Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
--- Begin Message ----Caveat Lector- ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> <FONT COLOR="#000099">Make Money Online Auctions! Make $500.00 or We Will Give You Thirty Dollars for Trying! </FONT><A HREF="http://us.click.yahoo.com/yMx78A/fNtFAA/46VHAA/zgSolB/TM";><B>Click Here!</B></A> ---------------------------------------------------------------------~->Please send as far and wide as possible. Thanks, Robert Sterling Editor, The Konformist http://www.konformist.com Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man By Carla Binion Online Journal Contributing Editor March 13, 2003 - Thomas Paine said belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man. Paine biographer John Keane points out that Paine criticized organized religion and the cruel-God concept, while at the same time defending "the idea of a benevolent Creator of the universe." George W. Bush's God is so cruel that he wants Bush to massacre Iraqi children in order to "get" Saddam Hussein and install a puppet government, which he mislabels "democracy." The "God" whispering in George W. Bush's ear is cruel enough to sanction lying as a way to gain support for slaughtering innocents. This "God" also approved the widely reported U.S. bugging of United Nations members as a means to his murderous ends. Evidently, this isn't the same God bending the Pope's ear, or speaking to the Dalai Lama, to former President Jimmy Carter, or countless other widely respected spiritual and political leaders and antiwar protesters, because that God is saying "Don't massacre Iraqi babies based on lies." Whether one is religious, spiritual, agnostic or otherwise, it's hard for the clear thinking reader to deny there's something deceptive and, well, diabolical about George W. Bush's "God." The Progressive magazine (February 2003) referred to Bush's belief he can purge the world of evil at the point of a gun as "messianic militarism." Bush has referred to his mission to "democratize" the Middle East as his "crusade," calling perceived enemies "evildoers" and members of an "axis of evil." The Progressive quotes reporter Bob Woodward as saying that Bush characterizes his "mission" and that of the U.S. "in the grand vision of God's master plan." According to Woodward's book, Bush at War, Bush often states he operates mainly by gut instinct. He told Woodward, "I'm not a textbook player. I'm a gut player." After spending long hours studying Bush's public statements and interviewing him, Woodward concludes that Bush's instincts "are almost his second religion." With the power to go around the world making war on any nation his instincts tell him is "evil," Bush feels no need to clarify his reasons to critics or to seriously consider counsel from those with differing views. Bush told Woodward, "I don't need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation." The Progressive points out that when Bush was governor of Texas he stated, "I could not be governor if I did not believe in a divine plan that supercedes all human plans." His mother, Barbara Bush, told her son he was a Moses figure, and in Bush's campaign book, he claimed he had "a charge to keep." This messianic zeal combined with the militaristic goal of bombing the Middle East allegedly for the sake of "democratizing" the region, but in reality done for the purpose of dominating world events, endangers the entire planet. Television news has barely touched on the fact that war hawks in the Bush administration, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, have long planned to use military force to remake the entire Middle East. Fortunately, the print media have repeatedly shown evidence that Bush hawks consider Iraq a mere first step in a series of preemptive attacks on supposedly "evil" nations that Bush and company imagine might some day threaten U.S. global domination. In The American Prospect (March 2003) Robert Kuttner writes that "throughout the Cold War, the lunatic fringe - people like Gen. Curtis LeMay, who wanted to bomb North Vietnam 'back to the Stone Age' - often served in government. But providentially, these radicals never seized control of policy. Until now." Today the radicals of the far right have taken control of American foreign policy. Kuttner says the Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz contingent "are considered lunatic fringe" even among certain foreign policy realists. Kuttner concludes that though the Bush team's crusaders might wish it weren't true, it's impractical "to drain every political swamp" by removing every world dictator. "Despite abominations like Vietnam and sundry CIA-sponsored coups," says Kuttner, "on the whole the United States has borne its vast power with a strategic sense of proportion. Until now." Now we have the Dr. Strangelove types, the war-zealots, at the helm. These messianic crusaders think they can do no wrong and that they therefore can totally ignore, or deem irrelevant, the United Nations, the Pope, countless other dissenting spiritual and political leaders and the masses of protesters around the world, because their cruel God is on their side. The "God" leading George W. Bush and his minions into battle says the ends justify the means. This "God" condones lying and murder and has chosen cruel men as his vehicles. Not every stray Bush administration gut "instinct" or apparent spiritual "inspiration" is divine. Don't wise spiritual leaders suggest we might distinguish between good and evil "spirits" or individuals by their "fruits," or the results of their actions? In a Buzzflash interview (February 23, 