple patriotism which would peter out as everyday events pulled you this way and that. No, it's the notion that everyday events are pulling you in one direction, and one direction only, constantly reinforcing the conviction that there's no room for doubt or questioning or discussion. I don't see how there's much wiggle room for a liberal attitude in response there, do you? However, one thing you can do that might save fighting a battle or two is treat the magical thinking directly. You can 'bust' it, and you can do things that demonstrate that the 'magic' just isn't happening.

So if you can demonstrate how our analysis of past US actions (accurately recounted) serves that goal then I'll buy it. But every scenario I can think of serves the opposite goal, because our acknowledgement of a wrong convinces the terrorist or recruit that their thoughts are magic, and their will is destined. The irony here is that terrorism does precisely the opposite of what the terrorist's 'audience' wants, because it binds the hands of the opponent from taking any sort of conciliatory action.

On the other hand, if we make clear our intention to not negotiate and not seek any reconciliation, committing ourselves to the destruction of the opponent, then we can afford to be conciliatory to those interests not expressed by the terrorist, or not seen as their primary objective. We can win his audience away from him, break his pattern of magical thinking, and restore sanity.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 03:45:07 (EDT)
From: Pat:C) to Scott and JHB
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Terrorists as cultic magical thinkers
Message:
Your last four paragraphs are your coup de grace, Scott. You said it all for me. I no longer need to contribute any more to this discussion. There is no reasoning with these fanatical cultists. All we can do is hope that their magical thinking will be seen for the insanity that it is by their fellow countrymen.

PS And this is for John as I feel I owe it to him. I think of the IRA in exactly the same terms - insane, macho, murderous, religious fanatics whose historical gripe is no more rational than the Al-Qaed's.

These people simply all need proper day jobs - once they have been deprogrammed from the insane cult-think. And, if they have murdered anyone - catch them and imprison them and throw away the keys.

I don't condone the death penalty but, if they resist arrest or endanger our lives, we have the right to defend ourselves. And they have already not only endangered lives but taken many in cold blood.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 15:00:18 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Pat:C) to Scott and JHB
Subject: Extradition from Europe
Message:
As I understand it the european countries that oppose the death penalty have waived their objection in order to expedite extradition of suspected terrorists to the US.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 16:11:45 (EDT)
From: Moley
Email: moldy_warp@hotmail.com
To: Pat:C)
Subject: No, no, no Pat
Message:
Please read my reply to Jim...

Look - everyone feels absolute horror at what appalling thing happened to our fellow human beings on Sept. 11th...

There were as many Brits killed per head of of population as Americans - but who f***ing cares about what nationality these human beings were! I don't.

PLEASE don't go down the nationalistic route - it is a recipe for more pain (again see my post to Jim)

'Academics in Ivory towers'??? Come on - these are people who think and try to work out SOLUTIONS to world problems (albeit sometimes they think crap). But don't do that thinking v. feeling stuff on me.... you can think and feel at the same time - thinking IS a feeling.

Don't endorse that woman Appleyard quotes favourably as stating over 90% of the Arab world beleive America got what it deserved. Where does she get such a statistic from???

People are hurting - that's people, not particular nations.

I think (and FEEL) that it is OK to try to figure out what a bloody awful mess the world is in that things have come to this...

And By the Way.. I stand completely by what I said (or implied) in my post to Jim...

Today on the BBC news there was a brief mention (way down the list) of 15 people being killed by a suicide bomber in the Middle East ...

That is colonialism for what it's worth... who gives a f**k about the 'wogs' and 'slanty-eyed - lot' BUT if some of us White Westerners get killed the WHOLE WORLD is supposed to FREAK!!!!
Sorry - but I just don't buy that...

It is sentimental crap

One life lost is as awful as 5000

Moley who likes people and refuses to belong to any f***ing nation!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 21:16:26 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Moley
Subject: That's unfair criticism, Moley
Message:
^You keep referring to your post to me so maybe I should read the damn thing before commenting to this or others. (Wouldn't it be cool if the forum had a feature where we could tag or mark read posts so we could keep track of the ones we've read but want to return to answer?)

Yes, people might be hurting but the victims were targets simply because they're American (even if, in fact, many weren't) and America, and not individuals, has to respond.

I don't agree that one life lost is as awful as 5000 and wonder if you really, honestly mean that? I wonder, really, how could you?

As for the suicide bomber in the middle east, are you talking about the Kasmir attack? Not middle east, then, but India? What's your point, there? That we're somehow racist if we identify with the WTC and Pentagon victims more than the Indians? I think that's wrong for several reasons. For one, New York City hasn't previously been indentified as a contested piece of real estate subject to a long-standing guerilla campaign from a neighbouring state, one that's cost somewhere around 30,000 lives over the past few decades. Kashmir is. So Kashmir's already a dangerous place as a result and news of this attack there just doesn't shock the same way. For another, people naturally identify most with those most alike them. The WTC and Pentagon victims were, in many respects, a lot more like most of us posters here, so it's only natural that our empathy would be drawn more readily to those victims than to those in Kashmir. That's just a function of human nature, not colonialism, and it's not something we should feel guilty about. Nice try though.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 03:25:55 (EDT)
From: Moley
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Jim - your view of human nature - not everyones
Message:
Jim, you said:
For another, people naturally identify most with those most alike them. The WTC and Pentagon victims were, in many respects, a lot more like most of us posters here, so it's only natural that our empathy would be drawn more readily to those victims than to those in Kashmir. That's just a function of human nature, not colonialism, and it's not something we should feel guilty about. Nice try though.

I don't think your version of colonialism v. human nature is remotely accurate... a human 'tendency' , for sure... but human 'nature'? Where's your hard evidence?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 14:14:09 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Moley
Subject: No evidence at all, Moley
Message:
Moley,

I don't need evidence. And frankly, ss a colonial imperialist, I find such demands offensive. Who do you think you're talking to? I'm not like you, Moley. I acutally think I'm better than everone or, to be more precise, my people are better than wogs, if you know what I mean.

You flushed me out, I must say.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 14:50:09 (EDT)
From: Barbara
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: What's a wog?
Message:
I know that Italian 'wop' means 'without papers,' but I have no clue what a wog is. Gotta get thatdictionary of global politics I saw yesterday, I guess.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 17:34:01 (EDT)
From: berni
Email: None
To: Barbara
Subject: Re: What's a wog?
Message:
Hi Babs, if I may be so bold as to call you that.
I love the fact that you don't know - if only everyone was the same and these racist terms did not exist.
'W'estern 'O'riental 'G'entleman I was once told but I think the meaning behind it is not at all pleasant.
berni
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 00:41:23 (EDT)
From: Barbara
Email: None
To: berni
Subject: Thanks Berni and Pat D.
Message:
I might be going to London in Jan/Feb next year, and with my luck, and in some lame attempt to act 'British,' I'd say wog as a joke and not realize what I was doing. That's one faux pas eliminated.

Thanks, again.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 20:43:27 (EDT)
From: PatD
Email: None
To: berni
Subject: Re: What's a wog?
Message:
I heard it was the acroynm for 'workers on gov service' (WOGS) printed on the back of the jackets worn by Eyptians who worked for the Suez Canal Authority , & thus the 1st brownskinned people a traveller from England to India would see .
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 16:20:07 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Moley
Subject: Post-modernism, Moley
Message:
Nationalism is still a fact of life. It is not going to disappear anytime soon. Al-Qaed IS all about nationalism (and religion) but really is very unenlightened nationalism.

I am not a rah-rah nationalist but neither am I a post-modern relativist who thinks that all cultures are equal. Sorry, but I do believe that western civilization must prevail at least over something as atavistic as Islamic fundamentalism.

I guess I am just an old fogy and probably need to back out of this debate before I am painted into the conservative corner. I'm a liberal and a firm believer in Adam Smith.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 17:09:54 (EDT)
From: Francesca :C)
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: With 'ya there, Pat
Message:
Especially this:

'I am not a rah-rah nationalist but neither am I a post-modern relativist who thinks that all cultures are equal. Sorry, but I do believe that western civilization must prevail at least over something as atavistic as Islamic fundamentalism.'

I don't like wearing long blue veils. :o

Bests, F

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 16:43:44 (EDT)
From: Moley
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: Re: Post-modernism, Moley
Message:
Pat, you said:
Sorry, but I do believe that western civilization must prevail at least over something as atavistic as Islamic fundamentalism.

Yep - maybe ... but not over Islam per se.

Big difference.

I find myself in an odd position, cos, on the one hand, I feel that Western civilisation is pretty amazing, whilst at the same time, I am very aware that we have colonised the globe and virtually wiped out whole cultures in the process!!!

Penicillin maybe - but removing Mative American Indian kids to boarding schools to enculture them in 'White ways'??? Give me a break.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 21:21:34 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Moley
Subject: Why are you talking about this NOW?
Message:
What in the world do Native American residential schools have to dow tih anything? Moley, you really do sound as if you're saying that, because the United States has sinned before (assuming that's how you view these schools), America is a less sympathetic victim than, say, Sweden would be (although I'm sure there are some angry Laplanders, or Finns or someone out there ready to set me straight).
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 03:41:56 (EDT)
From: Moley
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: Why are you talking about this NOW?
Message:
No - I'm not saying that. I'm saying that all victims should have equal sympathy. White people should not not be more sympathetic to the tragic murder of other white people than they are to similar atrocities perpetrated on other races/countries.
I'm saying that we (white) people need to understand that the inequalities between the First World and the rest of mankind are so great.... and unless that is addressed we haven't a hope in hell of avoiding bloodshed.
I'm saying we need to look at the causes of the WTC atrocity if we want to prevent further terrorism.
I tried to explain what I thought were some of the deep-lying causes of 'man's inhumanity to man'.
This forum has become a microcosm of exactly what I am talking about.
Us v Them (in this case, Them is anyone who expresses anything that Us construe as remotely anti-American).
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 01:02:30 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Moley
Subject: Wrong.
Message:
I don't know how to put it diplomatically.

I'm saying we need to look at the causes of the WTC atrocity if we want to prevent further terrorism.

Terrorism prevents us from addressing the concerns you mention (to the extent that they're either real or imagined), at least as long as it continues to exist. See my post below on reconciliation. And I also think this is the way back to the topic of the forum too.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 05:20:15 (EDT)
From: berni
Email: None
To: Moley
Subject: What you say is true, Moley
Message:
Hello Moley,
First of all, in case I get tarred with the 'anti' brush - I love America and always have, even though I'm English
I'm all for anything that will put an end to terrorism - but these divisive posts are nothing to do with people being against America or America against Afghanistan.
Can't we agree that we are all against religious-cultist-barbaric-superstition motivated lunatics, wherever they may be (that is the US and THEM ), and discuss the best way of dealing with them so that nothing like September 11th ever happens again.
I am not sure that bombing the suspected Islamic fundamentalists into oblivion, along with any civilians that get caught in the cross fire is the best way forward. If they are as fanatical as evidence shows, you would only have to have missed 1% of them and they will highjack another plane or launch some other mad suicide mission.
I am not sure what the answer is but arguing about whether America has acted improperly in the past ( what country hasn't) or whether it is the greatest country in the world is not going to help.
What happens next is what's really important to all of us.
berni
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 16:19:20 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Moley
Subject: Re: No, no, no Pat
Message:
One life lost is as awful as 5000

I can't think of anything more eloquent about your littany of silliness than is illustrated by the observation that you've missed the mark a little in the above statement. Why don't you just go 'meditate' somewhere, for awhile. Sheesh.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 11:37:06 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: What a crock, Nige
Message:
No, Brian, the point is this: if these anti-Vietnam protesters were to express a dislike of all things American, you could justifiably accuse them of Yankophobia. The irony is all in your head. That a person can read Updike, watch the Simpsons and listen to Dylan whilst making negative observations about the policies of a particular administration, probably suggests that they – unlike you – are dealing in issues rather than clichéd right-wing stereotypes.

I've only got a moment now but will tell you later why I think Appleyard's essay stands unfazed once the smoke of your broadside clears. For now, let me just respond to you summary point, the anti-U.S. hatred and disdain the B.B.C. audience exhibited were hardly just 'making negative observations about the policies of a particular administration' from what I understand. The sentiment expressed, there was a much more damning, general indictment of America itself, its politics, its culture, ultimately its citizenry. In that light, America deserves the kind of defense Appleyard offers. If anything, your reaction strikes me a near-hysterical as if you're trying to bay Appleyard away with a stick or something. No, Nige, you're not anti-American. Frankly, no one here is.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 14:49:43 (EDT)
From: Moley
Email: moldy_warp@hotmail.com
To: Jim
Subject: Jim - address the problem rationally
Message:
For sure anti-Americanism exists in varying degrees, from the anti-US-foreign-policy brigade right down to those who dislike what they perceive to be American culture, and even American identity. It cannot be argued away with emotive, imprecise, or darn right specious argument, as the Appleyards of this world would try to do.

Better to address the problem rationally.

Why does it exist?

Partly what you seem to imply is correct – namely that anti-American feeling stems from a form of cultural stereotyping, the latter being endemic to human thinking for so long it appears rational. Of course it isn’t.
The problem is that such stereotyping is fed by the human propensity for alteritous thinking – Us v. Them (‘Us’ being bigger, better, truer, more beautiful, more civilised, than ‘Them’).

Yet it is precisely this ‘Us’ mentality that gets Americans (and, for that matter, all of us white Westerners) into trouble.

When we are in the ‘Us’ camp, it is comparatively easy to rail against cultural stereotyping. Moral ‘right’ seems to be on our side. However when we are in the ‘Them’ camp, the situation is more ambiguous…

If you were a dispossessed Native American how would you feel about your colonisers?

How do you think the rest of us feel about the debacle of the Kyoto agreement… why should America insist on her right to carry on polluting the planet at the expense of the rest of us?

How should the East Timorese feel about American (and UK) arms sales to Indonesia?

White Westerners have had an insidious propensity to perceive themselves as supreme, with right, and Gawd, on their sides, for so long… America is often still perceived to think that way…

This is what you need to address (without praising patriotism for gawd’s sake…. I can’t see how your average patriot can avoid thinking in the very ‘Us’ and ‘Them’ mentality that has caused an incalculable amount of human suffering for millennia)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 16:52:27 (EDT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Moley
Subject: Kyoto
Message:
How do you think the rest of us feel about the debacle of the Kyoto agreement… why should America insist on her right to carry on polluting the planet at the expense of the rest of us?

