Re: [Biofuel] Bin Laden citing US polls about withdrawing from Iraq
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11742.htm William Blum, Rogue State An Interview With William Blum, Author Rogue State William Blum, Rogue State, on the author's 2000 book, which was recently cited by Osama bin Laden as one Americans should read. We are faced with the fact that any number of countries would be justified in issuing a list of Americans barred from entry because of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Such a list, of those still alive in 2005, might include: First broadcast - C-Span - 28/01/06 - 40 Minutes Click Play To View You may need to update / download Free Real Player to view this video. Click on this link to download. http://snipurl.com/a75b This is a chapter from the book Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower, by William Blum War Criminals: Theirs and Ours I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal. Fortunately, we were on the winning side. -- US General Curtis LeMay, commander oft he 1945 Tokyo fire bombing operation.[1] On December 3, 1996, the US Justice Department issued a list of 16 Japanese citizens who would be barred from entering the United States because of war crimes committed during the Second World War. Among those denied entry were some who were alleged to have been members of the infamous Unit 731, which, said the Justice Department, conducted inhumane and frequently lethal pseudo-medical experiments -- on thousands of ... prisoners and civilians, including mass dissections of living humans.[2] Oddly enough, after the war the man in charge of the Unit 731 program -- whose test subjects included captured American soldiers -- General Shiro Ishii, along with a number of his colleagues, had been granted immunity and freedom in exchange for providing the United States with details about their experiments, and were promised that their crimes would not be revealed to the world. The justification for this policy, advanced by American scientists and military officials, was, of course, the proverbial, ubiquitous national security.[3] Apart from the hypocrisy of the Justice Department including Unit 731 members on such a list while protecting its leaders, we are faced with the fact that any number of countries would be justified in issuing a list of Americans barred from entry because of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Such a list, of those still alive in 2005, might include: William Clinton, president, for his merciless bombing of the people of Yugoslavia for 78 days and nights in 1999, taking the lives of many hundreds of civilians, and producing one of the greatest ecological catastrophes in history; for his relentless continuation of the sanctions and rocket attacks upon the people of Iraq; and for his illegal and lethal bombings of Somalia, Bosnia, Sudan, and Afghanistan. General Wesley Clark, Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, for his direction of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia with an almost sadistic fanaticism ... He would rise out of his seat and slap the table. 'I've got to get the maximum violence out of this campaign -- now!'[4] George H. W. Bush, president, for the death of more than a million innocent Iraqi citizens, the result of his 40 days of bombing in 1991, the deliberate ruination of the public water supply, the widespread use of depleted uranium weapons which has brought continuing suffering to many thousands of American servicemen and to many more Iraqis, and for the institution of draconian sanctions against Iraq, which lasted 12 years. For his unconscionable bombing of Panama in 1989, producing widespread death, destruction and homelessness, for no discernible reason that would stand up in a court of law or a court of public opinion. General Colin Powell, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, for his prominent role in the attacks on Panama and Iraq, the latter including destruction of nuclear reactors as well as plants making biological and chemical agents. Hardly more than a month had passed since the United Nations, under whose mandate the United States was supposedly operating in Iraq, had passed a resolution reaffirming its prohibition of military attacks on nuclear facilities in the Middle East.[5] In the wake of the destruction, Powell gloated: The two operating reactors they had are both gone, they're down, they're finished.[6] He was just as cavalier about the lives of the people of Iraq. In response to a question concerning the number of Iraqis killed in the war, the good general replied: It's really not a number I'm terribly interested in.[7] For his part in the cover up of war crimes in Vietnam by troops of the same brigade that carried out the My Lai massacre.[8] General Norman Schwarzkopf, Commander in Chief, U.S. Central Command, for his military leadership of the Iraqi carnage in 1991; for continuing the carnage two days after the cease-fire; for continuing it against Iraqis
Re: [Biofuel] Bin Laden citing US polls about withdrawing from Iraq
Hello Mike, Robert and all My SECULAR government shouldn't force me to think or behave against my own conscience. Absolutely. I'm with you on that point. So am I. I have a problem with people who insist that we put the 10 commandments up in public buildings then refuse to live by them. I have a similar problem. It almost sounds the same, except for one word. I have a problem with people who insist that we put the 10 commandments up in public buildings. If they put flags up they might as well put up whatever. Morality is about right conduct, and I think we all have a basic understanding of what this means. The beginning of a slippery slope Er, yes. We need some definitions, IMHO, I'll make them up as I go along, LOL! Morals comes from mores, they're social rules, community relations stuff, part of the glue that holds societies together and helps prevent them from degenerating into just a group of individuals each out for himself at the others' expense. This is very ancient stuff, it goes all the way back. We never have been just groups of individuals, humans learnt as soon as they took to the plains that they had to live in communal groups to survive, if the group didn't survive neither did the individual. There's much more to it than just morals by now, or the sort of economic reasons Mike says he can't exclude. There always was much more to it. Survival was (and is) a cooperative venture - we used to live in terror of the dark and the terrifying big saber-toothed cats that preyed on us, we had to trust each other with our lives. But you don't develop bonds of life-or-death trust right just out of mere self-interest, as something you bargain with, it has to go deeper than that or it won't work, it'll break when you most need it. We conquered the big cats and the dark too when we tamed fire, also not the work of an individual out for himself; flints and stuff came later, if there were any, bows and sticks and so are high-tech, long in the development. And so on. Anyway not much has really changed except the scene: survival's still a cooperative venture and we still have to trust each other with our lives. From a previous message: It fits what you can see around you everywhere all the time, so obvious it's virtually invisible, like water to a fish. What people do more than anything else is cooperate with each other, they almost instinctively yield, adapt, fit in, give and take, in myriad small ways that they hardly even notice they're doing, so that we can all get along with each other and go about our daily business with maximum efficiency and minimum waste of time, energy and resources. All societies and communities have learnt how to do this eons since in very sophisticated ways. Those that didn't learn didn't last very long. If you like, morals are a part of the contract between the individual and the society he lives in, a list of rules for members. The context is cooperative, but it goes much deeper than that, deeper than most people's awareness goes. In the same way a contract with an employer also isn't the only thing that determines how we behave at work. We don't really know why we behave the way we do. At the roots of it is what the religions are supposed to be about. So in a way morals or moral rules are superficial and simplistic, not always an unerring guide to doing the right thing, but it works most of the time for most people in most situations, and other sorts of influences do the rest of the job. Except with the sociopaths, and in dysfunctional, broken communities. When morals aren't the right tool for the job and you get the wrong result, you at least get to say, Hey, it's not my fault, I did the right thing, and so you can avoid the blame. Beyond morals you get stuff like ethics and principles, which are not clear and unbending rules, you have to apply them and adapt them, and it's hard because each situation is different and you can never be sure what the outcome will be. There's no certainty. Maybe last time it worked and you got it right but that doesn't mean you'll get it right this time. You have to accept the uncertainties, judge the situation for yourself, try to do your best, and take the consequences if you screw up, it's your responsibility. This isn't a very popular course of action, LOL! Most people go for blame avoidance. But you could also say that most people are moral, and also that they're usually good rules, despite the fact that folks like Pat Robertson and so many other kinds of cynical twisters can distort them at will. Do as you would be done by, eg, it's hard to find any holes in that. Don't hurt people. Don't get caught, LOL! The difference between a moral man and a man of honor is that the latter regrets a discreditable act, even when it has worked and he has not been caught. - H. L. Mencken The measure of a person's real character is what they would do if they knew they would