2003), Mark Crispin Miller, New York University professor and author of "The Bush Dyslexicon," accurately described Bush as "a swaggering contradiction of the Sermon on the Mount." Miller also mentioned Bush seems to believe "that God has chosen him to be His instrument against 'the evil one.'" This "divine instrument" has promoted many lies in order to trump up support for his upcoming war(s). As Los Angeles Times reporter Robert Scheer pointed out (March 4, 2003), Bush has lied so often about such crucial matters that increasingly people in government are speaking out. For example, John Brady Kiesling, a 20-year veteran of the U.S. Foreign Service, resigned recently, saying in his letter of resignation that because of the actions of the current administration, he no longer believed that upholding the policies of the president also meant upholding the best interests of America and the world. Kiesling said, "We have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of American opinion, since the war in Vietnam." Is "God" guiding the Bush team to distort intelligence reports and deceive the public? Robert Scheer notes that Bush lied when he claimed Iraq aided the September 11 terrorists. Bush also lied when he claimed Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction are an imminent threat to the U.S. Bush is lying when he claims his only interest is getting rid of Saddam Hussein and restructuring Iraq. Scheer is another respected journalist confirming the fact that the Bush hawks have no intention of stopping with Iraq, but intend to reshape the entire Middle East. Other journalists criticizing the Bush administration's deception include Paul Krugman of The New York Times who has written that "the Bush administration lies a lot." In an October Washington Post article, Dana Milbank listed eight Bush administration statements that were lies. William Raspberry said of Colin Powell's report to the UN, "I don't believe him." The Bush team's many lies should raise questions about the motives and "divine" nature of their mission. It also makes sense to ask whether "God" would approve their "dirty tricks" campaign, described in a leaked National Security Agency memo. The memo ordered agency staff to spy on UN Security Council members in an effort to win votes for war against Iraq. According to Martin Bright, Ed Vulliamy and Peter Beaumont in The Observer (March 2, 2003), the surveillance operation involved "interception of the home and office telephones and the emails of UN delegates in New York." A few months ago, the Dalai Lama sent a letter to George W. Bush, trying to talk him out of attacking Iraq. The Dalai Lama once said his religion is about loving kindness, adding that if he had to choose, he would rather the world include larger numbers of loving, kind people than more Buddhists. In contrast, Bush would apparently prefer to bully and blackmail the world into following his crusade than to cultivate loving kindness and worldwide good will. The Bush hawks claim that doing nothing would be more dangerous than going forward with their war plans. However, in his January 2003 article, "An Alternative to War," former President Jimmy Carter suggested a third option, namely "a sustained and enlarged inspection team, deployed as a permanent entity until the United States and other members of the UN Security Council determine that its presence is no longer needed." The earth might be a safer place if the Bush team would consider such options. The Bush administration's mindset and actions are leading the world toward a destructive future - toward a new and eerie "world order" of unprecedented darkness and peril - an order that would please the cruelest "God" imaginable. People of conscience the world over would do well to oppose this. ***** How to support the troops By K�llia Ramares Online Journal Associate Editor March 13, 2003 - "The notion that to dissent from the war is to not support the troops is the way every war-mongering White House attempts to guilt-trip Americans into giving up their constitutional right to dissent. It won't work with me." That's the first thing I wrote to a woman who had visited my web site and wrote to oppose my support for Dr. Helen Caldicott's campaign to ask Pope John Paul II to go to Iraq. I give this woman credit for articulating some political positions. The negative email I get generally runs to usually anonymous epithets such as "towelhead supporting faggott," "dumb ass," "pathetic maggot" and "pathetic moron," (those last two in the same email, which also accused me of undermining the United States of America). But this woman signed her name, maintained her dignity and asked some questions that are worthy of public discussion. "Do your countrymen, the people who will die to preserve your freedoms not deserve the same respect as Iraqi children?" she asked. "Do you care nothing for those brave individuals who are overseas protecting you and your rights? Are you at all concerned for the troops who are defending you? Even if you cannot stop this war, why don't you send support to your fellow countrymen instead of treating them as people who are going to inflict evil on the poor people of Iraq?" One problem with this woman's point of view is that, until now, I have not made any comments about the troops. My biggest concern is getting the Bush Cabal impeached ASAP. If that would happen, maybe we can stop the killing and dying on both sides. But the biggest problem with this woman's arguments is that she is, perhaps unwittingly, part and parcel of the propaganda arm of the war machine. The propaganda is: If you don't support the war, you