RE: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil. Who 's ne
> Tyler Durden[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: > > > "In school yard politics this edge is normally a weapon > of some sort that can equalize the playing field (guns usually in the US, > try going to an inner city public school for 2 years). Saddam sees this > and > that is what let him to develop those WMD, to equalize against a superior > foe / bully" > > A good point from Mr Trei. I'd follow this up by saying that most kids, > when > getting that weapon, do not plan on using it, but hope that it's presence > alone will act as a deterrent..."You c-c-can't push me around anymore > 'cause > I got THIS..." > > At the very least, it changes the nature of the discussion at the > bargaining > table (this is precisely what Mao meant by "Diplomacy comes out of the > barrel of a gun". > > The problem with Saddam, however, is that he does have a track record of > actually using such weapons, most notably with the Kurds (where he gassed > a > few 10s of thousands). > > Not a great scenario, no matter how you look at it. > Just for the record, I did not write the quoted paragraph. That was "Thoenen, Peter Mr. EPS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Peter Trei
RE: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil. Who 's ne
> Israeli tanks aren't the ONLY things that kill someone's > kids. The whole > region has been at war for 100's of years. If Israel backed You do realize that the whole world has been at war for hundreds of years, do you ? Israel is now the bully in the region, and is conforted in keeping this role by the US support. This does not mean at all that this was always the case. Of course there were other bullies in the past, and possibly now too. This should not mean that this should excuse this particular bully. It is my opinion that, after the fall of the USSR, which I saw as a good thing, the US are now becoming much too dangerous and need to fall, too. Having two nuke crazed countries in the world was dangerous, but at least they were keeping tabs on each other. I am frankly scared of what the US are becoming today. Of their government's covert/overt manipulations, dishonesty, and violence. Of course, I do realize that they are not alone in this game, and that all others are doing the same kind of things. However, the US are now in a position to do this more easily, with more power, and still get away with it, which makes them so much more dangerous. They don't need actual weapons to maim any more. I just hope that Americans see this, and see that what they're going to get from this behavior isn't world domination, but either a genocide of half the planet, or a life in a bared wire world, with no freedom left, in a vain attempt to protect themselves against the rage they've patiently cultivated. -- Vincent Penquerc'h
RE: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil. Who 's ne
On Wed, 20 Nov 2002, Vincent Penquerc'h wrote: > I just hope that Americans see this, and see that what they're > going to get from this behavior isn't world domination, but either > a genocide of half the planet, or a life in a bared wire world, > with no freedom left, in a vain attempt to protect themselves > against the rage they've patiently cultivated. They don't see it at all. They won't have a clue what hits 'em when the "end comes" either. Hell, even their top spys didn't see the WTC plane attack. There's a book that was written in the 1980's (I think) called "The Peter Principle" - everyone rises to their level of incompetance. The US has now reached a level of incompetence unmatched by any but the Hapsburg's. The totally insane in charge of the robots. It sure don't look good from inside the barbed wire, that's a fact. Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
Re: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil. Who 's ne
"Well, they have enough non-central leadership to all be against Israel and the US. And to have been at war against the Israelies since Bible times..." OK, Mike, this is a good example of the kind of "facts" that lead to fairly easy (though erroneous) conclusions. Let's have some history here. The "Muslims" have not been at war against the "Israelites" since Biblical times. That is completely wrong. Hell, there haven't been any "Israelites" for nearly two millenia. This doesn't mean there haven't been plenty of Jewish people spread throughout the Middle East. These Jewish people, known as "Sephardic Jews", have lived and STILL live in places like Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Morroco, and throughout the Middle East. These people have lived in relative harmony for centuries (technically, according to the Koran, they are "people of the book" and are not to be bothered). And in most of these countries (eg, Iran) it is very hard to determine who is Jewish and who is not...the practices and so on are very similar in swome cases to the point of being indistinguishable in certain contexts (my recently immigrated Iranian Jewish friend once told me that one major difference between Jews and Muslims is that Jewish women are allowed to show their real hair until they are married, but do not do so in Iran in obedience to Muslim law.) What is not often appreciated here in the US is that the Ashkenazi, European-descent Jewish folks 1) Don't look semitic 2) Come from Europe 3) Come armed and money-ed by their friends the US, who by wild coincident need LOTS and LOTS of oil for their giant, gas-guzzling nation of suburbs and SUVs. The "war" between Muslims and Israel is perceived by them as a war against western imperialism, and by (what they believe to be) "fake" non-semitic Jews. (Let's not argue the veracity of these statements, but I would ask that you take me word that this is a common perception among educated people in the region, including some Jews!