Re: [Biofuel] Bin Laden citing US polls about withdrawing from Iraq
You did a wonderful job Keith. Your reply is the kind that I really enjoy evenwhen I don't agree with everything - appropriately siting references with your analysis and keeping in mind the bigger picture. You mentioned duality (i.e. duality of man) and makes me wonder ifJung was an influence in your life.It is a struggle for many people living in the US to accept any reference to religion in government while fascism, racism and xenophobiahas found it's way into organizations within the so called Christian right. Some of the same people who see the threat, are alsoactive members in their church, making it especially difficult to separate the Christians from the Christians.Although baptized and confirmed in a Methodist (I usually say Protestant) church, I've been an agnostic for most of my life and occasionally find it in my conscience to have a little faith. Most of what pushes me away from the church is dogma and I am passionate about it's resistance. Blind faith hurts with blind resolve.You are certainly a voice of reason in this forum and I'm sure that your experiences (and commitment) as a journalist has something to do with that.MikeKeith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello Mike, Robert and all"My SECULAR government shouldn't force me to think or behave against my own conscience."Absolutely. I'm with you on that point.So am I."I have a problem with people who insist that we put the 10 commandments up in public buildings then refuse to live by them."I have a similar problem. It almost sounds the same, except for one word. I have a problem with people who insist that we put the 10 commandments up in public buildings.If they put flags up they might as well put up whatever."Morality is about "right conduct", and I think we all have a basic understanding of what this means."The beginning of a slippery slopeEr, yes. We need some definitions, IMHO, I'll make them up as I go along, LOL!Morals comes from mores, they're social rules, community relations stuff, part of the glue that holds societies together and helps prevent them from degenerating into just a group of individuals each out for himself at the others' expense. This is very ancient stuff, it goes all the way back. We never have been just groups of individuals, humans learnt as soon as they took to the plains that they had to live in communal groups to survive, if the group didn't survive neither did the individual.There's much more to it than just morals by now, or the sort of economic reasons Mike says he can't exclude. There always was much more to it. Survival was (and is) a cooperative venture - we used to live in terror of the dark and the terrifying big saber-toothed cats that preyed on us, we had to trust each other with our lives. But you don't develop bonds of life-or-death trust right just out of mere self-interest, as something you bargain with, it has to go deeper than that or it won't work, it'll break when you most need it. We conquered the big cats and the dark too when we tamed fire, also not the work of an individual out for himself; flints and stuff came later, if there were any, bows and sticks and so are high-tech, long in the development. And so on. Anyway not much has really changed except the scene: survival's still a cooperative venture and we still have to trust each other with our lives.From a previous message: "It fits what you can see around you everywhere all the time, so obvious it's virtually invisible, like water to a fish. What people do more than anything else is cooperate with each other, they almost instinctively yield, adapt, fit in, give and take, in myriad small ways that they hardly even notice they're doing, so that we can all get along with each other and go about our daily business with maximum efficiency and minimum waste of time, energy and resources. All societies and communities have learnt how to do this eons since in very sophisticated ways. Those that didn't learn didn't last very long."If you like, morals are a part of the contract between the individual and the society he lives in, a list of rules for members. The context is cooperative, but it goes much deeper than that, deeper than most people's awareness goes. In the same way a contract with an employer also isn't the only thing that determines how we behave at work. We don't really know why we behave the way we do. At the roots of it is what the religions are supposed to be about.So in a way morals or moral rules are superficial and simplistic, not always an unerring guide to doing the right thing, but it works most of the time for most people in most situations, and other sorts of influences do the rest of the job. Except with the sociopaths, and in dysfunctional, broken communities.When morals aren't the right tool for the job and you get the wrong result, you at least get to say, "Hey, it's not my fault, I did the right thing", and so you can avoid the blame.Beyond morals you get stuff like ethics and principles,
Re: [Biofuel] Bin Laden citing US polls about withdrawing from Iraq
Hear! Hear! Well I had to take exception to what was written about most Canadians being unconcerned about the division (or lack of) church and state. While I cannot speak for all Canadians I can certainly say I've heard many negative comments every time the subject comes up and the discussion is about statements made by US politicians making statements of religious nature. Most people I know would be appalled to hear our prime minister invoking the blessings of god and I'm sure the newspapers would be full of it and asking which of our multicultural, multi denominational groups' god he was imploring to bless the nation. ROFLMAO I think sometimes people read Canadians wrong because we tend to be a pretty laid back bunch. I'm with you on that one Mike, nothing worse could happen than letting a bunch of religious zealots who feel they hold the moral high ground decide what's 'best' for us. Shudder. Well it looks like the republicans (northern branch -PC party that is) are hoping for a landslide victory tonight. Shudder (again) almost as bad... Joe Michael Redler wrote: The Catholic church is one of the least tolerant of organized religions. I should know. While planning my wedding, my fiance's priest told me that I (having been baptized and confirmed in a protestant church) have to go through a nine month process with a tribunal where I'm required to undergo a psychological evaluation because I'm divorced (and not Catholic). The tribunal is composed mainly of priests - priests who feel they are an authority on morality, marriage, where and when to have sexual relations, whether or not you are competent to have a family and the status of one's mental health. How can I be more explicit except to say, who the f**k are they to guide me, my family or my children through a life filled with their rules. It's too bad that the leaders of the churches I visited are often not a reflection of their more benevolent parishes. So, excuse me if I strongly appose any opinion which is apologetic toward incorporating church and State. I'm having NONE of it! Mike ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Bin Laden citing US polls about withdrawing from Iraq
robert luis rabello wrote: Michael Redler wrote: [snip] Yet the religious principle of do no harm to your neighbor and do not harm a child come directly from a tradition far older than psychology and the field of child development. (I can give you book, chapter and verse in the New Testament, if you require them, but I think you know exactly the places to which I'd refer.) Can you See, here's the crux of the problem. Here is what you're missing. Whose religious principle of do no harn to your neighbor and do not harm a child do you hold? Yes, I see that you can quote chapter and verse from the new testament. I, on the other hand, can quote from the old testament, and from the koran, that neighbors and children are required to be harmed under certain circumstances. Most of these calls-to-harm are based on the neighbors/children doing something repugnant to your religion. For example, according to the old testament, one is to stone or kill members of ones own family who try to lead you from the true path of worshipping the One True God. Muslims, of course, have no problem killing infidels.. The problem with quoting religious sources is that one can justify anything at all. Aldulterers, which conveniently could only be women at the time, were to be stoned in the public square. successfully deny that these principles, upon which our statutes are based, have no root in religion? Were statutes that protect children from such predators enacted only AFTER developmental psychologists discovered that children have a fundamental lack of ability to consent? Der Schutz des Kindes im Recht des frühen Mittelalters : eine Untersuchung über Tötung, Missbrauch, Körperverletzung, Freiheitsbeeinträchtigung, Gefährdung und Eigentumsverletzung anhand von Rechtsquellen des 5. bis 9. Jahrhunderts. By Heinz Wilhelm Schwarz. Siegburg : F. Schmitt, 1993. Bonner historische Forschungen ; Bd. 56 [Robarts - KJC 1018 .S38 1993X] The above citation, though in German, gives an overview of the body of law concerning child abuse during the Middle Ages. Hmm, and this was the time of the crusades, was it not? So there were laws concerning abuse of children but it was fine to fight a war against Muslims for the sin of occupying Jerusalem? Sorry, but I think we need to get past the idea of morals being something taught by religions. There IS a largely objective way to view them outside a religious context: look at the philosophy of objectivism. Intellectually consistent, but I'm sure you'll not be happy with them because they don't consider immoral things which you've probably been taught are immoral. --- David ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Bin Laden citing US polls about withdrawing from Iraq
