Santosh Helekar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Aristo,
>I would like to congratulate you on this excellent analysis of the causes of war, conflict, terrorism and violence, in general. The contention that various autocratic, communistic, theistic, atheistic and materialistic ideologies might be responsible for them deserves serious thought. So does the idea that the intensity of commitment to such ideologies breeds violent fanaticism. Hi Santosh, Thank you very much for your kind words. Frankly, I was eager to hear your thoughts on this thread, and was pleased to hear so. Mario Goveia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Aristo, >Good stuff, man. After reading it I thought to myself, "So many to educate, so little time!" :-))..... There is nothing more ignorant than generalities. Aristo responds: O Mario, I humbly concede my "incredible ignorance" to your superior intelligence, pray tell me, o knowledgeable one, why did the terrorists attack the first class when they could have easily killed AT LEAST 4 times the number of people in the jam packed, overcrowded, bulging compartments of the second class, if the only concerns of the islamofascists were numbers and not specific profiles of victims? Mario writes: There are millions of unemployed and poor, even in Pakistan, who have no intentions of killing anyone, let alone themselves. > Aristo responds: Mario, please read my previous statement "Unemployment and poverty are certainly contributive factors if not the root cause." very carefully 10 times. If after that, you still don't get your answer, please consult someone who knows basic English. If you do understand it, and still disagree, do tell, but I will not clarify any further. Mario writes: With all due respect, it not only sounds chauvinistic it also sounds self-absorbed, self-serving and illustrative of extreme hubris.....Believe me, I have atheist friends who do not get in my face on a daily basis with how smart they are with their atheistic discoveries. They respect me and vice versa. > Aristo responds: No comments about my religious thoughts, I've said too much already. Mario, you have atheist friends?? Have you told them that Atheists are "infesting" Goanet lately and forming "cabals"? If not, please do tell them, and tell me if they still respect you after that. Mario writes: > The loss of life you speak of is hardly gross when compared with previous major conflicts and liberations by force. > Aristo responds: Fair enough. That is your opinion, and I have mine. You probably feel that India should respond with the same vengeance as Israel is doing in Lebanon today, and so are a slight majority of netizens, so I see from various polls. But I come from a school of thought that believes that violence breeds violence. I believe that India should be more proactive in its intelligence and security agenda and prevent such attacks from within, not in an offensive way, and use diplomatic means to resolve the long term issues. It is the praiseworthy intelligence and security measures taken by the US post 9/11, that has avoided attacks since then. However, I fully and whole heartedly support the Afghanistan war, despite the civilian casualties, which figured at a tolerable figure of 4,000 as compared to the Iraq's 42,000+. In Israel-Palestine's decades of conflict, the only real hopes for peace in the very recent past were when the otherwise belligerent Ariel Sharon, dropped his hardline stance and proposed talks with Palestinian leadership. It is sad that this initiative was not seen through. With what is going on today, I do not see an end to conflict in the near future. > Mario writes: > You are confusing domestic legal principles with international terrorism and geopolitics where different rules apply.... If Saddam was as innocent as you imply, he could have saved himself by disarming and disclosing what had happened to his WMDs. > Aristo responds: Nice try with trying to invalidate universal "PRINCIPLES" of law. But I agree that US went to war with their legal issues well thought out. I am well aware of the final 3 days US had given Saddam to allow UN inspectors to enter Iraq or face the consequences, which Bush took the gamble of knowing that stubborn Saddam would not concede, by which he then gave a legal excuse to the US to go to war. Mario, as usual, your indecent cheap shots of distorting ones views in order to win sympathy has not spared me also. I never implied Saddam was innocent, in fact, I specifically stated that I am no sympathiser of Saddam. I humbly request you to refrain from such cheap tactics, in which you lose respect and credibility, which is sad because you do have rational thoughts to offer at times. If you have the intellectual capacity of the magnitude you boast about, then argue respectably. Meanwhile, I will argue with you with as close as to your level as I feel is appropriate. Mario writes: Can you explain, if this is an "oil war", why the US left the middle-east and went home in 1991 after being in control of the bulk of middle-east oil? ...Can you explain, nay, do you even know, that it is Iraq that is the beneficiary of their own oil, and the US has no economic control over it, and is only providing security? > Aristo responds: Mario, surely you are not as naive as to think that the US Government would openly control Iraqi's oil? Its all about the Private enterprise in US getting the contracts, instead of the French "TotalFinaElf" and Russian "Lukoil" and "Tyumen Oil" that had contracts prior to the war. Once again, I'm saying that this is just a theory which is as equally possible as the reason for going to war as portrayed by American propaganda. Here are some links that give credibility to the oil war theory - one a BBC article (which I may say is far more impartial than your sycophantic CNN), and the other by partial conspiracy theorists (just so you know their side of the arguments): http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm http://www.thedebate.org/thedebate/iraq.asp What was the real reason? I do not know what was going on in the enigmatic mind of your cowboy idol. Mario writes: You keep saying that you are non-commital, then make the most incredibly biased comments as shown above. > Aristo clarifies: I'm not biased against the American propaganda of going to war, I am only questioning the justification of the cost of civilian lives of the war. Awaiting your last word on this thread. Cheers, Aristo. _______________________________________________ Goanet mailing list [email protected] http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org
