RE: Re: RE: Evidence against bin Laden

2001-10-03 Thread Austin, Andrew
-Original Message- From: Jim Devine To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 10/2/2001 10:14 PM Subject: [PEN-L:17980] Re: RE: Evidence against bin Laden BTW, as far as I know, there are NO bin Laden supporters or sympathizers on pen-l. To whom are you referring? I was referring to the Taliban,

Re: RE: Re: RE: Evidence against bin Laden

2001-10-03 Thread Michael Perelman
Please Andrew, we have better ways of using our time. This seems to be the thread that you started on the Marxism list. I have never said anywhere that we should kill large numbers of innocent Afghans. Elsewhere I have said I am categorically opposed to the US going to war with

Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: Evidence against bin Laden

2001-10-03 Thread Doug Henwood
Michael Perelman wrote: Please Andrew, we have better ways of using our time. In other words, no political debate, please, we're economists? I don't get what your standards are, Michael. More transparency, please! Doug

Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: Evidence against bin Laden

2001-10-03 Thread Jim Devine
I agree with Doug. Michael, you seem to be rejecting any discussion that's unpleasant. At 10:10 AM 10/03/2001 -0400, you wrote: Michael Perelman wrote: Please Andrew, we have better ways of using our time. In other words, no political debate, please, we're economists? I don't get what your

Fwd: RE: Re: RE: Evidence against bin Laden

2001-10-03 Thread Jim Devine
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 08:04:08 -0700 To: Austin, Andrew [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [PEN-L:17980] Re: RE: Evidence against bin Laden At 07:47 AM 10/03/2001 -0500, you wrote: The Taliban is a brutal atavistic and patriarchal regime. so is the Saudi Arabian

Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: Evidence against bin Laden

2001-10-03 Thread Michael Perelman
Both Jim and Doug disapproved of my handling of Andrew's post. My response reflected the way I saw Andrew's thread evolve on the Marxism list. If you think that it can lead to a fruitful discussion, then go ahead. I remain skeptical -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State

Re: Re: Re: Evidence against bin Laden

2001-10-03 Thread Jim Devine
I wrote: US NPR said this morning that ObL _wants_ to be a martyr... What, did they talk to OBL on the phone? it's probably based on on dit evidence (i.e., rumor). But it sounds like a plausible possibility. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine

Re: Re: RE: Evidence against bin Laden

2001-10-02 Thread Michael Perelman
I concur with Jim. We have no need to discuss the bin Laden here, expecially when we know so little about him and his organization. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Re: Re: RE: Evidence against bin Laden

2001-10-02 Thread Stephen E Philion
I foresee at some point a man with a white piece of paper in his hand stating, I have here the names of dozens of known Bin Laden supporters in the White House. Steve On Tue, 2 Oct 2001, Michael Perelman wrote: I concur with Jim. We have no need to discuss the bin Laden here,

Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Evidence against bin Laden

2001-10-02 Thread Michael Perelman
I have already been hearing resports of intrusive FBI investigations of people who have had no possible connection with the bombing -- for instance, a SF branch of the peace group, Women in Black. On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 05:42:20PM -1000, Stephen E Philion wrote: I foresee at some point a man