David Miller wrote: See, here's the crux of the problem. Here is what you're missing. Whose religious principle of do no harn to your neighbor and do not harm a child do you hold? I began my contribution to this thread by simply stating that in many free countries, people tolerate much more religious influence in their government than is true for Americans, and I used the example of schools in certain Canadian provinces to illustrate my point. From there, this thread has denigrated considerably, and I've found myself being lumped into the same category with Pat Robertson! Grief, people! I've been around in this forum for a LONG time, and most of you ought to know better than that! To be completely clear, before I abandon this thread entirely: 1. Many people who live in secular, democratic societies accept / tolerate a degree of religious influence in their statutes. I happen to live in a place that prohibits making noise on Sunday. Why Sunday? Why not Thursday? The ONLY reason for this is a religious one, and though I don't ascribe to honoring Sunday as a holy day, I live in this community without raising the ire of my neighbors or incurring the wrath of the authorities. I'm confident that the atheists and pagan who live in my neighborhood deal with this issue in a similar manner. Despite the oppression of a law that restricts my freedom on the basis of a religious point of view, the rain still fell this morning and my heart is still beating. My wife grew up in British Columbia and attended public school during the 1960s. As a child, her class recited the Lord's Prayer and sang God Save the Queen. This kind of thing was not tolerated in the public schools of my childhood, but then, I grew up in the United States, where there is far greater concern about separation of church and state than apparently was the case in Canada back then. So, deny all you want, I have plenty of evidence to support my contention that people in other countries tolerate MORE religious influence in their governments than makes me comfortable as an American. 2. Keith rightly points out that socialization is a very old construct in human society. I would add to this that religious thought is also a very old construct, and which came first cannot be objectively determined. (Our current religions are only several thousand years old, at best, but we don't have a lot of evidence concerning the belief systems that predated these and can only speculate on the basis of modern hunter / gatherer societies and the art / relics and burial rituals of ancient peoples.) He is also right in pointing out that there IS a consensus among people concerning what is right behavior, otherwise human behavior is driven by individualism. We cannot cooperate with one another unless we accept certain limitations to our behavior. 3. I am NOT advocating, nor have I EVER advocated, the position that secular governments should ascribe to a particular religious sect. I am far more comfortable with religion in the role of the voice of conscience in opposition than in power. I do believe, however, that religious and philosophical thought informs the conduct of our governments in the west. 4. We all seem to agree that heinous abuses have occurred in the past under the cloak of religion, under the guise of doing God's will. Using this as an all-encompassing blanket to dismiss ANY discussion on how law is INFORMED (perhaps consulted would be a better word?) by religious / philosophical thought is tantamount to discarding the laundry with the wash water. robert luis rabello The Edge of Justice Adventure for Your Mind http://www.newadventure.ca Ranger Supercharger Project Page http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Bin Laden citing US polls about withdrawing from Iraq
I've got to agree with Joe. Many, but not all, of the Canadians I know strongly support the separation of church and state. We are often not vocal about it because the issue seldom comes up. With respect to religious schools, our country was predicated on equality of French and English, Catholic and Protestant. Many people I know do not have an issue with government funded Catholic and Public/Protestant schools, it is just the way it has always been. There are a number of educators who feel that the elimination of separate Catholic schools would provide some cost savings. Not through the non-education of Catholic children but through the elimination of redundant organizational functions such as transportation, human resources, and other administrative duplication. Doug Turner, Yes, I voted today. Hamilton, Ontario, Canada - Original Message - From: Joe Street [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 8:54 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Bin Laden citing US polls about withdrawing from Iraq Hear! Hear! Well I had to take exception to what was written about most Canadians being unconcerned about the division (or lack of) church and state. While I cannot speak for all Canadians I can certainly say I've heard many negative comments every time the subject comes up and the discussion is about statements made by US politicians making statements of religious nature. Most people I know would be appalled to hear our prime minister invoking the blessings of god and I'm sure the newspapers would be full of it and asking which of our multicultural, multi denominational groups' god he was imploring to bless the nation. ROFLMAO I think sometimes people read Canadians wrong because we tend to be a pretty laid back bunch. I'm with you on that one Mike, nothing worse could happen than letting a bunch of religious zealots who feel they hold the moral high ground decide what's 'best' for us. Shudder. Well it looks like the republicans (northern branch -PC party that is) are hoping for a landslide victory tonight. Shudder (again) almost as bad... Joe ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Bin Laden citing US polls about withdrawing from Iraq
Doug don't forget we have the ability to direct where the education portion of our municipal taxes goes, ie. which school board it goes to. I wish that it was possible to do more directing of where my tax dollars go. Maybe one day. Joe Doug Turner wrote: I've got to agree with Joe. Many, but not all, of the Canadians I know strongly support the separation of church and state. We are often not vocal about it because the issue seldom comes up. With respect to religious schools, our country was predicated on equality of French and English, Catholic and Protestant. Many people I know do not have an issue with government funded Catholic and Public/Protestant schools, it is just the way it has always been. There are a number of educators who feel that the elimination of separate Catholic schools would provide some cost savings. Not through the non-education of Catholic children but through the elimination of redundant organizational functions such as transportation, human resources, and other administrative duplication. Doug Turner, Yes, I voted today. Hamilton, Ontario, Canada - Original Message - From: "Joe Street" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 8:54 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Bin Laden citing US polls about withdrawing from Iraq Hear! Hear! Well I had to take exception to what was written about most Canadians being unconcerned about the division (or lack of) church and state. While I cannot speak for all Canadians I can certainly say I've heard many negative comments every time the subject comes up and the discussion is about statements made by US politicians making statements of religious nature. Most people I know would be appalled to hear our prime minister invoking the blessings of god and I'm sure the newspapers would be full of it and asking which of our multicultural, multi denominational groups' god he was imploring to bless the nation. ROFLMAO I think sometimes people read Canadians wrong because we tend to be a pretty laid back bunch. I'm with you on that one Mike, nothing worse could happen than letting a bunch of religious zealots who feel they hold the moral high ground decide what's 'best' for us. Shudder. Well it looks like the republicans (northern branch -PC party that is) are hoping for a landslide victory tonight. Shudder (again) almost as bad... Joe ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Bin Laden citing US polls about withdrawing from Iraq
