Re: Airport insanity
From: James A. Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Oct 22, 2004 12:21 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Airport insanity All of the terrorists came from countries that were beneficiaries of an immense amount of US help. Saudi Arabia was certainly not under attack. If they were Palestinians, and they hit the Pentagon but not the two towers, then they would be defending themselves. I'm still trying to understand the moral theory on which you differentiate hitting the two towers from the Oklaholma City bombing. McVeigh (not a branch davidian) wanted to strike back at the BATF for the Waco massacre, so he killed a whole bunch of people, a few of whom were BATF employees, but not, as far as I know, anyone directly involved in the decisions that led to all the deaths in Waco. The 9/11 hijackers wanted to strike at the US for a variety of reasons, probably mostly that we're a big, visible target, but presumably also that we're propping up states like Saudi Arabia. So they killed a whole bunch of people, most of whom had nothing to do with what they opposed, but surely including people who were doing business with Saudi Arabia and Israel. If McVeigh had used a sniper rifle to kill the specific BATF agent who called for the raid/media event on the Branch Davidians' compound, I'd still think he deserved to either die or spend his life in prison, but at least I could somehow fathom the moral decision to do what he'd done--like the pro-life terrorists (ah, the irony) who assassinate abortionists. They need to be locked up, but you can at least see what they were thinking. Blowing up a building full of random people because a few of them are associated with some action you really disagree with is just outside the realm of the sort of moral decision I can figure out. Just like flying planes into buildings full of people with almost nothing to do with what you're really getting at. James A. Donald --John Kelsey
Re: US Retardation of Free Markets (was Airport insanity)
-- On 22 Oct 2004 at 21:08, Tyler Durden wrote: Taiwan is a particularly odd example...it definitely has started forming a modern economy, but then again it had many decades of oppression. It also had swiped billions upon billions of dollars of gold and other substances that backed the Chinese monetary system prior to 1949, so arguably that money had to go somewhere. liar. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG Ctgvg/767xVvEfZle9c/+vxKC3xtkjiX3R4NVIxk 4EMcaYvfC/Hefr1mG/wP4lnapr70KOuFu4ofYdQSC
Re: Airport insanity
At 02:20 AM 10/21/2004, James A. Donald wrote: Doubtless there are some innocents in Gautenamo - but the usual reason they are there is for being foreigners in Afghanistan in the middle of a war with no adequate explanation. At 09:21 AM 10/22/2004, James A. Donald wrote: J.A. Terranson No. We are under attack by those DEFENDING THEMSELVES. All of the terrorists came from countries that were beneficiaries of an immense amount of US help. James - Many, perhaps most, of the POWs at Gitmo weren't foreigners, they were Afghans. Many of the POWs at Gitmo probably were Al-Qaeda or other organized paramilitary groups. But many of them were described by the US propagandists as Taliban fighters - the military arm of the local central government who were legitimate to the extent that any group of warlords who are the current king of the hill are legitimate, and not too many months before the invasion, the US government was giving those same Taliban $43million because they were so helpful in our War on Drugs. And sure, they're a nasty bunch, but so are many of the anti-communist military juntas the US supported over the years. It wasn't like the US didn't know the Taliban were tolerating anti-American terrorist groups at the time - Clinton's Pentagon had bombed some of the camps in ~97 as well as the Sudan medical factory in response to bin Laden's bombing of the US embassies in Africa. Also, perhaps you don't realize this, but many countries with central governments do allow foreigners to stay there, whether as immigrants, tourists, guestworkers, businessmen, students, or attendees of terrorist training camps like the School of the Americas or the Osama bin Laden gang. Countries without effective central governments are usually more flexible about such things, and cultures that are tribally organized with colonialist-drawn boundaries are also less likely to be picky about it, though they may be more picky about whose tribal land you're in. Bill Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: US enacts tough new security measures on visitors, foreign student pilots
At 10:42 PM 10/22/04 -0400, R.A. Hettinga wrote: : US enacts tough new security measures on visitors, foreign student pilots Also unmentioned: all foreign flight schools are now heavily bugged/surveilled and swarthy and/or moslem students have that fact added to their Permenant Record.