I heard that the US doesn't want to ratify the Kyoto protocol because it doesn't apply to developing nations. Rumor has it the G7 doesn't want to back up the US on this because doing business with those developing nations is good and they don't want to do anything to spoil that. So, maybe everybody's a little greedy here, eh? But let's just blame the US. Like you say, it's us and them. Blame them. It's easier.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 16:36:53 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Moley
Subject: Moley's rational approach
Message:
Do you not comprehend that sans patriotism and interpersonal love all you'd have are bald contractual agreements with little or any motivation to accept any sacrifice not specifically outlined in the specified document or it's appendages? Is there no such thing as an appropriate allegiance, for heaven sake? I believe the essence of what Mr. Apple-whatshisname is saying is simply that, especially at a time like this, it is appropriate to have an allegiance to the United States and to the founding values it represents (however imperfectly it may have fulfilled them in the past). I don't see one single thing wrong with that, and neither do most people.

I imagine you intend to present this 'Ich und Dir' argument to el Quaeda, as your 'rational way' to address the problem? Something like that? Yeah, that'll go over big.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 15:42:39 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Moley
Subject: How nice to see you, Moley
Message:
...sticking up for your Nige.

I enjoyed your post. It was moderate and circumspect but you lost me with this: ''If you were a dispossessed Native American how would you feel about your colonisers?''

I guess if I were a sane Native American I would say, ''Thanks for the penicillin and air-conditioning.''

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 17:55:17 (EDT)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: outrageous
Message:
I guess if I were a sane Native American I would say, ''Thanks for the penicillin and
air-conditioning.''

Them damn Indians can't get anythin' right. Damn savages thought livin' in a tee-pee was decent. All fornicatin' and runnin' 'roun' barefoot. And then thinkin' we white folks done robbed sometin' frum 'em. Grateful, dats what dey should be. Damn grateful.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 01:11:54 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: This is a stereotype, of what??
Message:
Need a little practice with your satire there, Buddy. Rick, do you even know any Amerinds? How do you know Pat's not correct? Anyway, I'd have said that any sane Red Man would be more grateful for the horse than penicillin or air-conditioning. And life in a segmented (tribal) society was no picnic long before the white man arrived on the continent. It's one thing to wax nostalgic about living in a society based on magic and superstition, without even the concept of individualism or rights, but quite another to have no choice in the matter, and no conceivable options. Yeah, if they're sane they'll be glad they're here instead of there, whether they credit the white man with that change or (more appropriately) themselves.

I knew David Sohappy, BTW, and was in a sweat with Standing Buffalo and Ben Smith (who tells great jokes about the A/C waiting for him at home as everyone in the lodge gets visions of God from the heat). Hey...Metaquiaseed (all our relations).

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 01:45:34 (EDT)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: This is a stereotype, of what?
Message:
As Jim would say, 'I find this kind of thinking vile.' To get from their admittedly more primitive life to A/C, Penicillan, and horses was a lot of suffering. The white man wasn't being generous, he was loading his coffers.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 09:39:41 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: Re: This is a stereotype, of what?
Message:
Well perhaps they weren't being generous but so what? Greed doesn't produce penicillin [however it's spelled] or A/C any more than generosity. It's produced by creativity, science, and organization. Given a choice between that and a civilization that can't produce so much as a pencil I'll take the former. And as Pat so aptly observed, so would anyone in their right mind.

Besides, please explain what this has to do with the war on terrorism. Are you saying that reversion to a primative atavistic culture wouldn't be so bad, or that we should give wall street jobs to terrorists? Or are you joining the el Quaeda in making the point that we're reaping the wages of sin, with a little assistance from God's helpers? What?

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 10:10:21 (EDT)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: This is a stereotype, of what?
Message:
I'm saying that the horror that was visited on the Native Americans can't be diluted by pointing to benefits they may have indirectly received. I'm also saying that not everyone sees technology as a benefit, or a benefit without considerable debit. I'm saying this is completely besides the point.

The fate of the Native Americans, and the African-American slaves, and several other crimes the U.S. committed during history isn't besides the point. They all go to questioning the current blind patriotism, and they all go to bolstering the need to examine the situation in the Middle-East and Asia, to clarify what the U.S. did and didn't do there.

If you're going to find a silver lining in crimes committed by the U.S. then find a silver lining in the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11. That is what's insane.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 12:28:18 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: Re: This is a stereotype, of what?
Message:
No, I'm asking why you're bringing up the atrocities committed against the Red Man in this context? What does it have to do with the topic? I thought I was clear.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 14:54:56 (EDT)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: This is a stereotype, of what?
Message:
Scott,
I didn't bring it up, Molly did. I recognized that serial inhumane crimes and corruption by a nation were relevant in questioning patriotism, and relevant in showing the need to examine how the U.S. has acted historically in the Middle-East and Asia.

If I need examples to talk about this, I'm out, because I simply don't have the memory. But I am convinced of this.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 21:23:32 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: This isn't a stereotype
Message:
Well look, you know I'm inclined to minimize the relevance of this having grown up with native Americans. We came the closest to genocide there, and certainly there were some instances that crossed that line (Wounded Knee, the Ghost Dancers) but the history of Amerinds on this continent is all bound up with the history of European Americans. Our very image of Amerinds is conditioned by their relationship to the horse, which didn't exist prior to our arrival, so regardless of what's been done in the past the divide isn't as stark as it's been made out to be by those seeking to exploit it.

I don't think you guys know what you're talking about when you mention patriotism. There's a discussion to be had there, but it requires a huge leap to a generic definition of that emotional tie and it's place in the world that I don't think you're prepared to make. It's similar to what you mean by the term 'beauty' which is just a slightly juiced up version of aesthetics. A true appreciation of beauty, that's far removed from aesthetics, demands an experience of shame... precisely the sort of shame you might feel waiving a flag in public... or for that matter wearing a tawdry suit to your graduation. Defining style as tawdriness in order to avoid the feeling of shame isn't quite the same thing. Probably Greek to you though.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 22:06:30 (EDT)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: This isn't a stereotype
Message:
It's just amazing how complicated you make decency out to be.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 22:25:04 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: Re: This isn't a stereotype
Message:
Only because you don't understand.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 21:51:36 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: WhatEVer
Message:
Why talk about this now, Rick? I just don't get it. None of you guys want to admit it but the only way I can see any logical relevance at all is as a tacit way of implying that the terrorist attack victims aren't really all that sympathetic. Otherwise, what's the relevance?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 00:59:47 (EDT)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: WhatEVer
Message:
The relevance is in trying to understand why this happened, how it could have been avoided (if that was possible), and how to avoid it in the future. The situation in the Middle East and Asia is complicated.
Dismissing the United States as having played a part in contributing to what happened without knowing all the details, prevents having that
understanding. And the history of the United States goes to it being
worthwhile to investigate. When people object to discussing the
evidence that points to this, what else can be done but discuss this
country's history?

In addition, the wholesale patriotism that surfaced as a result of the
terrorist attacks is disturbing to me and others, not only because it may be unwarranted in the light of possible wrongdoing by the U.S. in Middle East and Asia, but also because it does a disservice to the others that were senslessly harmed by the United States in its history. There's no sense in making the U.S. out to be an angel to avenge the horror that happened to the people killed in the attacks.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 23:31:42 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: Re: WhatEVer
Message:
the wholesale patriotism that surfaced as a result of the
terrorist attacks is disturbing to me and others

Jesus, it's like wholesale copulation or something. I can see why you're distressed. It all makes sense now. But suppose you had to produce a whole lot of babies all at once (or in 9 months), and didn't have time to arrange a proper mass wedding? I'll bet you wouldn't mind a little wholesale nooky then would you?

Scott 'hiding his patriotism under his hat' T.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 16:39:05 (EDT)
From: Francesca :C)
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: Pat, that was GENOCIDE
Message:
The Native Americans were screwed. I agree that they have to live in the present moment, and be thankful for what they have now. But they are still continuing to be screwed by the US Government, and are still fighting for their rights under broken treaties and agreements.

It cannot be black and white. It's not 'bad awful US had it coming' and it's not 'we didn't do anything to bring this upon ourselves.' It's not as black-and-white as either stance. Generally, no one is 100 percent innocent. Usually if someone is mad at me, I did something, even if what they did back was grossly out of proportion to what I ever did to them. And even if I feel like I AM 100 percent innocent, it behooves me to acknowledge their perception of the events, no matter how grossly distorted I think it is, and to figure out what got me in their crosshairs.

I find it odd, really, that people that I consider good friends, that I agree with on so many issues, cannot stand to hear ANY criticism of the US due to their emotions over the bombing. The fact that that awful event of terrorism occured and that bin Laden and co are a bunch of dangerous raving loonies does not make every single one of this nation's actions for the past 80 years or so 'white as the driven snow.' It's good to acknowledge emotions but they don't change facts -- although I will agree heartily that all the pundits are using selected facts to bolster up whatever kind theory they happen to be espousing. Can you imagine how much money is being made writing all these articles??

Love,
Francesca

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 22:01:50 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Francesca :C)
Subject: Your post says it all, Fran
Message:
The Native Americans were screwed. I agree that they have to live in the present moment, and be thankful for what they have now. But they are still continuing to be screwed by the US Government, and are still fighting for their rights under broken treaties and agreements.

It cannot be black and white. It's not 'bad awful US had it coming' and it's not 'we didn't do anything to bring this upon ourselves.' It's not as black-and-white as either stance. Generally, no one is 100 percent innocent. Usually if someone is mad at me, I did something, even if what they did back was grossly out of proportion to what I ever did to them. And even if I feel like I AM 100 percent innocent, it behooves me to acknowledge their perception of the events, no matter how grossly distorted I think it is, and to figure out what got me in their crosshairs.

I find it odd, really, that people that I consider good friends, that I agree with on so many issues, cannot stand to hear ANY criticism of the US due to their emotions over the bombing. The fact that that awful event of terrorism occured and that bin Laden and co are a bunch of dangerous raving loonies does not make every single one of this nation's actions for the past 80 years or so 'white as the driven snow.' It's good to acknowledge emotions but they don't change facts -- although I will agree heartily that all the pundits are using selected facts to bolster up whatever kind theory they happen to be espousing. Can you imagine how much money is being made writing all these articles??

Love,
Francesca


---

So let's connect the dots, shall we? The U.S. government, or shall we say simply white Americans, treated Native Americans abysmally. Thus, as you say, they're not 100 per cent innocent. This should be borne in mind when we consider how to feel about the WTC attack victims. After all, it's not as if we didn't do anything to bring this upon ourselves.'

Right?

I find that line of thinking reprehensible, quite frankly. I mean, I wouldn't accept it if it were Native Americans who'd hijacked those planes. I can't even begin to take seriously this kind of 'justification' transferred to some fanatical Islamic fundamentalists.

By the way, you know that your country invaded mine twice, huh? Once in 1775 and then again in the war of 1812. No, I'm not saying that that makes the attacks any more palatable. I just thought it was something we should bear in mind ........

Yeah, right!!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 00:47:29 (EDT)
From: Francesca :C)
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: WhatEver
Message:
You have a great way of not listening to what I said, and twisting my words around to suit the meaning you want to get out of it, and trying to make me look like an idiot in the process. What's your point, Jim??

The Islamic fundamentalists are wackos, and their anger is out of proportion and misplaced. But the US has meddled in Middle Eastern affairs for many years. As I said, 'And even if I feel like I AM 100 percent innocent, it behooves me to acknowledge their perception of the events[their meaning whoever is pissed off at me], no matter how grossly distorted I think it is, and to figure out what got me in their crosshairs.'

Jim, go argue with someone else. I hope this is the last time I even bother to respond to a post like that.

Francesca

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 16:31:19 (EDT)
From: Moley
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: Re: How nice to see you, Moley
Message:
Oh come on ...I love you but ....
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 17:37:54 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Moley
Subject: Mo;ey and Fran we'll have to agree to disagree
Message:
It seems as if the two of you (and nearly everyone else in our generation or at least those who post here) have bought the anti-establishment argument hook, line and sinker. I guess we all ended up in a cult because we were counter-culture but I have rethunk my position considerably in the past 30 years.

Whereas you see history as a series of genocidal atrocities visited upon noble savages (which continues to this day due to our oil interests in the mid-east) I see history as cultural evolution, filled with horrible mistakes but nevertheless progressing and making the world better for most if not all.

Colonialism and imperialism are facts of life in a world where a mighty technological west has to dwell alongside less-developed cultures, some barely beyond paleolithic. So the noble Native American savage is still fighting for it's rights (as we all are) all the while enjoying western healthcare and freedom from the fear of being butchered and eaten by neighboring enemy tribes.

The way you see history is that the human race (especially the white devil) is evil. The way I see it is that human beings are basically good but make terrible mistakes and that the world is a far better place now for ordinary working people like me than it ever was at any time in history and that this has been because of western technology and culture which I still believe is a blessing to the non-westerners whom we colonise not a curse.

Without western history you would still be in purdah and constantly pregnant.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 18:56:40 (EDT)
From: Moley
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: Re: Mo;ey and Fran we'll have to agree to disagree
Message:
Pat, you said:
The way you see history is that the human race (especially the white devil) is evil.
and
Without western history you would still be in purdah and constantly pregnant.

No no no I do NOT see Western civilisation as evil...

The WHOLE point is that there is no simple amswer, no simplistic solution....

Western civilisation has brought many gifts and many evils...

And yeh, maybe I wouldn't want to be constantly pregnant, but I have been pregnant 5 times... and each one beautiful...even though one baby didn't make it...

And do I want the imposition of white Western (usually Male - it was Louis 14th who made women lie down in childbirth - so he could get a good view)childbirth practices... no!

And (in comparison to Rawatland) - it is REAL

So...the American 'savage' (your quote) is fighting for his/her rights... the whole RIGHTS issue itself is an invention of Western civilisation... did the Native American NEED rights before we attempted to obliterate them wholesale?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 22:04:02 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Moley
Subject: Oh, god, how could I forget??!
Message:
And do I want the imposition of white Western (usually Male - it was Louis 14th who made women lie down in childbirth - so he could get a good view)childbirth practices... no!

I'm outraged! This is terrible. Does Bush know this? Well, he should.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 18:39:26 (EDT)
From: Francesca :C)
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: Still too black and white Pat
Message:
The way you see history is that the human race (especially the white devil) is evil. The way I see it is that human beings are basically good but make terrible mistakes and that the world is a far better place now for ordinary working people like me than it ever was at any time in history and that this has been because of western technology and culture which I still believe is a blessing to the non-westerners whom we colonise not a curse.

Without western history you would still be in purdah and constantly pregnant.

It ain't me babe. You can't pin this tail, 'cause I ain't no donkey.

F

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 18:01:18 (EDT)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: Yeah, Moley and Francesca
Message:
Be grateful to powerful white men, all through history, that now you have women's rights. Absolutely fucking hysterical.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 12:13:10 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Ha THE BBC Audience
Message:
No Jim

A SECTION of the BBC audience. I saw it , you didn't. I've never commented on this particular issue before for the sake of peoples sensitivities at the time.