You did a wonderful job Keith. Why thankyou Mike. :-) Your reply is the kind that I really enjoy even when I don't agree with everything - appropriately siting references with your analysis and keeping in mind the bigger picture. You mentioned duality (i.e. duality of man) Duality of mind. and makes me wonder if Jung was an influence in your life. Yes, among many others. Jung is very useful. But I think what I said about duality is pretty much universal. Or perennial maybe. Part of what I said about it is Buddhist in origin, but it's not unique to Buddhism, I could have found it elsewhere. It is a struggle for many people living in the US to accept any reference to religion in government while fascism, racism and xenophobia has found it's way into organizations within the so called Christian right. Some of the same people who see the threat, are also active members in their church, making it especially difficult to separate the Christians from the Christians. Although baptized and confirmed in a Methodist (I usually say Protestant) church, Protestant, me too, but I dumped it when I was a teenager. I'm not a Christian, but I'm not an agnostic either. I don't belong to any creed or religion, and I'm very picky about what I have faith in. Iffy stuff, faith, use very sparingly, apply with a pinch of salt, wear proper protective gloves, apron, and eye protection and do not inhale any vapours, LOL! I've been an agnostic for most of my life and occasionally find it in my conscience to have a little faith. Most of what pushes me away from the church is dogma and I am passionate about it's resistance. Blind faith hurts with blind resolve. Doesn't it just. Why is it do you think that Justice, the lady holding the scales, is always blindfold? It's supposed to signify impartiality, but you need both eyes wide open to be impartial. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation (under God), indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Hm. For some maybe. For the rest I think she hurts with blind resolve on the one hand and gives out far too many free passes on the other. You are certainly a voice of reason in this forum and I'm sure that your experiences (and commitment) as a journalist has something to do with that. Why thankyou again! You just undid something for me. Some very idealistic young friends of mine were arguing with me once. They wanted a commitment from me, they wanted to stick some kind of label on my forehead. Finally one of them said, almost as a challenge: I'm a Marxist. I replied: I'm a journalist, and they got really angry with me, they told me I'm a cynic. LOL! Best Keith Mike Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello Mike, Robert and all My SECULAR government shouldn't force me to think or behave against my own conscience. Absolutely. I'm with you on that point. So am I. I have a problem with people who insist that we put the 10 commandments up in public buildings then refuse to live by them. I have a similar problem. It almost sounds the same, except for one word. I have a problem with people who insist that we put the 10 commandments up in public buildings. If they put flags up they might as well put up whatever. Morality is about right conduct, and I think we all have a basic understanding of what this means. The beginning of a slippery slope Er, yes. We need some definitions, IMHO, I'll make them up as I go along, LOL! Morals comes from mores, they're social rules, community relations stuff, part of the glue that holds societies together and helps prevent them from degenerating into just a group of individuals each out for himself at the others' expense. This is very ancient stuff, it goes all the way back. We never have been just groups of individuals, humans learnt as soon as they took to the plains that they had to live in communal groups to survive, if the group didn't survive neither did the individual. There's much more to it than just morals by now, or the sort of economic reasons Mike says he can't exclude. There always was much more to it. Survival was (and is) a cooperative venture - we used to live in terror of the dark and the terrifying big saber-toothed cats that preyed on us, we had to trust each other with our lives. But you don't develop bonds of life-or-death trust right just out of mere self-interest, as something you bargain with, it has to go deeper than that or it won't work, it'll break when you most need it. We conquered the big cats and the dark too when we tamed fire, also not the work of an individual out for himself; flints and stuff came later, if there were any, bows and sticks and so are high-tech, long in the development. And so on. Anyway not much has really changed except the scene: survival's still a cooperative venture and we still have to trust each other with our lives. From a previous message: It
Re: [Biofuel] Bin Laden citing US polls about withdrawing from Iraq
Hello David I could perhaps agree with the point you're making, but I think you stretch it so far it breaks. robert luis rabello wrote: Michael Redler wrote: [snip] Yet the religious principle of do no harm to your neighbor and do not harm a child come directly from a tradition far older than psychology and the field of child development. (I can give you book, chapter and verse in the New Testament, if you require them, but I think you know exactly the places to which I'd refer.) Can you See, here's the crux of the problem. Here is what you're missing. Whose religious principle of do no harn to your neighbor and do not harm a child do you hold? Yes, I see that you can quote chapter and verse from the new testament. I, on the other hand, can quote from the old testament, and from the koran, that neighbors and children are required to be harmed under certain circumstances. Most of these calls-to-harm are based on the neighbors/children doing something repugnant to your religion. For example, according to the old testament, one is to stone or kill members of ones own family who try to lead you from the true path of worshipping the One True God. Muslims, of course, have no problem killing infidels.. Well actually, infidels have been killing a great many more Muslims than Muslims have been killing infidels these days, and not only these days. You think witch-hunts are out of fashion in the West? I don't think they're out of fashion. And lynchings are very recent history, it's too soon to say they're a thing of the past. I could go on and on. If you want to make that point you shouldn't be so one-sided, it goes both ways. The problem with quoting religious sources is that one can justify anything at all. That's right, and it seems to me that's just what you're doing. Aldulterers, which conveniently could only be women at the time, were to be stoned in the public square. Are you talking of the Old Testament or the Koran? successfully deny that these principles, upon which our statutes are based, have no root in religion? Were statutes that protect children from such predators enacted only AFTER developmental psychologists discovered that children have a fundamental lack of ability to consent? Der Schutz des Kindes im Recht des frühen Mittelalters : eine Untersuchung über Tötung, Missbrauch, Körperverletzung, Freiheitsbeeinträchtigung, Gefährdung und Eigentumsverletzung anhand von Rechtsquellen des 5. bis 9. Jahrhunderts. By Heinz Wilhelm Schwarz. Siegburg : F. Schmitt, 1993. Bonner historische Forschungen ; Bd. 56 [Robarts - KJC 1018 .S38 1993X] The above citation, though in German, gives an overview of the body of law concerning child abuse during the Middle Ages. Hmm, and this was the time of the crusades, was it not? So there were laws concerning abuse of children but it was fine to fight a war against Muslims for the sin of occupying Jerusalem? Some people say it's just fine to fight such a war right now, and indeed such wars are being fought right now. Does that mean everything else about our era is therefore morally bankrupt? Don't paint things with so broad a brush, human affairs are much richer than that. Sorry, but I think we need to get past the idea of morals being something taught by religions. The idea that religion and philosophy have not contributed to society's moral codes and to much more besides is just silly, of course they have. There IS a largely objective way to view them outside a religious context: If you exclude the religious context you won't understand them any better than if you exclude everything else but the religious context, either way will give you a warped view. look at the philosophy of objectivism. Intellectually consistent, but I'm sure you'll not be happy with them because they don't consider immoral things which you've probably been taught are immoral. You do Robert an injustice. It also seems to me that your only criticisms of the Western cultures are historic, but of other cultures it's contemporary. I don't think you're being very even-handed, nor even accurate. Best wishes Keith --- David ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Bin Laden citing US polls about withdrawing from Iraq