--read the Chomsky quote.) And again, let us remember that Muslims in China, or Indonesia (two of the biggest Muslim nations) consider the question of Israel a non-question. It's not something that really has anything to do with them. What we are seeing, then, is not a religious "war" or issue here. It's one of pure local politics, economics, and imperialism that our media (as well as some Muslim extremist groups I admit) have painted as a religious one. And why? Because our Media have allowed themselves to become merely another propaganda arm of our government and armed forces (which are practically the same thing in the US). Sorry Mike, I can't help bu think you swallowed some stuff hook, line, and sinker. _ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
Re: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil. Who 's ne
I'll take this under consideration and see if I can verify it independantly. What else can you ask of me? Some questions, though These people seem to be fighting over the same piece of land, where the jewish Temple once stood, and where a Muslim Mosque now stands. This land, of course bacame Holy during Bible times and presumably this is when the "issues" began? Christians are also "People of the Book." Yet these terrorists have no problem with attacking civilians of a (mostly, of course) Christian nation... Bit generalization here, I know. Many of the countries in the Middle East can trace their origins back to the house of Abraham, where there was quite a bit of conflict. Might this be an additional source of trouble? (My OT Bible knowledge is rather thin, btw.) You mention that Muslims in Indonesia don't have a problem with Israel, and by extension, the US. I have friends in Indonesia and was very concerned when some extreemist bombed that nightclub. They seem like they do, indeed, have problems with us. Any suggestions on how to get "around" the US propaganda engine. I think for myself, but I need facts. I didn't swallow nothing. On Tuesday 19 November 2002 02:33 pm, Tyler Durden wrote: > "Well, they have enough non-central leadership to all be against > Israel and the US. And to have been at war against the Israelies > since Bible times..." > > OK, Mike, this is a good example of the kind of "facts" that lead to > fairly easy (though erroneous) conclusions. > > Let's have some history here. The "Muslims" have not been at war > against the "Israelites" since Biblical times. That is completely > wrong. Hell, there haven't been any "Israelites" for nearly two > millenia. > > This doesn't mean there haven't been plenty of Jewish people spread > throughout the Middle East. These Jewish people, known as "Sephardic > Jews", have lived and STILL live in places like Iran, Iraq, Yemen, > Morroco, and throughout the Middle East. These people have lived in > relative harmony for centuries (technically, according to the Koran, > they are "people of the book" and are not to be bothered). And in most > of these countries (eg, Iran) it is very hard to determine who is > Jewish and who is not...the practices and so on are very similar in > swome cases to the point of being indistinguishable in certain > contexts (my recently immigrated Iranian Jewish friend once told me > that one major difference between Jews and Muslims is that Jewish > women are allowed to show their real hair until they are married, but > do not do so in Iran in obedience to Muslim law.) > > What is not often appreciated here in the US is that the Ashkenazi, > European-descent Jewish folks 1) Don't look semitic 2) Come from > Europe 3) Come armed and money-ed by their friends the US, who by wild > coincident need LOTS and LOTS of oil for their giant, gas-guzzling > nation of suburbs and SUVs. The "war" between Muslims and Israel is > perceived by them as a war against western imperialism, and by (what > they believe to be) "fake" non-semitic Jews. (Let's not argue the > veracity of these statements, but I would ask that you take me word > that this is a common perception among educated people in the region, > including some Jews!--read the Chomsky quote.) > > And again, let us remember that Muslims in China, or Indonesia (two of > the biggest Muslim nations) consider the question of Israel a > non-question. It's not something that really has anything to do with > them. > What we are seeing, then, is not a religious "war" or issue here. It's > one of pure local politics, economics, and imperialism that our media > (as well as some Muslim extremist groups I admit) have painted as a > religious one. And why? Because our Media have allowed themselves to > become merely another propaganda arm of our government and armed > forces (which are practically the same thing in the US). > > Sorry Mike, I can't help bu think you swallowed some stuff hook, line, > and sinker. > > > > > > > > > _ > Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail -- Mike Diehl PGP Encrypted E-mail preferred. Public Key via: http://dominion.dyndns.org/~mdiehl/mdiehl.asc