It was a , I REPEAT, a section of the audience that didn't go along with the general consensus.
One of the panellists, a Yasmin alibi(?) Brown (a Ugandan Asian, kicked out by Idi Amin...and now a prominent journalist/writer) was one of those who didn't go along with the mainstream. As a UK muslim she gave her perspective but (she was sitting right next to the ambassador) she never ONCE defended the terrorists or their actions.
And she was as sympathetic and understanding as can be (apart from having a different overall persepctive)to the ambassador in particular and Americans/Americas plight.

Another (young )UK muslim lady made a point about muslim and other victims of terror worldwide being pretty much IGNORED and it upset her (again though whilst not insulting or downgrading the US tragedy)that the expression of sympathy was always biased.

There were many pro-Americans in the audience (as Nige pointed out, it was a CROSS-SECTION)too. It's a reflection of DEMOCRACY. Remeber that concept? Or would you like a Western version of Stalinist thinking? No dissent? Just because you don't agree with dissenters or find them dis-tasteful doesn't mean a thing.

I watched it and agreed with points from all sections of the audience (and dis-agreed) whether they were Right, centre or left.At times ,the ambassadors forlorn face and obvious sensitivity did draw sympathy from me but you still have to be honest in your views.

I don't agree with the Ambassadors politics but I fairly like the guy. I read his book he wrote soon after finishing his ambassadorial post over here. As a basic human being and a loving family man he is a likeable fella. There were lots in his book that I disagreed with. He also liked Britain and was pretty much an anglophile but I don't think he'd come in contact with (UK) CROSS SECTIONS that much in his UK carrer. That in essence is what a QT audience comprises of.The panel ALWAYS has representatives of right and left leaners and sometimes even has more extreme proponents from either side.Its panel AND audience is always balanced.

As I say ....thank God we live in a relatively FREE and DEMOCRATIC country huh? Or would you prefer a right wing / stalinist type thinking model?

Cheers

Dermot

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 22:11:13 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Damn good question, Dermot
Message:
As I say ....thank God we live in a relatively FREE and DEMOCRATIC country huh? Or would you prefer a right wing / stalinist type thinking model?

Hm, that's a tough one. Can I think about it a bit?

Dermot, you're right. I didn't see the program, you did. I only heard about it through the media and you know what that means.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 12:24:01 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: And PS....
Message:
The BBC later apologised for the programme (which I thought was UTTERLY ridiculous)and Yasmin Alibi Brown later wrote an article in the 'INDEPENDENT' newspaper why the BBC should have been PROUD of the programme instead of kowtowing to political pressure.

I agreed with her 100% and still do.

Dermot

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 12:56:46 (EDT)
From: the other bobo
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: What are you saying JIm?
Message:
I think there is little hope of any agreement on these issues as everyone sees things in such a biased way - but here goes...
I too saw the QT programme and, although it was insensitive to broadcast something that criticized the American Government's foreign policy after such a terrible event as the WTC terrorist attack, it was not such a one-sided debate as people make out.
From some reports it sounds like it was put on solely to denounce the U.S. All I can say is that I must have been watching a different programme and I can't agree with you Jim when you say 'The sentiment expressed, there was a much more damning, general indictment of America itself, its politics, its culture, ultimately its citizenry'

Although I did see people angry at the way the American government and large corporations behaved in the past, as I say maybe not the best time to have done it, I must have somehow missed the attack on it's culture and citizenry. I suppose we could define culture in different ways ( art, philosophy, education, religion, business etc.)but there is no ambiguity about the common people(citizens)and I did not hear anyone attack the (wo)man-on-the-street.
Also, from the short time I have been around this forum and from reading back into the archives, I have never before seen anyone accuse Nigel of writing something that was 'near hysterical'. This particular piece seemed to me to be well prepared and carefully considered.
There seem to be such extreme difference in views of the same thing.
bobo

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 04:02:07 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Jeeze Nige....BRAVO
Message:
It's great to have a REAL intellectual to back up my primitive intelligence and to point out how stupid I was to even try to go halfway with the Appleyard bullshit:)

Cheers

Dermot

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 23:06:50 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: On a lighter note...
Message:
Tonight I found a cuisine worse than English cooking: Vietnamese. Gelatinous stinky food, anyone? Yuk.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 15:02:00 (EDT)
From: Mickey the Pharisee
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: On a lighter note...
Message:
Gee Scott, was that your first experience with Vietnamese food? Perhaps you were at a bad restaurant. I have eaten at many Vietnamese restaurants in San Jose, Oakland, and Berkeley, and the food was delicious. I've also had lots of great Thai and Cambodian food in those places. Of course, you don't exactly live in an area known for its fine gourmet restaurants, do you?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 15:37:14 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Mickey the Pharisee
Subject: Re: On a lighter note...
Message:
Mickey:

Yeah, that was my first taste of vietnamese cooking but we checked out a number of restaurants and groceries in this 'Little Saigon' area in 7-Corners. It's mostly the textures that I can't stand. Looked to me as though nearly everything was gelatinous, pastey or mushy. They ought to just put that stuff in a toothpaste tube and have done with it. Spring rolls were decent though. Had it not been for those the evening would have been a total waste.

We certainly don't have the restaurants of SF, but there's lots of ethnic food in Adams Morgan and Georgetown. Ethiopian is my favorite. Similar to Indian in texture and basic ingredients, but the taste is much different. Savory but not hot.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 16:10:29 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: You had bad Vietnamese food, Scott
Message:
It is not the greatest cuisine in the world but it's usually edible and tasty. Thai food uses too much sugar unnecessarily. Cambodian cuisine makes the same mistake. But for the best far east food you can't beat Szechuan. I still prefer Indian food to all of those though.

Now next time you're in SF let me show you what all those cuisines taste like when they have been absorbed into S African cooking especially the delicious Cape Malay and Natal Tamil food. Ethiopian can't hold a candle to it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 22:52:05 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Thou doest protest a smidge too much.
Message:
Nigel:

My understanding was that the Appleyard article was a response to a shameful 'gang bashing' of an American diplomat shortly after the WTC attack by a leftward listing crowd. (As though *that* never happens.) In that context the inaccuracies and overstatements of Appleyard make a good deal more sense than the far-too-carefully-drawn critique you've submitted. I mean, do you think Americans can't appreciate the context or something? But thanks for clueing us in that someone else made significant contributions to civilazation. That was news.

if these anti-Vietnam protesters were to express a dislike of all things American, you could justifiably accuse them of Yankophobia. The irony is all in your head. That a person can read Updike, watch the Simpsons and listen to Dylan whilst making negative observations about the policies of a particular administration, probably suggests that they – unlike you – are dealing in issues rather than clichéd right-wing stereotypes.

But the fact is they were not, and you know it. I mean, I was in the thick of it so I ought to know about those social prejudices and no one was in a mood to acknowledge that George Schultz was a 'gentleman' let alone a 'gentle man' when he treated protesters with respect. Give me a break, will yah? Objective assessment of issues my ass.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 22:50:24 (EDT)
From: PatD
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Appleyard disease
Message:
The fact that you call views you disagree with 'disease ' is revealing .

You don't agree with the guy , that's quite clear , I do on an emotional level & that's the level it was addressed to I'm sure.

How come on the same day that millions around the world were standing in silence these people that are mentioned in the article were guffing off about how the victims had brought it all on themselves ?

You mention the integrity of the BBC's question time . That was in appalling bad taste & TOTALLY unrepresentative of feeling in the country.

I don't get it with this left/right shit, is that something you buy in a packet off a supermarket shelf?

ps Gore Vidal is a pompous boring fuck , one of the best writers in 20th century America was Barbara Tuchman.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 17:55:04 (EDT)
From: Nigel
Email: None
To: PatD
Subject: Pat D - and EVERYONE
Message:
Pat D - see my post to JHB below.

I apologised there for not recognising you. Sorry, Bin, but - you know how it is - when I have spent an hour or three trying to spell out my objections to the Appleyard post objectively, it irks me rotten when people (not just you) respond as if they hadn't even read the fucking thing - apart from seizing on certain trigger paragraphs - in your case the Question Time programme. Appleyard's piece would have been crap without that section. Read his article again and then my reply and tell me where I am right or wrong and why. I never whispered a word about Babs Tuchman. Why should I know about her? Your call..

Your emotions are your business, and not what I was talking about.

Listen, I don't mind being corrected on any point of fact. I don't mind being shown how or where my arguments are flawed. I have no interest in engaging with replies that do neither - be it yours, Pat C's or even Jim's. Jim's calling the Appleyard piece 'excellent' has - probably for the first time - led me to question his rational judgement (or at least since his anti-Chomsky bile a couple of years back - Hi Jim ;)

Emotional responses I cannot deal with rationally. (Yes I have shed tears over the WTC atrocity - but that's not what I mean. There are important issues to discuss. My ranting on a backwater cult-forum has little impact on the wider world. Unfortunately, knee-jerk slimeballs like Appleyard have a worldwide platform, thanks to the Murdoch empire).

Actually, one more point here - not to you, Pat, but to everyone:

The most offensive, inflammatory, ill-informed comment in Appleyard's piece was the bogus statistic (which he appeared happy to endorse) that over 90% of the Arab world thinks the Americans 'got what they deserved'.

Utter unsubstantiated bollocks. So who polled them? Certainly not those dictators who generally deny them a vote (including the freedom-loving Saudis, once again friends to the West whilst it suits America's needs..)

For one thing, not even 90% of the Arab world are even Muslim (if you count North Africa and the Lebanon). Of those who are Muslim, only a section are practising Muslims. Of the practising Muslims a small minority are fundamentalists. Of these, only a miniscule proportion would advocate indiscriminate violence against those they disagree with. That is at a guess.

How of many of the world's millions of Catholics support the IRA?

Yes, I mean that kind of stupid..

BTW: cq, if you are reading - I thought your post lower down was excellent and well worth a read for anybody who hasn't, or a re-read for those who have. And Dermot - I don't know whether to take 'intellectual' as a compliment or insult - but, ta, anyway, but probably the best post-WTC post was the one you did last week about the middle-east that has now gone inactive. You are as thoughtful, empathetic and articulate as the best of anyone - which beats mere intellectual any day.

Personally, I am tired of noisy heartfelt words which lack substance. Seeing even Pat C allowing his judgement to be clouded by Brian Appleyard's empty rhetoric and the heat of the moment has left me feeling tired. Reckon I might find a more amenable place to discuss world matters where you don't get slammed for things you never even said..

Best to all..

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 03:25:13 (EDT)
From: Nigel
Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk
To: PatD
Subject: Re: Appleyard disease
Message:
Hi Pat D. Who are you? (I wish you'd choose another alias - the similarily with 'Pat C' is irritating and confusing. Or is this deliberate?)

The fact that you call views you disagree with 'disease ' is revealing .

No, I simply mean the 'disease' of journalistic hyperbole. Appleyard appears to endorse this Italian woman's belief that OVER 90% of the Arab world share the views of that Lebanese businessman. As if she knew. As if he knew. Do you think they're right?

You don't agree with the guy , that's quite clear , I do on an emotional level & that's the level it was addressed to I'm sure.

You're sounding like a premie now. Reason does tend to fly out of the window in emotive times. That's only reason I can imagine anyone would react positively to this poorly-argued piece - irrespective of their politics. Like I said, I wouldn't want him on my side in an argument.

How come on the same day that millions around the world were standing in silence these people that are mentioned in the article were guffing off about how the victims had brought it all on themselves ?

You'll always find a few insensitive nutters if you are looking for them. The trouble is, Appleyard's offenders are few and insignificant - certainly not the (always liberal/left) writers who are the main targets of his bile. Can't you see that? I wish you would discuss what I actually wrote and not what you imagine I meant.

You mention the integrity of the BBC's question time . That was in appalling bad taste & TOTALLY unrepresentative of feeling in the country.

Yes, of course the heckler's beliefs about how the world sees America were unrepresentative of the wider population. So are Appleyard's. That's not the BBC's fault for not screening the audience for extreme views or whatever. You always get a few. Perhaps Dimbleby should have controlled proceedings better. Perhaps they should have postponed the programme for that week. But given they had chosen to have the debate, are you suggesting offensive views be censored? Did you get my point about similarity between the heckler in question and Appleyard? You can't have it both ways.

I don't get it with this left/right shit, is that something you buy in a packet off a supermarket shelf?

Ask Appleyard. The 'left/right shit', as you put it, is precisely Appleyard's agenda, not mine. That was my whole point, if you were following. First idenify an imaginary groundswell of irrational anti-Americanism from one or two non-representative examples, then use it to smear all commentators who have ever voiced a negative opinion on American policy. Crap writing, pure and simple.

ps Gore Vidal is a pompous boring fuck , one of the best writers in 20th century America was Barbara Tuchman.

I don't know Tuckman, and your comment on Vidal is less than persuasive. Care to give examples of either? Or do you prefer to keep the discussion at Appleyard's emotional level?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 11:28:30 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Not quaranteened to Appleyard, unfortunately.
Message:
Nigel:

First idenify an imaginary groundswell of irrational anti-Americanism

Well, I can correct that methodological error. The anti-Americanism amounts to about 10% of the American population, concentrated disproportionately in the Universities, and within those in the Humanities. One would presume (though I can't empirically defend it without charging up my statistical engine and the Inglehart surveys) that the proportion is higher in the UK and again concentrated in the Humanities departments of the Universities. Media folks also tend to be left leaning, though I don't really mind that because they also have a guiding ethic (not shared by humanities professors). I think the thing that worries people like Appleyard is that if the 'nutters' are this vocal, and this readily received, so early after the attack then any 'moral clarity' do deal with terrorism effectively may well fade before it can do it's work. I think he's wrong, but that sort of thinking also afflicts the left.

'...participants to these debates often march under rhetorical banners, sloganeering to the tune of 'either-A-or-B' melodies. And given that they do so, the character of American [or any Liberal society's?] conflict becomes marked by arguments that lack compositional integrity and by engagements that are excessively agonistic.' --Adam Maze

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 14:37:05 (EDT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Hey, Scott, am I being anti-British?
Message:
Hey, Scott, am I being anti-British when I find fault with my own government's policies?

Whether the policy was Thatcher's, Major's, Haig's or Blair's makes no difference - if I disagree with it, am I therefore anti-British?

And what of the protesters against the war in Vietnam - were they 'anti-American' for wanting to call a halt to that particular war? They might have been in a minority, but they gave the lie to the old chestnut of 'might is right'.

Here in the UK, we've lived (and many have died) with terrorist attacks for over 30 years. I myself missed an IRA bomb at London's King's Cross station by just 3 minutes (back in the early 70's). The bomb that the so-called 'Real IRA' detonated only a few months ago in Ealing Broadway, London, (fortunately without fatalities) exploded about 300 yards away from the house I was born in and lived in until my 18th year.