Too bad nobody can quote from texts older than thesebecause they didn't exist. So does that automatically mean that the ideas written in these ancient documents must necessarily be soley attributed to them? Isn't it reasonable to assume that decent people existed who had decent values (like doing no harm to your fellow man) before any of these ideas were written down or the technology of language was even invented? Get real man. Sure someone decided to form an advocacy group for being good and spreading the idea, call him prophet whateva. And now people have lost sight of the truth to which his words were only a pointer. The words have been held up as false idols. They are empty husks. The real truth was the ideas inside those words, which are timeless and belong to no-one, no group, organization religious, political or otherwise. Keith said every kid knows right from wrong. Well maybe. So isn't the job of instilling values, the job of parents? And Isn't the job of the state, to preserve an environment where people do not have to live in fear of those who have not taken that job seriously or have not learned it? Keith I liked your post and often give thought to the process of how we came along as a species rather than just treating it as though we jumped from A to Z ( and that's pronounced 'zed') but as long as we are quoting the Tao Teh Ching, here is another one which fits this thread perfectly and also speaks to your comments about the seemingly all pervasive sociopathic behaviour in the world today. Chapter 38 One of integral virtue is not conscious of being virtuous therefore he is truly virtuous. One of partial virtue tries to live up to an external standard of virtue, therefore he is not truly virtuous. One of whole virtue does not need to do anything in order to be virtuous, because virtue is the very essence of one's true nature. But one of partial virtue believes that something must be done in order to prove that he is virtuous. Thus, partial virtue becomes prevalent when people fail to follow their own true nature. Benevolence becomes prevalent when people fail to be naturally kind. Etiquette becomes prevalent when people fail to be rigthteous and considerate. When people find no response with etiquette, they roll up their sleeves and force others to respond to them. When people stray from the Tao they can no longer perceive their own true nature. Thus they emphasize relative virtue. When natural virtue is lost society depends on the doctrines of humanism. When humanity becomes corrupted, social and religious teachings appear and become powerful forces. When social and religious teachings become corrupted, what is left behind is the empty shell of superficial ceremonies and artificial etiquette. When etiquette is emphasized it is because people lack the simple qualities of fairness and kindness. This is the starting point of people of confusion. All of these man made partial virtues are merely superficial flowers, a false nature. When people begin to move away from their own true nature, it is the beginning of folly. -Lao Tzu from a translation by Ni Joe David Miller wrote: robert luis rabello wrote: Michael Redler wrote: [snip] Yet the religious principle of "do no harm to your neighbor" and "do not harm a child" come directly from a tradition far older than psychology and the field of child development. (I can give you book, chapter and verse in the New Testament, if you require them, but I think you know exactly the places to which I'd refer.) Can you See, here's the crux of the problem. Here is what you're missing. Whose religious principle of "do no harn to your neighbor" and "do not harm a child" do you hold? Yes, I see that you can quote chapter and verse from the new testament. I, on the other hand, can quote from the old testament, and from the koran, that neighbors and children are required to be harmed under certain circumstances. Most of these calls-to-harm are based on the neighbors/children doing something repugnant to your religion. For example, according to the old testament, one is to stone or kill members of ones own family who try to lead you from the true path of worshipping the One True God. Muslims, of course, have no problem killing infidels.. The problem with quoting religious sources is that one can justify anything at all. Aldulterers, which conveniently could only be women at the time, were to be stoned in the public square. successfully deny that these principles, upon which our statutes are based, have no root in religion? Were statutes that protect children from such predators enacted only AFTER developmental psychologists discovered that children have a fundamental lack of ability to consent? "Der Schutz des Kindes im Recht des frhen Mittelalters : eine Untersuchung ber Ttung, Missbrauch, Krperverletzung,
Re: [Biofuel] Bin Laden citing US polls about withdrawing from Iraq
Hello again David Keith Addison wrote: Hello David I could perhaps agree with the point you're making, but I think you stretch it so far it breaks. robert luis rabello wrote: Michael Redler wrote: [snip] Yet the religious principle of do no harm to your neighbor and do not harm a child come directly from a tradition far older than psychology and the field of child development. (I can give you book, chapter and verse in the New Testament, if you require them, but I think you know exactly the places to which I'd refer.) Can you See, here's the crux of the problem. Here is what you're missing. Whose religious principle of do no harn to your neighbor and do not harm a child do you hold? Yes, I see that you can quote chapter and verse from the new testament. I, on the other hand, can quote from the old testament, and from the koran, that neighbors and children are required to be harmed under certain circumstances. Most of these calls-to-harm are based on the neighbors/children doing something repugnant to your religion. For example, according to the old testament, one is to stone or kill members of ones own family who try to lead you from the true path of worshipping the One True God. Muslims, of course, have no problem killing infidels.. Well actually, infidels have been killing a great many more Muslims than Muslims have been killing infidels these days, and not only these days. You think witch-hunts are out of fashion in the West? I don't think they're out of fashion. And lynchings are very recent history, it's too soon to say they're a thing of the past. I could go on and on. If you want to make that point you shouldn't be so one-sided, it goes both ways. Maybe I'm just being slow here, but I fail to see your point. I said nothing about witch hunts or lynchings, let alone whether I think they're still going on or not. If you can't see what ancient stonings might have in common with modern lynchings and witch-hunts and why it's relevant then I'd agree you're being a bit slow. My point was that Robert wanted to take religious principles and incorporate them into moral law. I don't think that's what Robert proposed at all. Or at least recognize that moral law has it's origins in religious principles. Partly. Now you have me defending Robert, which I'm not after doing, but you keep veering off the road. My inquiry was simply whose religious principles, pointing out that there are religious principles from both Christianity and Islam that few on this list would consider moral. I think we all know that. That leaves us in the (to me) uncomfortable position of picking and choosing what we like from the religious texts of our choice. You'd be uncomfortable with that if you see religion as a set of rules. he problem with quoting religious sources is that one can justify anything at all. That's right, and it seems to me that's just what you're doing. Excuse me? I'm not advocating religious principles as a basis for moral law for precisely these reasons. No, but you did quote religious sources to justify your point, only you didn't do it very well. Aldulterers, which conveniently could only be women at the time, were to be stoned in the public square. Are you talking of the Old Testament or the Koran? The Old Testament. Thankyou. successfully deny that these principles, upon which our statutes are based, have no root in religion? Were statutes that protect children from such predators enacted only AFTER developmental psychologists discovered that children have a fundamental lack of ability to consent? Der Schutz des Kindes im Recht des frühen Mittelalters : eine Untersuchung über Tötung, Missbrauch, Körperverletzung, Freiheitsbeeinträchtigung, Gefährdung und Eigentumsverletzung anhand von Rechtsquellen des 5. bis 9. Jahrhunderts. By Heinz Wilhelm Schwarz. Siegburg : F. Schmitt, 1993. Bonner historische Forschungen ; Bd. 56 [Robarts - KJC 1018 .S38 1993X] The above citation, though in German, gives an overview of the body of law concerning child abuse during the Middle Ages. Hmm, and this was the time of the crusades, was it not? So there were laws concerning abuse of children but it was fine to fight a war against Muslims for the sin of occupying Jerusalem? Some people say it's just fine to fight such a war right now, and indeed such wars are being fought right now. Does that mean everything else about our era is therefore morally bankrupt? Don't paint things with so broad a brush, human affairs are much richer than that. We're not communicating again. You're not. I point out that what most of us would consider a great moral discrepency existed in the middle ages. How you can get from there I didn't! to me painting us as morally bankrupt today is a mystery to me, unless you think that the Crusades was a morally positive thing. Good grief, you're following a twisty path. It's an apt comparison with your reasoning. You say they
Re: [Biofuel] Bin Laden Citing US Polls About Withdrawing From Iraq
Robert and Keith, Thanks for your input. Jerry On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 17:43:51 -0800 robert luis rabello [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jerry wrote: Seems we have only proved that we have alot of problems ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Bin Laden citing US polls about withdrawing from Iraq