are endangering the morale of the troops who are fighting and dying for you. One of the most potent underlying myths of "support the troops" is that troops are committed to combat by the U.S. Government only to protect the American people and their freedoms. September 11 reinforced that myth. If one believes that myth, then one will perceive public failure to support the war to be gross ingratitude at best and treason at worst. It then becomes easy to demonize antiwar protesters. But, as I replied to her, "I do not believe that the troops are protecting me and my rights. Quite to the contrary, my rights are under siege by the same forces that are putting the lives of the troops in jeopardy. I have only to read the PATRIOT Act, The Homeland Security Act and the draft of the Domestic Security Enhancement Act to know that the biggest threats to my rights are named Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft and Powell, not Hussein. Iraq is not attacking me and therefore the troops waging war on Iraq are not defending me. "If you really believe that Iraq is a threat then you have been watching too much corporate TV news. Do you remember the first Gulf War and do you know how the Americans literally buried Iraqi soldiers alive in trenches? The Iraqi army is even weaker this time. The Iraqi army is no match for us. This is not a war. It is simply a massacre." Another myth behind "support the troops" is the idea that the bravery of our troops, or the perceived righteousness of our cause, which is extremely dubious in this case, cancels out the fact that the troops will commit evil acts, some of which may even rise to the level of war crimes. "U.S. troops will indeed inflict evil on the poor people of Iraq," I continued. "What else would you call the "Shock and Awe" plan to drop 3,000 bombs on Iraq in the first 48 hours? "Did you know that 50 percent of the Iraqi population is aged 15 or younger? Is your idea of supporting the troops to say, 'Yay! Go drop some more bombs on those kids? Go poison their land with radioactive dust?' Are you aware that Iraqi children are being born with birth defects hitherto unknown to the medical journals because of their mothers breathing radioactive dust while pregnant?" By this I was referring to the aftereffects of depleted uranium (DU) used in the 1991 Gulf War. DU is a soldier that keeps on fighting long after the peace treaty is signed. I gave her the link to some photos of grossly deformed children. Most are Iraqi, but one photo is identified as the child of a Gulf War vet. And anyone who truly cares about the troops should remember what the last war did to them. "Yes," I wrote, "I am concerned about the troops. Twenty five to 28 percent of Gulf War vets came home with some kind of medical problem. The USG still refuses to acknowledge Gulf War Syndrome. And yet chickenhawks like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, who never saw combat in Viet Nam, are blithely setting the stage for the further poisoning of our young men and women and the deformation of their children. "Yes, I support the troops by wanting them home, not committing war crimes, not being killed or maimed or psychologically damaged by what is nothing more than an imperialist oil grab by a government that won't take care of them once they have fulfilled their hideous mission." A few days later, an anonymous woman Marine exposed another myth underlying the idea that we must support the troops by supporting the war: the myth that all the troops support the war themselves. Here is a transcript of her email to a co-founder of Military Families Against the War. It was read at a peace rally in Boston on March 8, International Women's Day, and was recorded by Kezia Parsons of Free Speech Radio News. The email shows that this war is controversial even within the ranks of an all-volunteer military: "I do not believe in this war in Iraq. I have a little girl and a wonderful man I love very much. I have dedicated my life to serving others. I am a person and a citizen. I am not just an expendable pawn in Bush's chess game. I did not sign up to give my life for a personal grudge between two dictators. "We are very scared that this will be like Viet Nam all over again; that when we come home we will be called baby killers and warmongers. Please let people know that we did not ask for this job. We signed up to serve the United States and instead we serve the personal interests of Bush. Please let people know we are forced into this. If I was not in the military I would be chaining myself to the front gate of the White House protesting. "Unfortunately, being in the military, I would be court-martialed for it. I cannot sign any books, pledges or post my name because I am not allowed to disagree with my Commander-in-Chief. I did not realize when I joined the military that I gave up my basic right to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. So thank you for delivering our message for us." Signed, The Silenced Few, The Proud, The Marines. "We signed up to serve the United States and instead we serve the personal interests of Bush." That is as concise a definition of "empire" as one will find. In this war, American troops will indeed be baby killers, even if no soldier ever bayonets an infant. Depleted uranium will see to it that American troops become baby killers, of the Iraqis and of their own progeny, for generations to come. I support the troops by passing on that message from "The Silenced" brave soldiers who know the difference between fighting for one's country and fighting for the agenda of a few of its (unelected) rulers. Now we all have to up the ante: I hope U.S. reservists will follow the lead of those brave Israeli reservists who are refusing to commit genocide in Palestine. I urge U.S. protesters to carry signs demanding impeachment, whenever they demonstrate. And I urge U.K. protesters carry signs demanding new elections. Support the troops by telling Bush and Blair that they cannot squander the lives of our soldiers without it costing them their political careers. Copyright � 2003, K�llia Ramares. All Rights Reserved. May be reprinted, distributed or posted on an Internet web site for non- profit purposes only. K�llia Ramares is the host/producer of R.I.S.E.