Terrorism has unfortunately been part of the reality of life in the UK for quite a while now. Our politicians, however, (and Sinn Fein's) have realised that the negotiating table is a better route to resolving differences between the two parties, no matter how apparently insurmountable their differences might be.

Bin Laden is unlikely ever to sit at a negotiating table, IMO. But who's to say whether in ten, twenty - thirty? year's time the two opposing powers might find it in their own interests to do just that? What's the alternative? Is the coalition going to eradicate every supporter of Islamic fundamentalist extremism worldwide? Very unlikely. And what of the remaining supporters? Just go on simultaneously throwing stones (or cruise missiles) at them (like the US and UK have done for the past decade) then ignoring them in the hope that they're too far away to do any real damage. Then what? September the Eleventh part 2?

I understand that America may want revenge for September 11th's attacks. But until she puts some of that nationalistic pride in her collective back pocket and realises that revenge is what she was on the receiving end of three weeks ago tomorrow, she'll be no nearer to understanding what motivated her enemy.

Calling your enemy a 'lunatic' is one thing. But no matter how crazy they are, if we refuse to even attempt to assess their motivation - and the USA's and UK's role in a foreign policy that has fueled the Islamic world's desire for revenge for so long - then we put ourselves not only at a disadvantage, but in peril.

You can't keep throwing stones at an injured animal without anticipating consequences of some kind.

'Know your enemy' is always good advice. And America's enemy is NOT her anti-war faction.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 22:07:54 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: cq
Subject: Come on, Chris!
Message:
Bin Laden is unlikely ever to sit at a negotiating table, IMO. But who's to say whether in ten, twenty - thirty? year's time the two opposing powers might find it in their own interests to do just that?

Oh my god! Chris, what in the world are you thinking? Sit down and talk about WHAT?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 15:14:54 (EDT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: talk about WHAT, you ask?
Message:
It's about preventing further attacks, Jim.

Was my estimate of twenty to thirty years before we get to the negotiating table being too optimistic for you? Or is the plan to nuke everbody before then?

'We are the only country in the world that struggles with a type of terrorism called a suicide bomber. If you send the police to stop him, he will blow himself up with the officers. If you dispatch soldiers, they will be blown up too.

The only way to deal with this phenomenon is to prevent the attack before it is launched.'

Shimon Peres, August 2 2001

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 15:41:47 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: cq
Subject: Re: Hey, Scott, am I being anti-British?
Message:
Well, I'm not going to address every comment because, to be honest, it's not worth it. To just grab something that's representative:

'Know your enemy' is always good advice. And America's enemy is NOT her anti-war faction.

No! Really?

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 14:21:02 (EDT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Why not just answer the question? (nt)
Message:
Address every comment? Why not just answer the question? (nt)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 22:18:37 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: cq
Subject: Because you aren't paying me enough.
Message:
You're being anti-British if you belittle the importance of England's history, it's major contributions to civilization (common law, the rule of law, classical liberalism and the whig rebellion, etc.). You'd also be anti-British if you worked to the advantage of a foreiegn power bent on Britain's destruction. I suppose if you were a pacifist you could still claim to be British (in a patriotic sense) if you did volunteer non-combatant work during wartime that helped the cause. But, for instance, if you advocated peace during the Battle of Brittain suggesting that England cease war production and pilot training then, yes you'd be anti-British and probaby anti-Civilization.

Opposing Thatcher's efforts to subdue labor isn't anti-British, no. Why would you think *I'd* think it was?

Opposition to our involvement in Vietnam was probably not anti-American, but it seems to have spawned an anti-American movement loading people up with the idea that the founding values of the country aren't worth much, that its system and leaders are basically corrupt, and that anything good or decent done by the country was purely incidental to any intention of those in power. That's anti-American because it doesn't place any value on what matters, nor does it ascribe any positive quality of humanity to any leadership on the world stage, and chooses instead a set of values and beliefs that are so easily warped and manipulated by tyrants that you find people like Vera virtually mouthing the words of a homocidal maniac as though they're some sort of authoritative policy imperitive (and acting offended if you don't treat them that way). Anti-American, yes... and probably anti-Civilization too.

But mostly youreideas are just off the mark. I'm not opposed to finding common ground with people of the Middle East, and I don't even see them as the enemy. I don't see any linkage to the ideas and demands of the cult except, as I've said many many many times from the beginning, in the area of recruitment and some of the monetary support he gets. I don't think he's a sincere zealot any more than I think David Koresh was, and the only reason I'd negotiate would be to either gain intelligence or accept unconditional surrender. He's not a lunatic, because there's an internal set of commitments you can use to predict his behavior... but I don't think those commitments are compatible with our survival, and they don't predict that he'd ever stop until we were all dead or under his thumb anyway. And as Blair so eloquently put it, there will be no negotiation... either he (and his movement) dies, or we do. That, my friend, is reality... whatever it takes.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 15:31:28 (EDT)
From: Moley
Email: moldy_warp@hotmail.com
To: cq
Subject: Exactly cq. [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 05:02:34 (EDT)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Pat D(orrity) was Bin Liner
Message:
He felt that his old alias was no longer appropriate.

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 05:36:24 (EDT)
From: Nigel
Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk
To: JHB
Subject: Yes, I remember now. Ta, John.
Message:
And my apologies to Pat for the tone of the first sentence. Having met the guy, like the guy and usually like his forum posts, I still have to say I think his remarks here are ill-considered and don't address the points I was making..

I suspect this thread is going to expand somewhat, but I won't be adding anything else to it. I have said all intend to re. the Appleyard piece and am far too busy. Such bad writing is not really worth the effort, IMO. Thanks to all those who have agreed with me, here, and to those who don't, sorry, but I am shipping out at this point. Have fun..;)

Nige the wishes he'd sent it to the Sunday Times instead.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 17:49:05 (EDT)
From: PatD
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Re: Yes, I remember now. Ta, John.
Message:
Hi Nigel , no offence taken & non intended on my part either.

I do find it strange that I seem to be one of the few non American pro American posters on here . Maybe it's because I lived outside the UK for 10yrs & found that the people I got on with best weren't my whining co nationals but Irish , Americans , & Australians.

I soon discovered that they had all sorts of inherited prejudices against the English(most of which were based on distorted history)& became an unwilling defender of the period when Brittania ruled the waves , to the point where I now believe that by & large the British Empire was 'a good thing'.

The USA has inherited the power of those times & many of the assumptions that went with it , although not the Empire itself(getting rid of it was part of the deal for fighting the 2nd ww)

Indeed I've come to the conclusion that we abrogated our responsibility by getting rid of it all so quickly in the 50's&60's. Look at Africa , what a shithole .
But then all the money was spent fighting Continental tyrannies.

If only we could turn the clock back to 1914 .

America is now numero uno & thank god ; imagine a world dominated by nazi Germany or the USSR .

I know that isn't a sophisticated analysis but what the hell , it's what I believe . If the people who destroyed NY & the Pentagon were representatives of the disposessed then maybe all this talk of America's failings might have a point . Fact is as far as we know they are intent on imposing Islam on the world at gunpoint.

Well fuck them , I'll stick with America .I was in a pub in Dartmouth recently (Royal Navy town)& the latest grass roots opinion I heard of an anti American nature was a guy who said 'those fucking yanks better leave us a bit of that fuckers arse .'

If you're interested in history & good writing you really should try Barbara Tuchman , she is the best historian writing in English in the 20th C. I know she was an American , but all the same .

All the best : Pat Dorrity

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 04:17:58 (EDT)
From: Peg
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Youj are clever aren't you???
Message:
Were you really a premie??????!!!!!!

Peg

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 04:48:24 (EDT)
From: peg
Email: None
To: Peg
Subject: Oh dear that came out bitchy!
Message:
I honestly was very impressed with your brain power in that rebuttal but perhaps I am also envious as my brain is soggy with disuse.

sorry...Peg

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 16:25:47 (EDT)
From: Nigel
Email: None
To: peg
Subject: hey - no sweat..
Message:
I didn't get the wrong impression. Just too busy to attend to all replies. Yes, I really was a premie, and yes, your brain is as good as mine or anyone else's. Honest injun. Half the problem is regaining the confidence to use it and express yourself. Reading a lot helps in my experience, and not being intimidated by persons who are loud-spoken or forthright... Cheers, Nige
(and usually are men!... says Moley xxx)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 20:33:49 (EDT)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Re: Rebuttal to Appleyard (ot)
Message:
Thanks for doing that, Nigel. Alot of Appleyard's article went over my head; references to people and things I'm unfamiliar with. But I reckoned he was a Pisces with Sag rising, and they never have anything good to say.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 05:19:18 (EDT)
From: berni
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: Re: Rebuttal to Appleyard (ot)
Message:
Hello Nigel,

I only recently rejoined the forum and am still trying to catch up on the posts that I missed on the week-end. I don't know if I'm going to keep up with it all as it moves so fast.
So much pro/anti political discussion - most of it very reminiscent of the irrational emotive mood that premies get into when asked perfectly genuine questions about the previous claims of M, or asked to clarify some of the his 'teachings'. I guess old habits die hard, and if I had more time to contribute, I would probably be as guilty of emotional outburst.
I was so surprised to see such an article posted here in the first place, but am glad that you have taken the time to provide a reasonable analysis of what was ( or was not ) being said, rather than 'it was a truly wonderful article' or 'the guy is a right wing looney' or other such empty statements either against or in support.
I have read quite a few of your posts in the past and do not always agree with your opinion on things - but you always present a good case, are willing to defend criticism with reasonable argument and are not afraid to change your view if proven wrong.
I wish that was more the normal attitude here and in the world at large.
There's nothing I could add to your detailed piece - but I particularly like the point about being able to enjoy various aspects of a culture yet still be able to criticise other aspects.
I think that applies to a society, a political group, a philosophy etc. - and most definitely a government.
Thanks for your sane contribution to the debate,
berni

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 18:49:12 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: All
Subject: New from Visions International
Message:
Greetings cards, bookmarks and mugs with ''EiYd'' followed by an hourglass graphic and a capital I with a halo above it followed by ''wNaY.''

This stands for ''Even in Your darkest hour I (with a halo) will Not abandon You.''

The piece of card called a ''bookmark'' sells for $3.50.

The Greetings cards are 20 for a box of 12.

The mugs cost $14 each.

One of the quotes is: ''Do you know how to gather the beauty of this breath? Do you know how to have that recognition? That is Knowledge. That is the world of the Master. Those of you who want that in your life, then come. Then come to the Master. With a heart that is real. The heart that is real. A heart that's pure.''

I guess the people who have just received those artificial hearts cannot get Knowledge. What a pity.

Oh, yes, 5X7 inch photos of Rev Moonbeam Rawat cost $6 each.

And there is a schpiel about Michelle Mitchell being the artist of the portrait of His Holeyness entitled ''Captivated.''

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 01:15:23 (EDT)
From: Francesca :C)
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: Dear Premies: Hay--loooooo! [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 00:21:36 (EDT)
From: Timmi
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: Re: New from Visions International
Message:
I think I am going to be sick.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 21:56:50 (EDT)
From: suchabanana
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: m:'When we are happy, the issues don't matter.'
Message:
What about the suffering/happiness of others? What about lil' issues like WTC, terrorism, security/civil liberties, genocide, refugees, oppression, and da survival and pursuit of happiness of billions of people?

The health and well-being and freedom of us all -- as a connected subjectively aware species among the myriad life forms existing within the environment of an orbiting planet in a connected cosmos of relational materialized energy -- does matter.

'In the eternal goodness of the divine nature (as in a miraculous mirror) the essence of all creatures is seen as one.'
-- Meister Eckhart

If my brothers and sisters in this world are suffering or being persecuted, then how can I wallow selfishly in my own bliss? If the rainforests which replenish the oxygen for all of earth's breathing life are decimated, how can I sit in satisfied silence? If the flowing waters which provide earthly life's sustenance are poisoned, how then can I remain oblivious or passively unconcerned?

Nay. Let us be not wasteful, ostentatious, or consumed with the material pleasures and accumulations of the gluttonous lower self. For, regardless of any spirituality, in active cooperative kindness and compassion for others resides a nobility of the human spirit not attained by wistful meditative self-absorption.

To be happy within oneself is good. To remember and respect the plight of others, too, is better. We are all equal in the sight of the universal energy. We are also interconnected. What oppresses or harms another who is less fortunate may one day harm us, too. In point of fact, some issues Do matter.

Peace and lentils,

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 05:17:29 (EDT)
From: janet
Email: None
To: suchabanana
Subject: Re: m:'When we are happy
Message:
yeah. I'd like to see a plane full of premies just keep on blissing out as their plane to amaroo gets hijacked, and the stewardesses get their throats cut with box knives and the plane gets plowed into the tallest tower in, oh, say, hongkong?

happyhappyhappyjoyjoy

or better yet--MJ gets his G5 hijacked by a surprise stowaway. lets see him be mr happy in that hour.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 13:36:59 (EDT)
From: Timmi
Email: None
To: janet
Subject: Re: m:'When we are happy
Message:
Thanks, Janet. I needed something to smile about, even if it is just the image of premies blissing out in the circumstances you described. If they are happy, I guess their imminent death, or the deaths of however many other people would be caused, really don't matter. Silly me. I didn't understand! But wait, what about the happiness of the other people about to die? Does it not count? Apparently not. Too bad for them, they didn't have knowledge and rawat. If only they had, everything would be fine. They could bliss out and die happy.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 21:37:43 (EDT)
From: Brian S
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: Fill in the blanks yourself
Message:
I am not God, but somehow I will always be omipresent for you through thick and thin. Read between the lines, and hint, wink, think about the meaning of this halo.

Set the hook, reel in the fish, keep those prices high, the cost of maintaining heaven on earth ain't what is used to be back when my daddy had the job.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 22:21:58 (EDT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Brian S
Subject: Sheesh, Brian...
Message:
I am not God, but somehow I will always be omipresent for you through thick and thin. Read between the lines, and hint, wink, think about the meaning of this halo.

Set the hook, reel in the fish, keep those prices high, the cost of maintaining heaven on earth ain't what is used to be back when my daddy had the job.


---

You sound a little 'cynical.' (snicker)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 20:31:02 (EDT)
From: Nigel
Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk
To: Pat:C)
Subject: Go on, premies - tell us you're not embarrassed... [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 14:40:19 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: All
Subject: Taliban Terrorists and Jim Jones
Message:
This link is to an article in the San Francisco Sunday Chronicle.
[ Chilling Parallels ]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 10:32:49 (EDT)
From: Cynthia
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: Re: Taliban Terrorists and Jim Jones
Message:
Hi Pat,

It is chilling. I've been reading Raven which was recommended by Marianne. It's a tough read, that story about Jim Jones--especially with the current events in our country. It's become almost like a textbook study; I can't get through a page without making notes in the margins.