Keith Addison wrote: Hello David I could perhaps agree with the point you're making, but I think you stretch it so far it breaks. robert luis rabello wrote: Michael Redler wrote: [snip] Yet the religious principle of do no harm to your neighbor and do not harm a child come directly from a tradition far older than psychology and the field of child development. (I can give you book, chapter and verse in the New Testament, if you require them, but I think you know exactly the places to which I'd refer.) Can you See, here's the crux of the problem. Here is what you're missing. Whose religious principle of do no harn to your neighbor and do not harm a child do you hold? Yes, I see that you can quote chapter and verse from the new testament. I, on the other hand, can quote from the old testament, and from the koran, that neighbors and children are required to be harmed under certain circumstances. Most of these calls-to-harm are based on the neighbors/children doing something repugnant to your religion. For example, according to the old testament, one is to stone or kill members of ones own family who try to lead you from the true path of worshipping the One True God. Muslims, of course, have no problem killing infidels.. Well actually, infidels have been killing a great many more Muslims than Muslims have been killing infidels these days, and not only these days. You think witch-hunts are out of fashion in the West? I don't think they're out of fashion. And lynchings are very recent history, it's too soon to say they're a thing of the past. I could go on and on. If you want to make that point you shouldn't be so one-sided, it goes both ways. Maybe I'm just being slow here, but I fail to see your point. I said nothing about witch hunts or lynchings, let alone whether I think they're still going on or not. My point was that Robert wanted to take religious principles and incorporate them into moral law. Or at least recognize that moral law has it's origins in religious principles. My inquiry was simply whose religious principles, pointing out that there are religious principles from both Christianity and Islam that few on this list would consider moral. That leaves us in the (to me) uncomfortable position of picking and choosing what we like from the religious texts of our choice. he problem with quoting religious sources is that one can justify anything at all. That's right, and it seems to me that's just what you're doing. Excuse me? I'm not advocating religious principles as a basis for moral law for precisely these reasons. Aldulterers, which conveniently could only be women at the time, were to be stoned in the public square. Are you talking of the Old Testament or the Koran? The Old Testament. successfully deny that these principles, upon which our statutes are based, have no root in religion? Were statutes that protect children from such predators enacted only AFTER developmental psychologists discovered that children have a fundamental lack of ability to consent? Der Schutz des Kindes im Recht des frühen Mittelalters : eine Untersuchung über Tötung, Missbrauch, Körperverletzung, Freiheitsbeeinträchtigung, Gefährdung und Eigentumsverletzung anhand von Rechtsquellen des 5. bis 9. Jahrhunderts. By Heinz Wilhelm Schwarz. Siegburg : F. Schmitt, 1993. Bonner historische Forschungen ; Bd. 56 [Robarts - KJC 1018 .S38 1993X] The above citation, though in German, gives an overview of the body of law concerning child abuse during the Middle Ages. Hmm, and this was the time of the crusades, was it not? So there were laws concerning abuse of children but it was fine to fight a war against Muslims for the sin of occupying Jerusalem? Some people say it's just fine to fight such a war right now, and indeed such wars are being fought right now. Does that mean everything else about our era is therefore morally bankrupt? Don't paint things with so broad a brush, human affairs are much richer than that. We're not communicating again. I point out that what most of us would consider a great moral discrepency existed in the middle ages. How you can get from there to me painting us as morally bankrupt today is a mystery to me, unless you think that the Crusades was a morally positive thing. Sorry, but I think we need to get past the idea of morals being something taught by religions. The idea that religion and philosophy have not contributed to society's moral codes and to much more besides is just silly, of course they have. Indeed. But that's not inconsistent with what I wrote. Maybe it would be clearer if I said dictated by religions or taught exclusively by religions ? There IS a largely objective way to view them outside a religious context: If you exclude the religious context you won't understand them any
Re: [Biofuel] Bin Laden citing US polls about withdrawing from Iraq
Hi Zeke Re: Bin Laden's honesty: I agree totally with you Keith. Since reading Imperial Hubris I never trust the US media when a new report from Bin Laden comes out. I used to think that he was mad at the US primarily for our lousy foreign policy, but who was I to think that? You sure weren't alone, not even in the US. But from what quite a few Americans told me at the time, anyone who wasn't buying the current movie was feeling very isolated. When I found out that the CIA analysis showed that too, well... The average american has no clue about what Bin Laden thinks because the media never reports all of what he said. He's thoroughly demonised anyway, they probably wouldn't see it even if the media did report it. He hates you for your freedoms and so on. For example, the news this morning over here is all about major US cities being on alert because of Bin Laden's latest threat. Not a mention of his call for a truce or a withdraw from Iraq. And they keep reporting that intelligence experts are analyzing his newest messages for a secret message embedded in there. Amazing how they can do this, while missing the actual message... Maslow's hammer? But this was in a report on a Nov 2001 interview with Bin Laden: In the video, he also claims responsibility for an unspecified terrorist outrage in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, which he claims was sparked by secret messages in one of his videos. Not the only time I think. Real or just a red herring? Seems they're a bit selective about which messages they get and which they don't. If anyone had read the full text of his message right before the election instead of just freaking out like headless chickens, they may have come to the conclusion that they should pick Kerry instead of Bush. But few did. But a Kerry win would still have left you with the duopoly party, followed by business-as-usual, especially on the foreign policy front. There's not much essential difference between the two parties' foreign policy, eg between Clinton's and Bush's, it's mostly just the Bushies' outrageous in-your-face style of it that's different. I agreed with Gabriel Kolko at the time, that Bush might be the lesser of two evils, but while Kolko was thinking of other nations and international alliances I was thinking of the Other Superpower. http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg38234.html [Biofuel] The Coming Elections and the Future of American Global Power 16 Sep 2004 Also this: Gabriel Kolko -- in this writer's estimation, our most indispensable historian -- argues in a recent piece on the Counterpunch website that because a second Bush term would possibly intensify the international enmity elicited by its bumbling unilateralism, it could be preferable to a Kerry Administration: 'Kerry is neither articulate nor impressive as a candidate or as someone who is likely to formulate an alternative to Bush's foreign and defense policies, which have much more in common with Clinton's than they have differences. To be critical of Bush is scarcely justification for wishful thinking about Kerry. Since 1947, the foreign policies of the Democrats and Republicans have been essentially consensual on crucial issues -- bipartisan as both parties phrase it -- but they often utilize quite different rhetoric. 'Critics of the existing foreign or domestic order will not take over Washington this November. As dangerous as it is, Bush's reelection may be a lesser evil because he is much more likely to continue the destruction of the alliance system that is so crucial to American power...' It is becoming clear that all-too-many Kerry supporters view November's plebiscite as an end in itself. That, if Kerry should prevail, the reaction of a too-large proportion of his voters will be overwhelming relief -- Whew! That was a close one! -- followed by a repeat of Clinton-era apathy and apologetics. Whereas, a Bush victory couldn't but propagate the amazingly diverse and widespread lobbying and protest movement which saw the New York Times declare public political involvement the World's second superpower. From the unprecedented pre-war protest mobilisations, to the hundred-plus official municipal renunciations of the PATRIOT Act, to the overwhelming response to the FCC's proposed further relaxation of media ownership restrictions, to the virtual implosion of the WTO, to the solidarity actions of internationals in Iraq and Palestine; the accomplishments have been many, and the momentum is gathering. So even though a Kerry administration would no doubt be marginally less nefarious in its designs, in the absence of activist mitigation of these designs, the net effect could well be more disastrous than a second Bush Administration... -- From: Who's The Lesser Evil? by Eddie Tews (March 24, 2004) http://eatthestate.org/08-14/WhosLesserEvil.htm Tews was also thinking of the Other Superpower. From Bin Laden's
Re: [Biofuel] Bin Laden citing US polls about withdrawing from Iraq