Re: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil. Who 's ne
On Tuesday 19 November 2002 03:06 pm, Trei, Peter wrote: > > Mike Diehl[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote > You don't deny either of my surmises about your experience or lack > thereof. I didn't find them relevent. My understanding of the facts doesn't matter. I was LOOKING for the facts. That is, after all, what this discussion is about, right? Though I don't count other people's perceptions as facts, so I don't much care what other people think about the US's actions. > While I certainly disagree with many of your positions, your lack of > knowledge > of ME history is the main problem. You don't seem able to visualize > how the US looks from the outside, and how people in other countries > feel compelled to react. History doesn't mean that much to the victims of 9/11. History didn't cause these people to do what they did. History didn't cause Sadam to start a Weopon of Mass Destruction program. These are all current events. Things I've lived to see. How we got to where we are isn't as important as how we get out. That was what this thread started out as. On one side, "go kill them!" On the other side, "It's our fault, so leave them alone." Well, we are on different sides of this fense. > Understanding your opponent is a powerful > tool; it can be used both to find their weak points, and also to find > peaceful, mutually agreeable solutions. This is the 'perspective' I > refered to. Well taken. > I've been trying to resist descending to a spelling flame, but its > part of the problem. Your failure to use correct spelling makes you > look uneducated, as does your ignorance of history. If that gets you > patronized, you should not be suprised. I've never claimed to be able to spell. But I add and subtract reel gud. Critical thinking is independant of spelling. It's good that you didn't criticize my spelling. Thanx. If being patronized is my reward for my poor spelling, what is your reward for doing the patronizing? > > Public Key via: http://dominion.dyndns.org/~mdiehl/mdiehl.asc > This is another little problem which makes you look foolish. Are you > aware that your entire website is password protected? No one can > get your PK, or see anything else you put on the site. It's kind of > useless as it stands. Doh! I meant to restrict ~USER/cgi-bin, not ~USER Recent configuration change gone wrong. Thanx for pointing this out. -- Mike Diehl PGP Encrypted E-mail preferred. Public Key via: http://dominion.dyndns.org/~mdiehl/mdiehl.asc
RE: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil. Who 's ne
"In school yard politics this edge is normally a weapon of some sort that can equalize the playing field (guns usually in the US, try going to an inner city public school for 2 years). Saddam sees this and that is what let him to develop those WMD, to equalize against a superior foe / bully" A good point from Mr Trei. I'd follow this up by saying that most kids, when getting that weapon, do not plan on using it, but hope that it's presence alone will act as a deterrent..."You c-c-can't push me around anymore 'cause I got THIS..." At the very least, it changes the nature of the discussion at the bargaining table (this is precisely what Mao meant by "Diplomacy comes out of the barrel of a gun". The problem with Saddam, however, is that he does have a track record of actually using such weapons, most notably with the Kurds (where he gassed a few 10s of thousands). Not a great scenario, no matter how you look at it. _ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil. Who 's ne
"I believe that it is generally accepted that until quite recently, in historical terms, the Jews fared much better under the Muslims than the Christians." Actually, there's no comparison. Although there have been exceptions, the Muslims' track record is MUCH better than the Christians. Take Moorish Spain if you want an example. Christians/Jews under Muslim rule had to pay an extra "tax". A decade or two later, Jews and Muslims under the inquisition had Satan tortured out of them... What we see in the Middle and Far east with Muslim extrmists is both an exception historically speaking, as well as an offshoot of the cultish "Wahabi" sect (started in the middle of the last century in Saudi). It could be argued that a people facing fast change (either due to technology or imperialism) tend to form Fundamentalist versions of their culture/religion, in order to hold onto their identity and morees. This, of course, does not absolve what is done in the name of that code, but it does make us realize that human nature in the Middle East is not significantly different from human nature in, say, the US. From: Mike Diehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Jim Dixon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,Tyler Durden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CC: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil. Who 's ne Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 15:37:38 -0700 On Tuesday 19 November 2002 03:30 pm, Jim Dixon wrote: > More to the point, there were no Muslims in Biblical times. The > Muslims appeared around 600 years after Christ, centuries after the > beginning of the Jewish diaspora. The Romans drove the Jews out of > Jerusalem and Judea after their rebellion (66-135 AD). The Christians > introduced anti-Jewish laws in roughly 300-600 AD, when Jerusalem was > under Byzantine rule. All true. And yes, I did know this. > I believe that it is generally accepted that until quite recently, in > historical terms, the Jews fared much better under the Muslims than > under the Christians. Agreed. -- Mike Diehl PGP Encrypted E-mail preferred. Public Key via: http://dominion.dyndns.org/~mdiehl/mdiehl.asc _ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