What it parallels most is the Maharajism cult, IMO. I haven't gotten too far because there is so much about Jones's personality which is similar to Maharaji's. The most striking facts so far are the followers who know (X-Rated?) so much about Jones's failings, cons, and other character flaws, but are willing to look the other way, for the ''better good.''

What ''better good'' means depends on the particular cult's mission. In Jones's case, he integrated his congregation, and worked for ''social causes.'' He also became politically powerful.

That part is chilling for me.

At least the urug doesn't give a shit about people, so he at least stays out of the mainstream world, which, btw, is also a distinction in Jones's cult.

Bin Laden, Talaban? It's a cult in all manner of cults, but it's far more dangerous in it's mission.

Sir Dave asked why people don't just worship the sun? Well, I still say, read When God Was a Woman by Merlin Stone. It's not a fanatical feminist book, rather a great history of those religions that worshipped the sun, the sky, the earth, goddesses. Most interesting is how they were destroyed. This is ancient history.

I learned so much from When God Was... as well as Raven. I'm too scared to read about Bin Laden. I've already read many books over the past few years about germ and chemical warfare; BSE, ebola, and all those germs that our government also has, deep in the ground, and wear level four suits (the most protective against viral agents) in order to work with them.

I'm not scared, (too much) anymore. And I don't feel any hate, either. I was sent an online game from a friend. It's Bin Laden behind a liquor store counter with a hostage (pretty sick) and the player has a gun and no matter how many times you shoot Bin Laden, he comes back to life and pops up somewhere else behind the counter. I laughed when I played it because he was saying stuff like ''I piss in your face,'' ''Get out of my store'' and other stuff. I guess I am a sicko at heart, but it did relieve my anger at Bin Laden and the whole awful situation.

I won't post the url here--too sensitive.

Cynthia

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 14:09:59 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Cynthia
Subject: Hi, Cynthia
Message:
I hope you are well and happy. And I also hope that you balance your reading with some lighter stuff like the Mapp and Lucia series by E F Benson. If you haven't read his books I think you would love them since you're such a country, small village person.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 16:41:48 (EDT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: Performance of death
Message:
It's a terrifying story about a man of power, privilege and paranoia. Chased from his homeland, he declared himself a prophet of God and political revolutionary. Condemning capitalism, he and his fanatical army of devotees fled to an isolated, impoverished country. Once there, they plotted an unimaginable act of mass murder and suicide -- all in the name of God.

They're all reading much the same bunch of wacky bronze age religious tracts, or something. You do you get to change the script?

JohnT
- never a premie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 22:14:48 (EDT)
From: Sir Dave }(
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: I disagree
Message:
Bronze Age wars were over territory and had at least some economic sense to them. These religious nuts are completely mad and make no rational sense whatsoever.

Why can't people just go back to worshipping the Sun? There'd be no argument then - everybody would see it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 12:19:01 (EDT)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: All
Subject: Differences of Political Opinion OT
Message:
It's fascinating to see the difference of opinion towards the United States on this forum. I've seen discussions here before on issues like gun control, the media and the elections, in the U.S., but never just the U.S. in general.

It's particularly interesting because of the ex-cult factor... we all used to believe in an outlandish claim that a little guy from India was God. And we all 'know' each other to varying extents, if only from reading some posts of each other.

It's also interesting because the conclusions being drawn here about the United States in general are so glaringly different despite the fact we're mostly drawing on the same body of information to form our conclusions. The intelligence factor is pretty equal between the two camps; those who think the positives of the U.S. far outweigh the negatives, and those who think the negatives are substantial enough to be suspicious, at the least. Our economic and cultural backgrounds, it seems, are relatively similar (mostly Western, caucasian, and middle-class), although I could be wrong about that. And our education level seems consistent (some college to graduate degrees, but relatively well-read and informed at the least).

There's disparity among the participants in terms of the ability to argue politically; I don't feel very astute myself. Some of it comes from a poor memory and inability to give examples, which is crucial to back up your beliefs. It's one thing to be convinced of something, and another to prove it.

But if you look at the top scrappers on both sides in this heap, they're both very intelligent, very informed, able to quote examples fluidly, and both honorable and good people. They just disagree on the honorability and goodness of the subject: The United States.

Part of the disparity may be that the data is so vast on the subject, and with so many holes left to one's imagination, that drawing such polarized conclusions is possible. Key parts of the data differ widely (i.e., whether the U.S. had an alternative to supporting Saudi Arabia, or using it to fight Iraq in the Gulf War), and that may play into it.

Another important factor in how conclusions are drawn on this subject have to do with detailed personal experience. Someone like myself, who grew up in the U.S. and tends to be rebellious to authority, and generally dislikes any institution, seems to see things differently than someone who lived in a country that wasn't as fortunate or liberal as the U.S.

It's also notable that despite both sides making their best cases, no one ever budges from their basic stance. By our age (I assume everyone's over 30), basic political beliefs have been formed and cast, and there's no 'changing sides'.

I'm intersted to hear how other people here see this polarity, and what their ideas are on this.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 09:21:01 (EDT)
From: Nigel
Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk
To: Rick
Subject: Re: Differences of Political Opinion OT
Message:
Interesting observations, Rick. I think one reason people seem reluctant to rethink their political views comes from the kind of filtering that goes on when we are presented with news which either confirms or challenges our existing beliefs. There's that thing they call 'selective outrage' where we can be more forgiving of a country or government's actions if we see their intentions as being honourable. Perhaps we all do that to some extent..?

But I am not sure that's the whole story. Mightn't it be the case that people's views do change, but change very slowly? - too slowly to observe over a couple of years-worth of forum posting. Certainly nobody is going to switch allegiances in the heat of the moment, but if a person addresses whatever issue honestly, their attitudes might evolve over time, almost imperceptibly. I think I am probably far more left-wing than ever used to be - or ever expected to be. At the same time, I feel more au fait and understanding of the attractions of conservative ideologies to those who adhere to them, than I once was. (I have yet to see anybody post here against the general principle of democracy, which is healthy, IMO - even if we sometimes differ in our opinions on how democratic the US or UK are in reality.)
I enjoy reading most political threads here - especially where somebody I disagree with presents a strong argument that requires a bit of thought to challenge. Back in the homogenised group-think days of the cult, I didn't even see politics as being relevant to anything. 'Crazy politicians' - all as bad as each other, etc.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 17:10:15 (EDT)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Aunt Dottie Stinks
Message:
Thanks, Nigel. You gave me some food for thought.

When I was a kid, my Aunt Dottie used to come over on the holidays. She wore this awful dimestore perfume that totally stunk out the whole place. She was ditzy and nervous, and when she was through with her dinner, she'd scrape the leftovers on her plate right onto someone else's plate, before they could answer whether they wanted it or not.

All the kids at the dinner table couldn't stand Aunt Dottie, and the adults did whatever they could to keep these opinions silent. But you couldn't fool the kids. They knew Aunt Dottie stunk and they didn't like her behavior.

The adults, on the other hand, had greater considerations. Aunt Dottie was family. And she didn't always used to stink. And they could remember playing hopscotch with Aunt Dottie in New York, as children.

And Aunt Sue wasn't that much different than Aunt Dottie. So if you ditched Aunt Dottie, maybe that meant you needed to get rid of Aunt Sue as well. And then there was only Aunt Rose and Aunt Anne left.

The adults had different levels of awareness of Aunt Dottie's stench. Some knew very well she stunk but realized there wasn't much to do about it. Others felt guilty and tried not to think about it. And still others, just couldn't deal with all the confusion, and totally blocked out the fact Aunt Dottie stunk... they'd outright deny it if asked.

Now that I'm a big guy, I know that you can't just get rid of Aunt Dottie; for all the reasons I mentioned, and more I can't think of, right now. But I don't ever want to forget that Aunt Dottie stunk, or sweep it so far under the rug, it's invisible, for whatever reason.

Am I being too New Age?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 18:41:08 (EDT)
From: Nige
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: Re: Aunt Dottie Stinks
Message:
Am I being too New Age?

No, you are being metaphorically inspired - funny too. Thanks Rick.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 19:50:26 (EDT)
From: PatD
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: Basic Political beliefs
Message:
My political belief was formed before I became a premie & has never changed. That belief is that it doesn't matter whether the jackboot that kicks you in the balls is worn on the left foot or the right foot, the only thing you can do when kicked is to kick back harder.

My own reaction to the attack on America was entirely emotional (how could it be anything else ) & still is , nothing to do with politics . Like most people I suspect ,not being a card carrying member of a political party , I agree with bits of what they all say.

This is different because it's to do with the basic trip not the details. I support America 100 % in this & still would even in the (very unlikely) event that they nuke Baghdad.

I know US foreign policy leaves a lot to be desired for a lot of people & I am not in agreement with parts of it in in the particulars .BUT ..at least you TRY to get it right by & large , just as the previous numero uno power GB tried in the past , made mistakes & now is never allowed to forget them by people who think they know how to construct a perfect world with the benefit of hindsight.

As far as the Saudis are concerned those guys get $25 a barrel for shit that used to poison their grandfathers' camels so what's their fucking problem ?

OK so lots of people don't care too much for Disney world & big macs , I don't myself but I wouldn't commit mass murder to make my point .

I've never been to America although one of the greatest friends I've ever had is an American USMC.retd who left his own country because he couldn't handle being looked down on for having fought(as a volunteer) in Vietnam.

I admire the America of John Adams & Lincoln , & I'm eternally grateful to providence that JFK was reading Barbara Tuchman's 'The Guns of August' when the Cuban missile crisis happened.

Where does that put me on the political spectrum ?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 20:07:31 (EDT)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: PatD
Subject: Re: Basic Political beliefs
Message:
Best I can tell, you'll give the U.S. the benefit of the doubt whenever possible. You don't see it as criminal in any way, and forgive its trespasses in history. Er, I think.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 19:22:36 (EDT)
From: PatD
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: That's right Rick ...At the moment [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 17:51:49 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: To EVERYONE
Message:
I've got so many posts scattered all over the place ...sorry in advance if I don't reply to any future responses....probably got to have a break for a little while. Time commitments.

Catch Y'all as soon as I can....in the meantime
GOD BLESS AMERICA (so long as he also blesses the 199 other countries) ;)

...wait a minute...is there a GOD? ....oh, that's a whole other discussion.

Best Wishes

Dermot

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 15:47:15 (EDT)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: I disagree with one thing.
Message:
Rick,

I disagree with your characterisation of the groups debating here. You say:-

The intelligence factor is pretty equal between the two camps; those who think the positives of the U.S. far outweigh the negatives, and those who think the negatives are substantial enough to be suspicious.

I haven't read the debate this way. I think almost everyone (if not everyone) believes the positives of the USA outweigh the negatives. I certainly do. No, the debate seems to be between those who believe that debate about the issues is worthwhile, including being critical of USA (and any other country's) foreign policy, media, and education system; and those who believe that any criticism of the USA at this time is anti-American and is playing into the hands of the terrorists.

I'm with free speech and thought.

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 01:08:43 (EDT)
From: salsa
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: Re: I disagree with one thing.
Message:
I need to post in the foro and I can't. Visitors have posted and I'm all excited: The place is often sleepy.

Did you close it?

Post a e-mail address please.

thanks

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 04:34:36 (EDT)
From: JHB
Email: jhb@ex-premie.org
To: salsa
Subject: I'll look at it.?
Message:
Sorry, I now understand. I'll have a look at it.

John the new Spanish language forum hoster.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 16:35:12 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: That's it John [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 15:57:24 (EDT)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: Re: I disagree with one thing.
Message:
Rick,

I disagree with your characterisation of the groups debating here. You say:-

The intelligence factor is pretty equal between the two camps; those who think the positives of the U.S. far outweigh the negatives, and those who think the negatives are substantial enough to be suspicious.

I haven't read the debate this way. I think almost everyone (if not everyone) believes the positives of the USA outweigh the negatives. I certainly do. No, the debate seems to be between those who believe that debate about the issues is worthwhile, including being critical of USA (and any other country's) foreign policy, media, and education system; and those who believe that any criticism of the USA at this time is anti-American and is playing into the hands of the terrorists.

I'm with free speech and thought.

John.


---

I agree my characterization was deficient, and I think yours is an improvement but still off the mark. I would rephrase my characterization as those who think the negatives are substantial enough to warrant overall suspicion of motive and those who do not.

I see the argument of those who think the negatives aren't that substantial as saying that criticism of the U.S. in the specific case of the Sept. 11 incidents is irrelevant and unwarranted. They're willing to criticize generally but not to the point of saying the U.S. has failed to live up to it's ideals (the Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc.)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 14:57:45 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: Meaningful debate about meaning.
Message:
I've posted this link elsewhere, but it's just as relevant here. Don't be put off by the density of the language. What he's saying is really pretty simple.
[ The Liberal Persuasion ]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 13:47:01 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: 'as fortunate or liberal'?? :)
Message:
A very good and interesting post Rick .....I'll let others weigh in as I'm about to log off but may return later.

Sadly I've lived life in an unfortunate European police state environment :) Now if I'd have been born in the mecca of the west .....boy!!!!!

Cheers

Dermot

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 13:30:04 (EDT)
From: Vera
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: possible reason for the polarity
Message:
I agree that participants on both sides are well-informed and write in good faith.

My own theory is that Americans do not have a clear view of the damage their nation's government has done around the world because their nation's media is so tightly controlled. They have been inured to a comfortable myth. An illustration:

How many civilians - women, children, old people - did US warplanes slaughter during the Gulf War? Can any American poster recall reading in the US press that the figure was a quarter of a million?

These are civilians only - the military casualties are extra: people with whom (to quote George I) 'the US has no quarrel'.

That's the population of a small city. It's also ~50 times the number killed in the horrific WTC/Pentagon attacks.

Just because Americans never get to read such stories, or learn of such staggering casualty lists, does not mean these horrors did not occur. And it does not mean that no-one else gets to hear about it: much of the rest of the world's media is not so tightly self-censored.

Do you seriously imagine that the world's Muslims did not get to learn about the mass slaughter of their brothers & sisters in the Gulf War? Or that they have forgotten it in the 10 years since?

These things are censored in the West: they're not censored among the survivors and those who sympathise with them.

And that's only one example. The US secret agencies and military have propped up a hundred murderous regimes since WW2, many of them in Islamic countries. The death toll is in the millions. Within those millions are several democratically elected presidents and prime ministers whom the US has caused to be assassinated.

One day, somewhere, someone was going to devise the resources to hit back. It was as inevitable as night following day. It will continue.