Bin Laden says this in his new video: If you (Americans) are sincere in your desire for peace and security, we have answered you. And if Bush decides to carry on with his lies and oppression, then it would be useful for you to read the book Rogue State, which states in its introduction: If I were president, I would stop the attacks on the United States: First I would give an apology to all the widows and orphans and those who were tortured. Then I would announce that American interference in the nations of the world has ended once and for all. The full title is Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower, by William Blum. So Bin Laden reads William Blum. Blum's an American, ex State Department, long-time dissident, very good investigator. Rogue State first appeared here at the Biofuel list three years ago. It's here, with quite a lot of chapters online, including the introduction Bin Laden refers to: http://members.aol.com/superogue/homepage.htm Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower, by William Blum Here's the introduction: http://members.aol.com/superogue/intro.htm Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower - Introduction But I can't find that quote there, though I know it well enough. It's in several articles Blum has written: http://www.counterpunch.org/blum08122003.html William Blum: Myth and Denial in the War on Terrorism http://counterpunch.org/blum1028.html William Blum: Bush's Wars: Anti-Terror or Empire Building? http://members.aol.com/bblum6/sep11.htm September 11, 2001 and the bombing of Afghanistan http://members.aol.com/bblum6/mafia.htm What Do the Imperial Mafia Really Want? http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/WhyThateUS.html Why Terrorists Hate America, by William Blum, Sept 2002 But not in Rogue State, or at least not in the introduction of the 2005 edition, nor in any of the other chapters that are online. Very strange, if true. Anybody got a hard copy they can check? Here's the complete quote, not quite as Bin Laden has it: If I were the president, I could stop terrorist attacks against the United States in a few days. Permanently. I would first apologize to all the widows and orphans, the tortured and impoverished, and all the many millions of other victims of American imperialism. Then I would announce, in all sincerity, to every corner of the world, that America's global interventions have come to an end, and inform Israel that it is no longer the 51st state of the USA but now -- oddly enough -- a foreign country. I would then reduce the military budget by at least 90% and use the savings to pay reparations to the victims. There would be more than enough money. One year's military budget of 330 billion dollars is equal to more than $18,000 an hour for every hour since Jesus Christ was born. That's what I'd do on my first three days in the White House. On the fourth day, I'd be assassinated. Bin Laden's version: If I were president, I would stop the attacks on the United States: First I would give an apology to all the widows and orphans and those who were tortured. Then I would announce that American interference in the nations of the world has ended once and for all. I guess it's been re-translated back to English from Arabic, with quite an accurate result. Interesting bit of snipping though, it stops short at Israel. More from Blum: http://www.killinghope.org/ Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II, by William Blum http://members.aol.com/essays6/ftw.htm Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire by William Blum http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/41434/ An Interview with William Blum Best Keith http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11615.htm Full Text of Bin Laden Tape By The Associated Press 01/19/06 ICH -- -- The following is the full text of a new audiotape from al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden. Parts of the tape were aired on Al-Jazeera television, which published the entire version on its Web site. The text was translated from the Arabic by The Associated Press. Bin Laden appears to be addressing the American people: My message to you is about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and how to end them. I did not intend to speak to you about this because this issue has already been decided. Only metal breaks metal, and our situation, thank God, is only getting better and better, while your situation is the opposite of that. But I plan to speak about the repeated errors your President Bush has committed in comments on the results of your polls that show an overwhelming majority of you want the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. But he (Bush) has opposed this wish and said that withdrawing troops sends the wrong message to opponents, that it is better to fight them (bin Laden's followers) on their land than their fighting us (Americans) on our land. I can reply to these errors by saying that war in Iraq is raging with no
Re: [Biofuel] Bin Laden citing US polls about withdrawing from Iraq
"My SECULAR government shouldn't force me to think or behave against my own conscience." Absolutely. I'm with you on that point."I have a problem with people who insist that we put the 10 commandments up in public buildings then refuse to live by them."I have a similar problem. It almost sounds the same, except for one word. I have a problem with people who insist that we put the 10 commandments up in public buildings."Morality is about "right conduct", and I think we all have a basic understanding of what this means."The beginning of a slippery slope and it assumes that your basic understanding and mine are identical with no Grey areas.Pat Robertson talks about morality all the time on the 700 club. You know, the religious guy whocalled for the assassination of Hugo Chavez. By the way "Lord of the Flies" is just fiction, right? People are all born withthe same sense of morality or at least the "three basic ways the people have of defining what is right and wrong". I had no idea that morality can be classified in such a simple way. I went from almost countless ways down to three after reading one email!Morality and religion share at least one attribute. Itshould stay privateor at least shared among anconsenting community. It absolutely should not be taught from a single, narrow interpretation which is assumed to be "common knowledge".Atheists can have morals without religion. In fact, from the "black collar, police blotter" I included in my last post, religious people can often have no morals according to the interpretation assumed by their own religion. Most importantly, a person with no morals (even as seen by the most popular interpretations) can be quite functional in society when they usea strictly economic philosophy in place of "morals" (i.e. If I don't hurt that person, it's probable that he won't hurt me/if I help that person, he might see me as an asset and invest time in helping me in order to preserve a relationship). Although I don't subscribe to this philosophy, I can't exclude it either.Now if you'll excuse me, I going tocontinuereadingmy book, Beyond Good and Evil.If only Nietzsche knew of the "three basic ways", He wouldn't have bothered with all that babble he went on about.Mike Morality is herd instinct in the individual. - Friedrich Nietzsche robert luis rabello [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Michael Redler wrote: ...sounds redundant. Who doesn't like freedom?I put it in quotes because that phrase is used so often by our imperious leader to mean "people who are just like us". Canadians, though they sometimes don't like to admit it, differ from us Americans in very subtle ways. Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference at all. What's morality? There are as many definitions to this word as there are cultures and religions. Nobody (religious or not) has the authority to "legislate morality". It's the governments job to protect the health and welfare of it's citizens and make sure that they have a minimum of obstacles to improving the quality of their lives and define their own sense of morality. "Morality" does not necessarily play a role, irrespective of the definition you've chosen.Morality is about "right conduct", and I think we all have a basic understanding of what this means. There are three basic ways that people have of defining what is right and wrong. Either they accept the consensus of their society, select from various philosophical perspectives that "work" for them, or appeal to an objective, external standard by which conduct can be judged.I have a problem with people who insist that we put the 10 commandments up in public buildings then refuse to live by them. I have a problem when people who proclaim that abortion is murder, but think nothing of bombing civilians from 50 000 feet. I have a problem when someone says that THEIR version of "Christianity" leads to "godly" conduct, while at the same time advocating the exploitation of people (especially children!) and destruction of the earth. I have a problem with people who deny basic human rights to someone because of their race, religion, socio-economic status or sexual orientation, while using the name of God to justify intolerant and insensitive conduct. I have a problem with someone who thinks that we shouldn't have a healthy debate about the origins of humanity, while at the same time denying the right of other human beings to think differently.These issues are not the purvey of government. My SECULAR government shouldn't force me to think or behave against my own conscience. Am I making myself more clear? Organized religion (including my own faith) is not exempt from the struggle to either define or follow any interpretation of "morality" (see below).Sigh . . . "Woe to those who cause one of my little ones to stumble!"___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Re: [Biofuel] Bin Laden citing US polls about withdrawing from Iraq