Re: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil. Who 's ne
On Tuesday 19 November 2002 03:30 pm, Jim Dixon wrote: > More to the point, there were no Muslims in Biblical times. The > Muslims appeared around 600 years after Christ, centuries after the > beginning of the Jewish diaspora. The Romans drove the Jews out of > Jerusalem and Judea after their rebellion (66-135 AD). The Christians > introduced anti-Jewish laws in roughly 300-600 AD, when Jerusalem was > under Byzantine rule. All true. And yes, I did know this. > I believe that it is generally accepted that until quite recently, in > historical terms, the Jews fared much better under the Muslims than > under the Christians. Agreed. -- Mike Diehl PGP Encrypted E-mail preferred. Public Key via: http://dominion.dyndns.org/~mdiehl/mdiehl.asc
Re: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil. Who 's ne
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Tyler Durden wrote: > Let's have some history here. The "Muslims" have not been at war against the > "Israelites" since Biblical times. That is completely wrong. Hell, there > haven't been any "Israelites" for nearly two millenia. More to the point, there were no Muslims in Biblical times. The Muslims appeared around 600 years after Christ, centuries after the beginning of the Jewish diaspora. The Romans drove the Jews out of Jerusalem and Judea after their rebellion (66-135 AD). The Christians introduced anti-Jewish laws in roughly 300-600 AD, when Jerusalem was under Byzantine rule. I believe that it is generally accepted that until quite recently, in historical terms, the Jews fared much better under the Muslims than under the Christians. -- Jim Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel +44 117 982 0786 mobile +44 797 373 7881 -- THAT'S A CHANGE OF ADDRESS: I'm no longer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil. Who 's ne
> Mike Diehl[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote > [Mike wrote: No, I think the Muslims need to back down, or be forced to. ] "[Muslims] Have been at war against the Israelies [sic] since Bible times"?? Mike, I hate to break it to you, but Muslims did not exist before 612 AD, when Mohammed received a vision of the Archangel Gabriel. The Jews largely abandoned Israel after the *Roman* supression of the revolt of 70 AD, over 500 years before the Muslims came along. The Koran (unlike the Bible) specifically instructs Muslims to respect other religions (though, like Christians, not all Muslims have lived up to their creed), and Diasporic Jews generally had an easier time in Muslim countries than in Christian ones. Only since the creation of the modern state of Israel in Palestine have Jews faced widespread oppression (much less war) in Muslim countries. > >Mike, don't take this personally, but I get the > >feeling that you're very young, or have very > >little exposure to life outside the US, or both. > >It's hard to think of other reasons for your > >lack of perspective - > > Why, because I've come to different conclusions than you? Has it ever > occured to you that maybe your opinions are colored by what you think of > our > government and that the may not be completely rational? I often find it > humorous that when people disagree with me, they many times resort to > name-calling, emotional appeals, or simply patronizing me, as you have. > You don't deny either of my surmises about your experience or lack thereof. While I certainly disagree with many of your positions, your lack of knowledge of ME history is the main problem. You don't seem able to visualize how the US looks from the outside, and how people in other countries feel compelled to react. Understanding your opponent is a powerful tool; it can be used both to find their weak points, and also to find peaceful, mutually agreeable solutions. This is the 'perspective' I refered to. I've been trying to resist descending to a spelling flame, but its part of the problem. Your failure to use correct spelling makes you look uneducated, as does your ignorance of history. If that gets you patronized, you should not be suprised. > Public Key via: http://dominion.dyndns.org/~mdiehl/mdiehl.asc > This is another little problem which makes you look foolish. Are you aware that your entire website is password protected? No one can get your PK, or see anything else you put on the site. It's kind of useless as it stands. Peter Trei
RE: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil. Who 's ne
-- On 19 Nov 2002 at 15:45, Tyler Durden wrote: > Mikey: I would suggest tangling with Chomsky for a bit. Start > with... > > http://zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=11&ItemID=2 > 312 Chomsky is a liar. His citations are mostly fraudulent, and he has at one time or another defended every bloodthirsty tyranny, every reign of terror, with the possible exception of North Korea. His words sound bombastic, yet they equivocate, pointing in two directions at once. This is the text equivalent of someone who talks loud and very fast while unable to meet your eye. I recommend you check out my Chomsky web page: "Chomsky lies" http://www.jim.com/Chomsdis.htm --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG 5U6Z7xMp4zTN7LYnZeRTOkIV+P8krIJAvwxGPmE3 4EkYXklGNdtijKPek7gdRsTyzwt1PLpWiSTSKliuv