I abhor it, and have had nightmares nearly every night since Sept 11 - but it will continue.

My guess is that even if bin Laden is extirpated, another five will rise to take his place. Sept 11 was a massively successful feat of arms which showed for the first time that, and how, the US is vulnerable. Radical Muslims will be rushing to join the cause from Morocco to Afghanistan. If UBL is removed, their number wll probably double. If we in the West guard against planes attacks, they'll use chemical weapons. If we guard against that, they'll drop biological weapons in a dozen city reservoirs. if we somehow guard against that, they'l smuggle a dozen suitcase nukes into cities and explode them. (And do so.)

Thus I'm not suggesting that US foreign policvy should be changed for ethical reasons - tho it should. I'm suggesting it should be changed so the West, and we, can survive.

Vera

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 16:10:38 (EDT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: Vera
Subject: Mass slaughter yes but not of civilians
Message:
Well, to tell the truth, I'm not sure if it was 250,000 killed. I think it was far, far less and perhaps someone will enlighten me but yes, US forces did kill thousands during the Gulf war, it was slaughter on a large scale but it was slaughter of the retreating Iraqi troops, many of whom had been press-ganged into the army (forced conscription).

At the time, I was appalled at the slaughter of the retreating troops by American helecopter gunships and bombers but to put the record straight, it was slaughter of Iraqi troops and not mass slaughter of civilians.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 20:54:45 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: Re: Mass slaughter yes but not of civilians
Message:
Dave:

Exactly. Something like 100,000 was what I heard, but could have been more. I have no idea what Vera is talking about. She sounds like an arm of the Saddam Hussein disinformation agency, to be honest. Talk about banal anti-Americanism...

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 10:19:29 (EDT)
From: Vera
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Evidence for my claims re Gulf War slaughter
Message:
Dave:

Exactly. Something like 100,000 was what I heard, but could have been more. I have no idea what Vera is talking about. She sounds like an arm of the Saddam Hussein disinformation agency, to be honest. Talk about banal anti-Americanism...

---

I would be grateful if you gentlemen cited sources when disputing my statements.

The reason my claims sound bizarre to many of you is that you have been inculcated into a myth by your media, for decades. Thus contradicting this myth is as shocking and offensive as (say) telling a 25-year premie that Maharaji is a fraud.

However if you would care to examine the behaviour of the US objectively, you will find there is truth in what I write.

I visited the US last month, and made my first pilgrimmage to the Lincoln Memorial, which was an immensely emotional event for me - as was my tour of the Capitol and the Vietnam Memorial. I feel that characterising me as 'arm of the Saddam Hussein disinformation agency' does you little credit.

Again, please do not respond from the foggy depths of your national myths, or from emotion and fear - but from facts.

Former US Attorney-General Ramsay Clark, initiator of the Clark commission of inquiry and war crimes tribunal, estimates that between 150,000 and 300,000 Iraqis were killed in the Gulf War, most of them civilians.

Congressman Henry Gonzalez, chairman of the House Banking Committee, talked of 'the deaths of...over 200,000 Muslims, Iraqis and others.' (The Guardian, May 3, 1992.)

'The Medical Education Trust in London (1991) published a report claiming that up to a quarter of a million people were killed or died during and after the attack. Child mortality in Iraq has doubled: 170,000 under-fives are expected to die in the region.' (Distant Voices, John Pilger, 1992). [And of course that figure has since been far exceeded.]

The military casualties were nothing like this high: therefore most of these people were civilians.

Would you also like to talk about Chile, Guatemala, Vietnam - or perhaps Indonesia, where a US-assisted coup led to the installation of President Suharto, who immediately liquidated 500,000 to one million 'communists' - i.e. democrats, members of community groups, intellectuals, etc?

Criticising US foreign policy does not make one a hater of Americans, a sympathiser with Saddam Hussein or a supporter of terrorism.

Learn your own history and I'll be happy to continue this discussion. But gratuitious insults and the recitation of myths do not get us very far.

Vera

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 12:43:53 (EDT)
From: Sir Dave }(
Email: None
To: Vera
Subject: Re: Evidence for my claims re Gulf War slaughter
Message:
Vera wrote:

''The military casualties were nothing like this high''

On the contrary, the military casualties in the Gulf war were enormous and could even be higher than the official figures since Iraq doesn't like to admit to military casualties. I still think you're mixing up the military and civilian casualties.

Talk about Vietnam if you want since I know a lot about it, despite not having been there. I know Vietnamese people in Britain.

And Scott T: Yes, Vietnamese food is awful to me, too. I have to leave the house when it's cooked, well, I feel like it. And British food isn't all fish & chips, you know. You can get curried chips too.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 13:09:15 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Sir Dave }(
Subject: Vietnamese Eats
Message:
Dave:

I agree that India has done a great deal to improve British cooking.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 12:36:46 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Vera
Subject: You asked for it.
Message:
Vera:

Ramsey Clark is a guilt-ridden old warrior, willing to say damn near anything to balance the scales of his life. I don't know where he and the others you cite got their numbers, but they are clearly inflated by about three to four orders of magnitude, according to Greenpeace:

Questionable actions

The available evidence indicates that minimal numbers of civilians were
killed either intentionally or by bombs that missed military targets. A
report prepared for Greenpeace in May on the environmental impact of the war
also investigated civilian casualties, based on extensive interviewing and
research of government and news sources. The authors note 13 cases of
collateral damage of varying severity. They treat the most significant
cases of civilian death-the Amiriya shelter bombing and the bombing of the
'baby milk' factory in Abu Gharaib January 22--separately, because they were
apparently the result of faulty intelligence.
-- Bulletin of Atomic Scientists

According to Frontline the estimate of civilian casualties inflicted during the air campaign by the Iraqi government itself was a mere 2300, a factor of 100 less than yours. So the estimates of even those directly critical of the US, or the enemy nation itself, range from a few tens to a few thousand.

Note that the *Bulletin of Atomic Scientists* article is *critical* of the US. Perhaps Clark's and Gonzalez' numbers rest partly on observations like the following from the same article:

The
United States did not resort to terror-bombing in the Gulf, as it did in
World War II or even in the Christmas 1972 bombings of North Vietnam. Yet
the allies managed to inflict what a U.N. observer team would later call
'near apocalyptic' damage to Iraq's infrastructure, leaving, by June 1,
70,000 homeless and as many as 20,000 others sick and dying in a state that
had been bombed back to the 'preindustrial age.'

So, even by the estimates of it's severest critics most of the damage inflicted on civilian populations was a result of infrastructure destruction. And even those estimates are far below those you cite.

The preposterous numbers you cite could also be predicated covertly on the claim that the use of depleted uranium has created widespread cancer, a view proposed by the World Socialist Organization and refuted strenuously by RAND.

But any way you shake it, the numbers you cited were inflammatory and grossly misleading. Note also in the Frontline report that even the estimates of military casualties, originally tagged at 100,000 to 300,000, have been downsized.

I should also add that these distortions do more than mislead. They destroy. Any sign of weakness in the allied resolve to deal harshly with mass terrorism is almost certainly to result in an increased incentive to follow up with even more deadly attacks, since it encourages them to believe that they're making their case without much penalty. These people aren't worried about 'collateral damage' either on their side or ours. Indeed, the more Middle Easterners killed and the more disruption created (as opposed to simply surgically removing the terrorists) advances their cause. So by playing the patsy to disinformation, you're actually raising the odds of death tolls in the US and the Middle East to an order of magnitude equivalent to whole cities, or worse. Grow up, Vera.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 17:06:07 (EDT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: kill ratio
Message:
kill ratio was 100,000 to one american, or thereabouts
best ever, apparently
bunch of brits infamously killed by friendly fire tho
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 21:00:18 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: Re: kill ratio
Message:
More than one American dead, but probably not more than 30. It's an unseemly kill ratio to be sure... but better them than us. And we also accepted *a lot* of surrendering Iraqi soldiers. After hearing what the Iraqi army had been doing during it's occupation of Kuwait I imagine the pilots were in no mood to just let them walk away from the equipment across the desert.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 22:05:04 (EDT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To:

Subject: Overkill perhaps
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 22:14:55 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To:

Subject: Re: Overkill perhaps
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 16:38:03 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: 1/6th of all forces were Brits Dave [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 15:04:04 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Vera
Subject: Re: possible reason for the polarity
Message:
Vera:

How many civilians - women, children, old people - did US warplanes slaughter during the Gulf War? Can any American poster recall reading in the US press that the figure was a quarter of a million?

This is complete nonsense. Probably Hussein's disinformation (like the craziness about having killed 500,000 children). There were barely 100,000 *combatant* deaths, for heaven sake. A quarter of a million civilian deaths is just preposterous, as are the rest of your 'supressed facts.'

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 14:04:00 (EDT)
From: the other bob
Email: None
To: Vera
Subject: Re: possible reason for the polarity
Message:
All very true, Vera
And I share your concerns about what is going to happen next.
'If UBL is removed, their number will probably double' - make that tenfold.
If we think that premies are, and we were brainwashed into unreasonable actions in support of a relious cult, it was kindergarden stuff compared to these muslim fundamentalists - and they are everywhere. Bombing the life out of Afghanistan or Killing a few leaders/mahatmas or whatever they are called will only add fuel to the fundamentalis fervour.
Does anyone remember that video when the bodyguard talking to a reporter said he would slit the throat of anyone if they tried to throw a custard pie at Maharji? When the reporter responded with disbelief the premie came back with something like 'I'd do it in an instant'.
The freaky thing is I remember feeling those feelings ( although maybe not quite so strong ) A particular satsang I remember - some mahatma was talking about the opposition to DLM in Greece, where they didn't like having cults setting up ashrams, and that some premies and Mahatmas had been threatened with having their legs chopped of if they continued their propogation.
The mahatma giving satsang said that when M heard about this he said that nothing was going to stop him bringing his message of love and peace to every corner of the world and if those Greeks meant what they said then there would be a few Mahatmas without legs.
Everyone laughed and most people felt, as I think I did, that if Maharji sent me to Greece, then, despite the fear of losing my legs, I would go.
Now any feelings I or anyone else had in service/devotion to Maharaji pales into insignificance compared to what these fundamentalists feel.
Have you read the notes found in one of the highjackers suitcase?
They did what they did in the name of Allah and believed they were doing a great service?
How you gonna fight them?
How you gonna make sure that you've found them all?
As we've just seen it only takes a few of them to cause massive destruction and loss of life.

I'm saying this because America needs stop being so cocky and paranoid about people being anti-american. All everyone wants is a peaceful solution to this terror.

I also agree that we don't hear half of what goes on in our name around the world.
I know that the American Government trained ( as well as Bin Laden ) Nicaraguan terrorists and supported their killing of over 30,000 civilians. Who knows what the CIA etc. are up to half the time?
No way could I pledge allegiance to such a bunch of over confident suits lead by someone who is proud of the fact that he has never finished reading a book ( I heard that somewhere - I know it must be an exagerration but I think there is some truth in the fact that he does not hold intellectual pursuits in very high regard )
But I'm not Anti American. I love the place and the people.
It's the government I don't like.
bobo the other bob.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 13:52:19 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Vera
Subject: Good post, Vera [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 15:10:03 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: It's completely inaccurate, Dermot.
Message:
How do you construe that as "good???" Worse, it's conceptual nonsense. It basically says that the polarization exists because we haven't all come down on one side. Completely silly, on its face.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 15:16:24 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: not 'nt'
Message:
Couldn't seem to edit out the 'nt' designation, after I accidentally set it.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 13:39:28 (EDT)
From: Vera
Email: None
To: Vera
Subject: Possible reason for the polarity
Message:
I agree that participants on both sides are well-informed and write in good faith.

My own theory is that Americans do not have a clear view of the damage their nation's government has done around
the world because their nation's media is so tightly controlled. They have been inured to a comfortable myth. An
illustration:

How many civilians - women, children, old people - did US warplanes slaughter during the Gulf War? Can any
American poster recall reading in the US press that the figure was a quarter of a million?

These are civilians only - the military casualties are extra: people with whom (to quote George I) 'the US has no
quarrel'.

That's the population of a small city. It's also ~50 times the number killed in the horrific WTC/Pentagon attacks.

Just because Americans never get to read such stories, or learn of such staggering casualty lists, does not mean
these horrors did not occur. And it does not mean that no-one else gets to hear about it: much of the rest of the
world's media is not so tightly self-censored.

Do you seriously imagine that the world's Muslims did not get to learn about the mass slaughter of their brothers &
sisters in the Gulf War? Or that they have forgotten it in the 10 years since?

These things are censored in the West: they're not censored among the survivors and those who sympathise with
them.

And that's only one example. The US secret agencies and military have propped up a hundred murderous regimes
since WW2, many of them in Islamic countries. The death toll is in the millions. Within those millions are several
democratically elected presidents and prime ministers whom the US has caused to be assassinated.

One day, somewhere, someone was going to devise the resources to hit back. It was as inevitable as night following
day. It will continue.

I abhor it, and have had nightmares nearly every night since Sept 11 - but it will continue.

My guess is that even if bin Laden is extirpated, another five will rise to take his place. Sept 11 was a massively
successful feat of arms which showed for the first time that, and how, the US is vulnerable. Radical Muslims will be
rushing to join the cause from Morocco to Afghanistan. If UBL is removed, their number wll probably double. If we in
the West guard against planes attacks, they'll use chemical weapons. If we guard against that, they'll drop biological
weapons in a dozen city reservoirs. if we somehow guard against that, they'l smuggle a dozen suitcase nukes into
cities and explode them. (And so on.)

Thus I'm not suggesting that US foreign policvy should be changed for ethical reasons - tho it should. I'm suggesting
it should be changed so the West, and we, can survive.

Vera

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 15:21:34 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Vera
Subject: Why are you posting this drivel twice?
Message:
Just because Americans never get to read such stories, or learn of such staggering casualty lists, does not mean
these horrors did not occur.

It doesn't mean they did occur either.

One day, somewhere, someone was going to devise the resources to hit back. It was as inevitable as night following
day. It will continue.

I can't believe anyone with two brain cells to rub together would say such a thing. Dermot, do you really think this isn't crap in the doorway? Tell me why not?

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 16:31:37 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Scott, untie you shoelaces
Message:
and step out of your shoes. That's yhe only way you'll be able to read a post like that. Try to step into someone elses shoes.

I think it was a general western media consensus (I know for a fact that it was in the UK) for the real horrors of the Gulf war to be censored, in order to shield viewers from seeing burnt and mutilated bodies. The view was if they had been honest in showing the real horror then the public would be outraged. That's just one small example.

I'm certain the powers that be (government/media) would rather downplay or where possible conceal real war facts and figures.Again, for the same reasons.