- Radio Internet Story Exchange, an Internet-based public affairs program. Her URL is http://www.rise4news.net. ***** Estrada opponents learn from Clarence Thomas debacle By Bruce S. Ticker Online Journal Contributing Editor March 13, 2003 - Democrats who are standing their ground against Miguel Estrada's confirmation to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit are wise to be politically incorrect this time. So far, they are not deterred by accusations of discriminating against a Hispanic nominee. Nor should they be. This was a major mistake of Democrats and moderate Republican senators when Clarence Thomas was nominated for the Supreme Court in 1991. If Democrats had judged Thomas strictly by merit back then, we may not be stuck with Estrada's nomination - or any other archconservatives. After all, Thomas cast one of five votes in December 2000 that decided the presidential election. When the late, great Thurgood Marshall announced his retirement as the first and - for all practical purposes, the only - African- American Supreme Court justice, a reporter asked in so many words if he expected the elder George Bush to nominate an Oreo cookie to replace him. Marshall replied that "snakes" come in different colors. Predictably, Bush nominated Thomas whom he obviously hoped would be confirmed because Democrats feared accusations of racism if they dared criticize a black man - even a black man who was a member in good standing of the Republican right wing. This meant that his attitudes did not reflect the concerns of the vast majority of African-Americans, many of whose lives are habitually undermined by institutional racism. White moderates and liberals in the Senate had no black senators to turn to who might take the lead, though black House members voiced opposition to Thomas. Then came Anita Hill's accusations of sexual harassment, and female members of the House insisted that the Senate Judiciary Committee hear her story. Ultimately, the more liberal white males on the committee had a chance to stand up like men - mature men, that is - and put Thomas in his place, in his role as a right-winger, not in terms of his race. When he got his turn to respond to Hill's testimony, Thomas dismissively said he never bothered to read it and declared that those proceedings amounted to a "high-tech lynching of an uppity black man." If he was an uppity black man, Bush would never have nominated him. As far as I can recall, none of the wimps on the committee responded to Thomas' arrogant rejoinder. Someone should have challenged him, and that would not have been so hard. It would have been great to hear words such as these: "Judge Thomas, you have leveled a serious accusation against this panel. I hope you are prepared to back up this allegation with facts. Please explain how this amounts to a 'high-tech lynching.' I would really like to know. In addition, you have also refused to answer questions put to you by Congress." What would Thomas have said? I'll bet he would have backed off the statement and tried to talk around it. Later, his friends in the administration would have told us what he really meant, that he didn't intend to be contemptuous of Congress. The fact is, Thomas would not have been able to stick to this remark. >From the start, Thomas and his handlers in the administration never expected the senators to have the guts to put him on the spot about it. Did the dissident senators need to hold back? Would Democrats really have lost the black vote? Did African-Americans deserve to have their intelligence insulted this way? Although none of these senators were black, some of them still represented substantial numbers of African-Americans, notably Senators. Joseph Biden of Delaware and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. Rather than standing up for his constituents, Specter is best remembered for playing the GOP's chief interrogator of Hill. Fortunately, Democrats are taking a different tack with Estrada. For them he is a judicial nominee who happens to be Hispanic. They are judging him on his merits, not how this guy plays in places populated by Hispanics such as Jersey City, North Philadelphia, El Paso, or Los Angeles. Contact Bruce S. Ticker at [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Konformist must make a request for donations via Paypal, at Paypal.com. If you can and desire, please feel free to send money to help The Konformist through the following email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you are interested in a free subscription to The Konformist Newswire, please visit: http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/konformist Or, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the subject: "I NEED 2 KONFORM!!!" (Okay, you can use something else, but it's a kool catch phrase.) Visit the Klub Konformist at Yahoo!: http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/klubkonformist Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
--- End Message ---