RE: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil. Who 's ne
Mikey: I would suggest tangling with Chomsky for a bit. Start with... http://zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=11&ItemID=2312 And then go from there. I have to agree with Peter Trei that your arguments sound pretty pre-packaged and freeze-dried, very similar to the pablum the American public accepts as "facts". As for Trei's statement... If you think 'the Muslims' are your enemy, then you have a problem. 'The Muslims' are not a monolithic group, and have no central leadership. This is a bit like declaring that 'the Protestants' need to back down over Northern Ireland. Between India, China, Indonesia, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan we have a billion Muslims, and we still have not spoken about Arab Muslims. So it's apparent we're talking about a vast continuum of Languages, ethnicities, histories and so on, who have lived in relative peace if compared to the "Christian" World Wars (I would bet that all wars in all centuries in Muslim lands amount to a fraction that died in WW1 and WW2.) Do a little more HomeWork Mike M'boy... _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
RE: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil. Who 's ne
> Mike Diehl[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] writes [much snippage] > . No, I think the Muslims need to back down, or be forced to. [more snippage] If you think 'the Muslims' are your enemy, then you have a problem. 'The Muslims' are not a monolithic group, and have no central leadership. This is a bit like declaring that 'the Protestants' need to back down over Northern Ireland. Mike, don't take this personally, but I get the feeling that you're very young, or have very little exposure to life outside the US, or both. It's hard to think of other reasons for your lack of perspective - you seem to have no concept of how the US Government's actions look from the outside. [mind you, this status is all too common among Americans]. He who sows the wind Peter Trei
Re: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil. Who 's ne
On Tuesday 19 November 2002 01:18 pm, Trei, Peter wrote: > If you think 'the Muslims' are your enemy, > then you have a problem. I never said that they were MY enemy. > 'The Muslims' > are not a monolithic group, and have no > central leadership. This is a bit like > declaring that 'the Protestants' need to > back down over Northern Ireland. Well, they have enough non-central leadership to all be against Israel and the US. And to have been at war against the Israelies since Bible times Their non-central propaganda engine is training their young to go to war instead of trying to live peacefully. "The Muslims" was an overly broad term, though. > Mike, don't take this personally, but I get the > feeling that you're very young, or have very > little exposure to life outside the US, or both. > It's hard to think of other reasons for your > lack of perspective - Why, because I've come to different conclusions than you? Has it ever occured to you that maybe your opinions are colored by what you think of our government and that the may not be completely rational? I often find it humorous that when people disagree with me, they many times resort to name-calling, emotional appeals, or simply patronizing me, as you have. I don't believe everything I read in the papers. I assume that our government is lying to me; they have to. I understand our motivations in this war quite well. > you seem to have no > concept of how the US Government's > actions look from the outside. > [mind you, this status is all too common > among Americans]. ... And I don't care how they look. I don't see many alternatives to much of what we are doing. > He who sows the wind ...reaps the whirlwind. Perhapse the US is the whirlwind -- Mike Diehl PGP Encrypted E-mail preferred. Public Key via: http://dominion.dyndns.org/~mdiehl/mdiehl.asc
RE: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil. Who 's ne
> How can anyone claim that the U.S. or Israel or corporations or rich > Americans are morally worse than the likes of Hussein? ...I have to bow to the urge to answer Note that everything that was proposed is bombing. Killing innocents, in an attempt to make them revolt and overthrow their leaders so you don't have to do it. Nothing was attempted (or was said on this) for killing the only person. George W Bush is a criminal. He should be jailed. This doesn't mean I will bomb the hell out of the US until the Americans jail him. The US have a long history of killing other people (note, not just "bad/immoral/evil/whatever" people, just the ones that happen to stand between the current government of a country and a US client government (which is *not* a democratic government most of the time a you can see from history). Thus, why should I think the US is right attacking Iraq ? I see it as yet another shameless power grab accompanied by lots of PR to make it seem like the US are punishing the nasty villain. Somebody tell Dubya this ain't Hollowood. -- Vincent Penquerc'h