I don't know the actual casualty figures of the Gulf war.But whatever they are they are more than statistics. For those on the receiving end and their countrymen they'll never be forgotten. This applies to all on the receiving end of the 'wests' might.

It is totally, 100%irrelevant whether the 'wests' might was used justifiablly or not when considering the feelings of those who are or have been the 'wests' enemies.They will not see it on our terms ...they'll see it in apolyptic terms.

All Vera is saying (if you extract whether or not the west is right or wrong from the equation)is that those of us in the west are not always made aware of the true horrific facts of a conflict(you can't deny 'spin' and 'gloss' is a political art) and civilian victims of a conflict will be filled with a deep seated, perhaps uneradicable hatred and resntment.She also concludes (again whether it's justified or not) SOME of these people will turn their resentment into violent retaliation.

HOWEVER .....all of the above I've written is applicable if the civilian casualities were 10 or 100 00. I must concede I don't know if the 250 000 figure is accurate, I suspect not. Same again about the number of governments backed by the west. I don't know the numbers. I agree, you could dispute that.

If you forget the statistics and read my post ....can you argue with it?

I'm waiting to be scoffed at. Maybe in this instant I deserve to be. If you read carefully, I don't think so.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 20:51:01 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: You've discredited yourself.
Message:
Dermot:

And I was beginning to think you were halfway rational. I don't know what you're saying. You seem to be suggesting that as long as someone's point of view is *on the right side* the fact that they are presenting a lie as the truth should be overlooked? I'm sorry, but how can you evolve a rational policy based on wild inaccuracies and vague accusations of conspiracy? What 'consensus' in the western media that the real horrors of the Gulf war were censored in order to preserve public spirit? Since when? The details of the operation were censored for security reasons, and coverage was 'pooled' for the same reason. I've never heard anyone in mainstream media suggest otherwise. Show me. And as for carnage there was plenty of footage of that after the events in Kuwait, where the US slaughtered the retreating army. This was war, and these were combatants who had kept Kuwait under a sadistic reign of terror since the invasion. Just how worked up am I supposed to get over it? We also accepted a lot of prisoners.

Sorry, but there's a big difference between a few hundred civilian casualties and a QUARTER OF A MILLION! Hello! Zhbignev Brezhinski suggested early on that to completely defeat Iraq the US population would have to be able to 'stomach' 100,000 civilian casualties, which is a standard figure used since Clauswitz for what it takes to 'bring the conflict home' to a population to a sufficient degree to cause capitulation. He quite rightly suggested that the US public would not tolerate such a figure, so he doubted that we'd really attempt to defeat Iraq itself. We got nowhere near that figure, let alone 250,000. Not within a factor of 1000, because we never even *began* the campaign to subdue Iraq. It was aborted. Whatever Vera is talking about it has absolutely nothing to do with truth or veracity. In fact, it's nothing but a common ordinary lie presented with a little embellishment. She suggests she 'knows about it' because she's sympathetic. I suggest she swallowed a lie, because she's sympathetic... and stupid. How in the world do you expect me to take her, or you, seriously?

One day, somewhere, someone was going to devise the resources to hit back. It was as inevitable as night following day. It will continue.

Geez, I can't even dignify that with a rebuttal, because I still can't believe someone would be enough of a horse's ass to even say it. Some things really *are* beneath contempt. 'Hit back?' Gosh, that sounds pretty much like 'retaliation' to me, unless I don't understand plain English. How carefully am I supposed to sift this crap?

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 03:53:26 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: When you think I'm fully rational
Message:
that's when I'll worry :)

You,ve got me here though .....it's a pity one can't fully delete certain posts isn't it?!

No, I stand by my post in principle (and Veras) but Veras was sloppy with facts and fgures ....what can I say? Skimmed it, thought ok, and posted.Terrible gaffe on my part but there you go.

'right side' ? Yes basic principles.Was it right to accept falsefigures? No. I apologise for that.

Now, I must cool it on the forum for a few days.

Cioa

Dermot

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 09:58:17 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Thanks.
Message:
Thanks for the apology, Dermot. Not like you have a monopoly on mistakes. What did you think of the Maze thesis? Workable?

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 00:39:13 (EDT)
From: Mel Bourne
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: UNICEF Iraqi child mortality 500,000
Message:
Hi Scott

What about the ongoing casualties for kids alone....

UNICEF child mortality press release....

or even the UNICEF sanctions report itself. These figure are more than double Vera's estimates.

Time to retire to your 'think tank' to do some reading and research, I think, before you really blow your great Yankee credibility even further.

Jesus, what arrogance, and you expect us to accept your other pronouncements of the current world situation?.

Mel
[ BBC report Aug 1999 ]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 02:40:18 (EDT)
From: Mel Bourne
Email: None
To: Mel Bourne
Subject: Cambridge University .. Iraqi children
Message:
You'll like this, Scott, from a Cambridge University 'Think Tank'..

Unicef's April 1998 'Situation Analysis of Children and Women in Iraq - 1997' is more informative. In section 2.5.1.1 they report that figures for 'mortality reported in public hospitals for children under five years of age' has increased by 'some 40,000 deaths yearly compared with 1989'; for those over five years the same method suggests that there is an excess of 50,000 deaths annually. Further, with 'the substantial increase in mortality, under-registration of deaths is a growing problem.

WHY? For infants, reporting a death would entail cancellation of the due ration for that child'.

Now, let's see..

40,000 yearly under 5s (since 1989 - 12 years).. = 480,000
50,000 yearly over 5s........................... = 600,000

Running total = 1,008,000 (not counting the 'under registration of deaths) ......How many died in NY?

...figures based on deaths registered with the Iraqi Ministry of Health, such as Unicef's, may be distorted for political gain. We have yet to see concerns expressed about Iraqi mortality data by the UN agencies working with them.

So much for Chucks' assertion (in a previous post) that this just 'Saddam' propaganda (unless UNICEF now works for him), but Dave's claim about 500,000 child deaths being a 'myth and a lie' is probably true... it looks as though it's double that!

Mel

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 05:27:19 (EDT)
From: Sir Dave }(
Email: None
To: Mel Bourne
Subject: You didn't read me right
Message:
Melbourne wrote:

"but Dave's claim about 500,000 child deaths being a 'myth and a lie'..."

I didn't say it was a myth and I said the figures could be true. I said the quoted cause of the lack of medical supplies was a myth.

OK so you reckon the figures are double. It's the cause I was interested in.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 08:53:11 (EDT)
From: Mel Bourne
Email: None
To: Sir Dave }(
Subject: Your right Dave....
Message:
....I didn't read you right, my apologies. but there is more to these deaths than just 'medicine', try 'starvation'....

'Whilst famine is not yet a problem in Iraq, children in their early infancy are the first victims of starvation, due to the malnourishment of their mothers - whose bodies just cannot produce milk.', comments from a member of the Centre for Economic and Social Rights (CESR), formerly known as the Harvard Study Team, which visited Iraq in April 1966. (link above)
[ Iraq visit - Harvard Study Team ]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 02:19:28 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Mel Bourne
Subject: Mel Bourne the meek.
Message:
First of all, Vera didn't pose an 'estimate' but claimed half a million civilian casualties caused by US military action during Desert Storm. Indeed, not just military action but 'warplanes.' I don't suppose it matters that you're talking about something completely different? Apart from that I assume you're balanced enough to know the difference between deaths attributable to Saddam's appropriation or diversion of resources intended for others, versus deaths attributable to a conscious effort of the US to demean the lives of Iraqis, but if not SEEK THERAPY!

(You'll note that the report you cite makes a number of recommendations to the Iraqi government, but none to the Security Council or the US. Hmmm... I wonder if they know something you don't?)

You're pitiful Mel. Really. Next you'll be saying that the US caused the deaths of millions of Russians by resisting Stalinism, and thus failing to free that great humanitarian to use resources he had to divert to maintaining his gulags to feed his population. What an unmitigated dope. If it weren't so tragic I'd be amused. But it *is* tragic, in the largest sense.

And since you're wont to use that 'what if' calculus, how about the infant deaths that would *not* have ocurred had Iraq not been governed by a homicidal maniac, but instead by a leader with an interest in economic devolopment rather than making himself a 'scourge' of mankind? Can you add that high?

Finally, how do you weigh the millions, even hundreds of millions, that would probably be lost if Saddam completes his objective of weaponizing Anthrax or Smallpox (as though there's any uncertainty), against the thousands that might be lost when we decide to stop him once and for all? Wouldn't failure to act be a sin of far greater magnitude? Is there a rule against good judgment where you come from, or something?

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 03:36:33 (EDT)
From: Mel Bourne
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: Mel Bourne the meek.
Message:
Scott

True, Vera was remarking on the casualties of 'Desert Storm', I've merely expanded the casualty tally to cover the 'sanctions issue' which is no less valid a 'casualty' record of the conflict which is still ongoing.

You're pitiful Mel. Really. Next you'll be saying that the US caused the deaths of millions of Russians by resisting Stalinism, and thus failing to free that great humanitarian to use resources he had to divert to maintaining his gulags to feed his population. What an unmitigated dope.

Scott, I think you're the 'unmitigated dope' First you put words into my mouth and surmise that I'm going to say something that had never even entered my mind, and next you call me an 'unmitigated dope' for saying it! You're ridiculous!

And since you're wont to use that 'what if' calculus, how about the infant deaths that would *not* have ocurred had Iraq not been governed by a homicidal maniac, but instead by a leader with an interest in economic devolopment rather than making himself a 'scourge' of mankind? Can you add that high?

True, but the child casualties do exist and are a result of the 'sanctions'. So stop evading the issue by resorting to vague 'what if' calculus. Next you'll be saying they're 'collateral damage'!

Finally, how do you weigh the millions, even hundreds of millions, that would probably be lost if Saddam completes his objective of weaponizing Anthrax or Smallpox (as though there's any uncertainty), against the thousands that might be lost when we decide to stop him once and for all? Wouldn't failure to act be a sin of far greater magnitude? Is there a rule against good judgment where you come from, or something?

Well, it seems this was yet another error of US foreign policy, doesn't it? Maybe your country should have used the 'what if' calculus you suggest and finished Saddam off when they had the chance in 1991. At least, maybe, the Iraqi kids could have survived and we all might have been spared the possibility of the kind of death you suggest. It seems that there has been a lesser display of 'good judgement' by people in your neck of the woods than in mine, eh Scott?

Mel

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 09:55:05 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Mel Bourne
Subject: Wonder of wonders
Message:
Well, it seems this was yet another error of US foreign policy, doesn't it? Maybe your country should have used the 'what if' calculus you suggest and finished Saddam off when they had the chance in 1991. At least, maybe, the Iraqi kids could have survived and we all might have been spared the possibility of the kind of death you suggest. It seems that there has been a lesser display of 'good judgement' by people in your neck of the woods than in mine, eh Scott?

It appears we actually agree on something. You realize that many of their parents would have been killed, of course. In a battle to subdue a homeland huge numbers of civilian casualties are unavoidable. Well, I hope that's incorrect but if we've managed to change that equation somehow then it's for the first time in history. Still, one can only hope since the action may have to be taken anyway.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 12:34:05 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: Re: Differences of Political Opinion OT
Message:
The intelligence factor is pretty equal between the two camps; those who think the positives of the U.S. far outweigh the negatives, and those who think the negatives are substantial enough to be suspicious, at the least.

I submit that the ability to leap from credible suspicion to outright conspiracy is typically, quintessentialy American.

But if you look at the top scrappers on both sides in this heap, they're both very intelligent, very informed, able to quote examples fluidly, and both honorable and good people. They just disagree on the honorability and goodness of the subject: The United States.

And this was also true of that other great debate of the 20th Century over Marxism. Do you know anything about the birth of the neo-conservative movement in the A and B Alcoves at the City University of New York, in the late 40s and early 50s? Alcove A: Stalinists. Alcove B: Anti-soviet socialists and Trotskyites. Truly fascinating story. Jean Kirkpatrick is a socialist, BTW. That's why she was never given a domestic policy postion in the Reagan administration.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 13:27:28 (EDT)
From: bobo - the other bob
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Why I do not support U.S. govmt.
Message:
FROM THE OVAL OFFICE.

' According to House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL), the congressional move enables the president to declare war, 'to the extent that war can realistically be declared on, like, maybe three or four Egyptian guys, an Algerian, and this other guy who kind of looks Lebanese but could be Syrian. Or whoever else it might have been. Because it might not have been them.'
In addition to those responsible for the Sept. 11 attack, the U.S. is determined to exact revenge upon any nation found to have harbored the perpetrators.
'Should we determine that a nation has been giving refuge to this fiend—or fiends, as the case may be—we will effectively be at war with that nation,' Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) said. 'Then again, what if we declared war on Afghanistan and they didn't send anyone to fight us? It's plausible that we could declare war on them, but they wouldn't go to war with us, since they weren't the ones who actually attacked us. Who would our soldiers even shoot?'
U.S. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), one of Congress' decorated war veterans, tried to steel the nation for the possibility of a long and confusing conflict.
'America faces a long road ahead,' McCain said. 'We do not yet know the nature of 21st-century warfare. We do not yet know how to fight this sort of fight. And I'll be damned if one of us has an inkling who we will be fighting against. With any luck, they've got uniforms of some sort.'
'Christ,' McCain continued, 'what if the terrorists' base of operation turns out to be Detroit? Would we declare war on the state of Michigan? I suppose we'd have to.'

ALSO...

'We must launch every available missile at any nation in which the terrorists are rumored to be hiding. We must bomb every square inch of any country that may be harboring them. Then, when the thick, black smoke has finally cleared, we must bomb them all over again, reducing the rubble to its component atoms. If, in the midst of carpet-bombing a country, we find that it had no involvement in the Sept. 11 attack, so be it. Apologies can come later, but vengeance must be immediate.
After pummeling the holy living hell out of those fuckers with bombs, we should send in ground troops, armed to the teeth, to sweep through and exterminate anyone still alive who might have been involved. America's soldiers must be under orders to pump round after round into their bodies, pausing only to replace their clips. Only then will closure to this horrible event be possible. If we do not strike back fast and with as much military might as humanly possible, America will never be able to heal.
Some people argue that if we capture Osama bin Laden and his co-conspirators, we should bring them to justice before a U.N. tribunal. I say that to bring them before a civilized court is to raise them up to the level of humans. Terrible acts must be punished with terrible retribution. Are we going to humanely execute by lethal injection men who wantonly killed thousands of innocents? Instead, all of those who are guilty must be dipped in boiling fat and fed to dogs.'

Both from (you guessed it) The Onion, and they say sooo much...
BTW do these and other satirical articles parodying the gung-ho patriot spirit, mean that this Magazine is Anti-American?

http://www.theonion.com/onion3734/index.html

bobo - the other bob

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 14:37:27 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: bobo - the other bob
Subject: What does this have to do with the thread topic? [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 15:15:04 (EDT)
From: Vera
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: My reply to Scott & Sir Dave
Message:
Once again, Scott, I think you’d do your case some good if you refrained from ad hominem attacks. Describing Ramsey Clark as “a guilt-ridden old warrior, willing to say damn near anything to balance the scales of his life” - and telling me to “grow up” - are unlikely to convince our readers of anything much. What people look for in these debates is evidence, and clarity of exposition. Even good manners are generally appreciated, I think.

I’m not interested in schoolyard squabbles, so if you can’t refrain from personal attacks, I’m out of here - one more chance.

I’ll begin with some specifics, and proceed to our main topic of US foreign policy.

Firstly, I now find myself fighting a war on two fronts. Sir Dave tells me:

“...the military casualties in the Gulf war were enormous and could even be higher than the official figures since Iraq doesn't like to admit to military casualties.”

and Scott tells me:

“...even the estimates of military casualties, originally tagged at 100,000 to 300,000, have been downsized.”

I’ll let you sort it out among yourselves as to whether the Iraqi military casualties were exaggerated or understated.

As for the civilian casualties, Sir Dave says:

“I still think you're mixing up the military and civilian casualties.”

but once again cites no sources at all - which I think puts him out of the ring.

Scott cites two sources:

1. The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists - which speaks of 13 cases of collateral damage, but does not specify numbers of dead.

2. Frontline (you didn’t state what this is) - which speaks of 2300 casualties from the air campaign, and “20,000 others sick and dying” due to infrastructure collapse.

I find your sources less credible and less authoritative than the ones I cited, which are an official commission, a congressional committee (both American, BTW) and a British medical trust. Your sources also provide less detail.

Sorry Scott, but I’m sticking with my facts until you can do better than this.

BTW, you cite the Rand Corporation as “strenuously disputing” the use of depleted uranium (DU) as being a cause of widespread illness is Iraq.

As you will have seen (it seems we saw the same article), the role of the 944,000 rounds of depleted uranium fired in the Gulf War by the US in causing widespread illness in Iraq is supported by statistics from the Basra Hospital; and by figures suggesting cancer rates in the southern region (where the DU was concentrated) are 4.6 times the national average.

When the chief of the Nuclear Medicine Clinic at the Veterans Affairs Hospital in Wilmington, Delaware, got funding to study the effects of DU on American Gulf War veterans, he was fired and his clinic closed down. This seems an increasingly typical US response to uncomfortable facts.

He later told a conference that 'tens of thousands' of British and American soldiers are dying from radiation from Gulf War DU shells.

Once again, Scott you are citing a single poor source, and carefully neglecting many more credible ones, in order to make a case.

This is the same self-censorship which I addressed in my original post. It is endemic to the US media, and it appears to have spread to the consumers of that media.

I have also seen debate on this forum recently about the effect of US sanctions on Iraq. The International Red Cross, says:

'After nine years of trade sanctions...the situation of the civilian population is increasingly desperate.”

As for Iraq’s misery deriving from Saddam putting foreign aid “in his back pocket” - as I saw suggested here - the US National Gulf War Center states:

“Baghdad has repeatedly complained that most of its purchases have not reached the country, blaming U.S. and British representatives at the U.N. sanctions committee for delaying them.” The Executive Director of UNICEF (of all people) has given support to this view, and has urged the UN to lift its game.

UNICEF blames the UN embargo for the deaths of half a million children to date.

The US House Democratic Whip described the economic blockade as 'infanticide masquerading as policy'.

The continuing air war against Iraq kills civilians as well as military - examples provided on request - and costs you, the US taxpayer, $1,000,000,000 per year.

Sir Dave added:

“Talk about Vietnam if you want since I know a lot about it, despite not having been there. I know Vietnamese people in Britain.”

Okay Dave - would it be best to start with the millions slaughtered by the US war machine in general, or to look at a specific program - such as the tens of thousands of village elders, members of women’s groups and community activists tortured to death during Operation Phoenix?

Finally, you guys, please don’t tell me that what I’m saying means I think my country (Australia) has never done anything wrong (it has, plenty), that the North Vietnamese, or Saddam Hussein, never did anything wrong (they did, big time), or that I hate Americans - when in fact my favorite artist (Dylan), thinker (Chomsky) and statesman (Jefferson) are all Americans - as are several of my friends and work colleagues. I’ve worked in government circles in and with Washington for most of the last year, and much enjoyed it despite the myopia.

Scott concluded on a philosophical note:

“I should also add that these distortions do more than mislead. They destroy. Any sign of weakness in the allied resolve to deal harshly with mass terrorism is almost certainly to result in an increased incentive to follow up with even more deadly attacks... So by playing the patsy to disinformation, you're actually raising the odds of death tolls in the US and the Middle East to an order of magnitude equivalent to whole cities, or worse. Grow up, Vera.”

In what seems to have become a familiar pattern, this argument entirely excludes America’s role in provoking attacks such as those of September 11.

Analysing what the US has done to provoke such attacks will hopefully lead to a less predatory and murderous foreign policy, which will in turn lead to less attacks - not more. If serious questioning of the US role in the world had been permitted by the US media through the 1980s and 1990s, UBL may never have attracted his legions of jihadists, or tens of millions of dollars in donations from Arabian Peninsula billionaires, and the WTC attacks may never have happened.

Now, unless official America looks at its own behaviour honestly, the nation will never be spared the enmity of the developing and Islamic worlds. As we’ve seen, that enmity is no longer confined to words and isolated scuffles.

I most certainly hope that bin Laden, and his accomplices, are hunted down and extirpated from the face of the Earth. But that will not quell radical Islam, or third world discontent in general. Only America becoming a decent global citizen will do that.

Presently you have a President who is withdrawing the US from the Kyoto Protocol, who is resurrecting Star Wars, and who states that the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty - which he intends to tear up - “stops freedom-loving people...from exploring he future”. You have a foreign policy which props up rotten dictators from Saudi to Latin America, a military which trains their secret police, and a post-War record of mouthing the word “democracy” approximately as often as you have worked to destroy it in practice.

You also have an intelligence network so flabby that, despite its $23 billion per year in funding, apparently has not a single source inside al Queda or its affiliated networks.

Am I getting through yet?

Vera

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 11:36:43 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Vera
Subject: Case closed.
Message:
Whoever you are:

I was in the Peace Movement. Maybe you don't know about Ramsey Clark, but everyone else does. As for suggesting you grow up, I simply made the assumption that you were an adolescent given that you're using a pseudonym, seem to have a penchant for hyperbole, and quote partisan sources as 'authoritative.' If I'm wrong about your age I sincerely apologize, but you really had me fooled. What you're constructing is a pile of words with no real substance. And if there's anything this debate needs it's substance. For instance:

I find your sources less credible and less authoritative than the ones I cited, which are an official commission, a congressional committee (both American, BTW) and a British medical trust. Your sources also provide less detail.

Pardon me? The sources I referenced were the Iraqi government, Greenpeace, and the World Socialist organization. The first two were simply reported by Frontline, and the Journal of Atomic Scientists, both of which have an unblemished track record of objectivity (unlike yours). The third was cited to provide a possible explanation for the fantastic figures you cite, an explanation that was not forthcoming from you even though you apparently read the article. BTW, the 'policy handle' suggested by the World Socialist Organization's claims, even if true (and most people don't regard RAND as a 'poor source') would be to stop using depleted uranium in artillery shells. What other point could there be? So, why don't you even discuss that? You know how to read, right? Now let's take a look at your 'authoritative sources':

1. Your 'official commission' is the 'Commission of Inquiry for on International War Crimes Tribunal' which, in simple language, is an advocacy group that wants to establish a UN War Crimes Tribunal with it's agenda as the mandate. In not so simple language it's 'The International Action Center' which is chaired by Clark. Calling it an 'official commission' is simply a wild exaggeration, and taints everything else you've said. Again, I'm almost seduced into believing you're a 12-year-old.

2. The 'congressional committee' you claim as a reference is actually just Henry Gonzalez spouting some figures to *The Guardian*. The fact that Henry is on the Banking Committee isn't even relevant to anything, other than your desperate desire to legitimize your claims through a transparent strategy of deception.

3. I don't know who the devil the Medical Education Trust (London) is, but just because it's British doesn't make it authoritative.

The bottom line is that you cited sources with a clear axe to grind and with a rather obvious strategy to mislead; while I cited primary sources reported by organizations with a clearly recognized unbiased standard demonstrating that the figures you provide aren't even credible as an outside estimate. This is not even a contest.

The US House Democratic Whip described the economic blockade as 'infanticide masquerading as policy'.

So we're supposed to take this political rhetoric as authoritative information? You know what infanticide is, right? What possible motive would the US have for infanticide, and how could you pin any such motive on us when we helped establish the organizational mandate that monitors the impact of sanctions, UNICEF, precisely to minimize that impact (as stated in its charter)? BTW, you misleadingly (surprise) characterize this institutional attempt to minimize the impact of sanctions as 'blaming the embargo.'

“...even the estimates of military casualties, originally tagged at 100,000 to 300,000, have been downsized.”

I’ll let you sort it out among yourselves as to whether the Iraqi military casualties were exaggerated or understated.

Well I don't think you have that luxury, 'Vera,' since if Dave's right there isn't much room left in your figures for civilian casualties. I'm afraid you'll have to come down on my side in that one... or throw in the towel. That said, it's still pretty thin cover, because I'm claiming through my sources that both estimates were vastly inflated, by a factor of 10 to 1000, depending on which 'authority' you choose to believe and what assumptions they make in their calculations.

“I should also add that these distortions do more than mislead. They destroy. Any sign of weakness in the allied resolve to deal harshly with mass terrorism is almost certainly to result in an increased incentive to follow up with even more deadly attacks... So by playing the patsy to disinformation, you're actually raising the odds of death tolls in the US and the Middle East to an order of magnitude equivalent to whole cities, or worse. Grow up, Vera.”

In what seems to have become a familiar pattern, this argument entirely excludes America’s role in provoking attacks such as those of September 11.

So at least that's settled. You figure the attacks were provoked by the sort of completely preposterous estimates of Iraqi casualties you've promoted in your own deceived and deceptive campaign to mislead and misinform. I was hoping you were merely an overly zealous adolescent with good intentions. Looks like more than a simple 'mistake' now though. Case closed.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 06:44:09 (EDT)
From: Old-Ex72
Email: None
To: Vera
Subject: Re: My reply to Scott & Sir Dave
Message:
Vera,
Thank you for taking the time to research and present your case. Anyone reading the entire exchange between you and Scott T. (and to a lesser extent Sir Dave) must be impressed with your knowledge and wisdom. Scott T., although having some writing ability and knowledge, appears to be too mean spirited and subjective to be of any further value in this forum. Your first paragraph sums it up perfectly as far as I am concerned: his resort to personal attacks on you and your sources really turns me off. I also notice that he has not yet responded to the following question which you posed in your message entitled 'Evidence for my claims re Gulf War slaughter', namely:
'Would you also like to talk about Chile, Guatemala, Vietnam - or perhaps Indonesia, where a US-assisted coup led to the installation of President Suharto, who immediately liquidated 500,000 to one million 'communists' - i.e. democrats, members of community groups, intellectuals, etc?'
My guess is that he is more comfortable nitpicking about the Gulf War statistics.
Vera, you have gotten through to me, and, as far as I am concerned, have deflated someone who was in need of it.
Old-Ex72
P.S. I've been lurking here for quite a while. This is my first post, and it was inspired by your excellent insight and analysis
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 13:52:39 (EDT)
From: Vera
Email: None
To: Old-Ex72
Subject: a valedictory message
Message:
The debate has sunk below the level I'm comfortable with at this point, so (as foreshadowed) I'll be withdrawing. I think when we start to demonise each other we fall right back into cult psychology, without knowing it.

If anyone wants to resume this very interesting thread - without the emotion - at some future stage, I'll be happy to oblige.

Thanks for your kind thoughts Old Ex.

Let me leave you with some soothing words written by Auden - in a dive on 52nd Street, as it happens:

I and the public know
What all schoolchildren learn.
Those to whom evil is done
Do evil in return.

Best wishes to all,

Vera

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 12:20:36 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Old-Ex72
Subject: Vera congratulating Vera?
Message:
This is truly hilarious. Who are Vera and/or Old Ex? Catweasel or Mel Bourne? Just some 12-year-old looking for an alternative to pleasuring himself? Would he be likely to provide accurate data as to whether he's really 'the master of his domain?' The one thing we do know is that Vera isn't (no matter what the meaning of 'is,' is).
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 04:55:38 (EDT)
From: Old-Ex
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: Vera congratulating Vera?
Message:
In case anyone is still reading this thread, I would just like to say that I find it interesting that Scott T. assumes that because I complimented his adversary, therefore I am some sort of a phoney. Maybe that kind of paranoia just naturally comes with such pomposity as he customarily displays. What can I say? I don't know anything about Vera except what she has posted here. (guess I'll have to start reading Catweasel and Mel Bourne in the hope of finding out what the heck Scott is referring to).
Looking forward to some discussion of the guru when things settle down.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 14:32:56 (EDT)
From: other bobo
Email: None
To: bobo - the other bob
Subject: not running with the crowd
Message:
I've just been reading about Barbara Lee, a congresswoman from California.
She sounds to me like a friend of mine who refused to ask for knowledge, despite everyone within our cirlce of friends having recieved it and giving her heavy satsang to go and get it. ( she never did get it - wise woman that she is )
Ms Lee, it seems was the only one out of over 500 members, who voted against giving Bush carte blanche power to go to war with whoever he liked whenever he liked - regardless of evidence.
I don't know anything about her except that it must have taken some courage to go against the grain like that.
I expect she is one of those Anti-Americans we keep hearing about.
bobo
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 11:26:38 (EDT)
From: Salam
Email: None
To: All
Subject: Maryan Investment
Message:
this is from AG2. Has anyone heared about this company. Based in the channel Island and looks like an investment fund for rawat and company. Has something like $50Million dollars US. Handles all fatty's assests.

Maryan Investment

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 13:12:47 (EDT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Salam
Subject: Maryan or Myrine? or maybe Marine?
Message:
It was spelled 'myrine' in the AG2 post. Maryan is a last name.
It seems the post is referring to the British Channel Islands.
There is a Marine Investments Ltd on Gibraltar, but it is an insurance company. See http://www.aboard.co.uk/nautilinks/l2-INL-list.html
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 04:05:53 (EDT)
From: Salam
Email: None
To: G
Subject: Re: Maryan or Myrine? or maybe Marine?
Message:
Well u know me.

I guess the correct name as it was spellled on ag2.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index