Michael Redler wrote: (Well, I wrote this part, not Michael!) Morality is about right conduct, and I think we all have a basic understanding of what this means. (To which Michael replied) The beginning of a slippery slope and it assumes that your basic understanding and mine are identical with no Grey areas. Hmm . . . That's not really what I was thinking. Our society generally agrees that my rights end where yours begin, and that the weaker members of society should be protected from exploitation by those who are stronger. How that principle gets implemented into law depends on those we have elected to legislate on our behalf, but much of our law is based upon this idea. I think I understand, however, where you're coming from in this. So then I ask you: How can we KNOW how we should behave? and further, Who is responsible for deciding what constitutes right conduct? Pat Robertson talks about morality all the time on the 700 club. He's a blithering idiot and about as amoral as they come. By the way Lord of the Flies is just fiction, right? People are all born with the same sense of morality or at least the three basic ways the people have of defining what is right and wrong. I had no idea that morality can be classified in such a simple way. I went from almost countless ways down to three after reading one email! Can you think of any others? I've never considered myself brilliant in the philosophical realm, but am I not on to something here? Morality and religion share at least one attribute. It should stay private or at least shared among an consenting community. It absolutely should not be taught from a single, narrow interpretation which is assumed to be common knowledge. But then, on what principles do we base our concept of law? I think you've illustrated nicely, with your Pat Robertson example, WHY we have to have some kind of guiding philosophy to undergird our legislation. That's why I mentioned consensus as one means. Atheists can have morals without religion. In fact, from the black collar, police blotter I included in my last post, religious people can often have no morals according to the interpretation assumed by their own religion. Right on both counts. So how do we decide that pedophilia is wrong, or that the using the counselor / client office for the purpose of generating sexual favors is wrong? How do we determine that bilking the public for money in stock manipulation, or selectively shutting down power stations to drive up the price of electricity is wrong? On what do we base those decisions? We have a LONG history in the west of depending on religious thought and philosophy to guide our thinking. Stating that we should eliminate the influence of religion from government might be wise if we wish to avoid the excesses of the past, but I think we need to be careful not to dismiss the role of religion in developing a societal consensus on what is right and what is wrong. I'm not sure you're really disagreeing with me in this. Most importantly, a person with no morals (even as seen by the most popular interpretations) can be quite functional in society when they use a strictly economic philosophy in place of morals (i.e. If I don't hurt that person, it's probable that he won't hurt me/if I help that person, he might see me as an asset and invest time in helping me in order to preserve a relationship). Although I don't subscribe to this philosophy, I can't exclude it either. Respectfully, Michael, I don't agree with that. You are defining a moral principle by your example, one that is eclectic in nature for sure (one of my three!), but certainly principled. A member of society that has NO moral restraint is a very dangerous individual. We call those people sociopaths for good reason! Now if you'll excuse me, I going to continue reading my book, Beyond Good and Evil. If only Nietzsche knew of the three basic ways, He wouldn't have bothered with all that babble he went on about. I haven't read Nietzche in YEARS! (I think the last work of his I read was a translation of Thus Spoke Zarathustra.) We can discuss the concept of ubermenschen too, but even that concept has its roots in the New Testament . . . robert luis rabello The Edge of Justice Adventure for Your Mind http://www.newadventure.ca Ranger Supercharger Project Page http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Bin Laden Citing US Polls About Withdrawing From Iraq
Jerry wrote: Seems we have only proved that we have alot of problems I think that you have illustrated how out of control much of this has become. We struggle with the concept of how much government should influence the conduct of our lives, and I believe Michael had a good point in underscoring the role of government to protect the health and welfare of it's citizens and make sure that they have a minimum of obstacles to improving the quality of their lives and define their own sense of morality. Citizens of some countries DEMAND a higher degree of government involvement in the day to day conduct of their lives than is true of American citizens in general, and Canadians rank among that group. My earlier contention that other nations in the free world live with far more cozy arrangements between church and state than would ever be tolerated in the United States still stands. I'm an American, so I'm uncomfortable with government intrusion in my personal affairs, but that also means that I have to be responsible and accountable for my own actions, as I think you are trying to point out. Now, if people want to put the 10 commandments up in public buildings, they should LIVE by them. There is nothing wrong with that. (We have a portrait of Moses in the gallery of the US Senate that has been there for a LONG time, and nobody complains . . . ) People can have a theocracy if they want, as long as that is what they really want. Having written this, I don't like hearing that the United States is a Christian nation, when it is not, yet it's also wrong to deny the long influence of Christianity in establishing a consensus for morality and law among Western nations. robert luis rabello The Edge of Justice Adventure for Your Mind http://www.newadventure.ca Ranger Supercharger Project Page http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Bin Laden citing US polls about withdrawing from Iraq
You said:"We have a LONG history in the west of depending on religious thought and philosophy to guide our thinking. Stating that we should eliminate the influence of religion from government might be wise if we wish to avoid the excesses of the past, but I think we need to be careful not to dismiss the role of religion in developing a societal consensus on what is right and what is wrong."I included the whole quote so that I can't be accused of taking things out of context. After repeatedly asking WHO'S RELIGION and WHO'S MORALS, the first thoughts that came to mind after reading your reply were memories of the moviefrom Arthur Miller's bookThe Crucible. Winona Ryder was absolutely brilliant in her character. In the story,a system of morals became so overpowering that peoplebegan accusing each other of "crimes" in order to be seen favorably by the leadership while simultaneously seeking revenge (another aspect of "moral" control - manipulation).Leaders attempting to impose "moral values" on society have led to unimaginable carnage. Morals are undefinable and those teaching it and believing they have the "true" meaning of it are dangerous people. Those who try to incorporate religion in government as a way of injecting anillusion of morals, scare me more than anything.Some of the most horrible atrocities have been committed in the name of GOD, in an attempt to "clean up society".One of the latest examples of imposed morals include the Taliban. You also said: "Our society generally agrees..." Uh oh. "Our society generally agrees"? Whenever I see a sentence starting with that, I prepare myself for unsubstantiated and imaginative conjecture.You also said:"So how do we decide that pedophilia is wrong?"I'm disappointed. Certainly you can't believe that "morals"(whatever that means) or RELIGION (are you serious?!) helps us decide that pedophilia is wrong- not after all we've been through in this thread.It only takes a littleevidenceand history toreveal that children aren't developed enough to understand or consent to sexual relations with anyone. Charges of pedophiliatake that information to prove thatadults who have sex with children act maliciously and do untold damage to the further developmentof children. I see elements of psychology but, no need for religion or a particular interpretation of "morals" to see it as wrong.As far as the other questions in that paragraph are concerned, they've already been answered.I think I've given an abundance of evidence to support my position. I've given numerous reports of heinous crimes committed by members of the clergy, siting examples of where religion and an illusion of "right conduct", have gone horribly wrong, naming well respected authors and philosophersto additionally support my position andin between, asking who decides what religion and who's morals we should abide by. Irrespective of whether or notyou're position can be legitimately supported, you hold on tight to this ghost and express this conviction thatsociety would fall into utter chaos without the influence of religion and some interpretation of "morals" (whatever that might mean).When I give an example ofsomeone who has stepped forward to profess their convictions about morality, you disapprove, as if your interpretation is more legitimate. So, now I'm asking again (rhetorically), WHO'S RELIGION and WHO'S MORALS.It'sas if you've watched the movie Reefer Madness so many times that your absolutely convinced that society can't survive without a patriarchal system of government (which most organized religions profess when given political power).There are people in this world who will always be there to proclaim their righteousness in the name of GOD,offer their leadership and fulfill their role as "the good shepherd". As long as those people step forward, there will people who share my position that society needs desperately to reject it in order to maintain harmony. I've said it to you in this thread and I will have no problem saying it again to my fellow worshipers at Sunday's after church coffee hour. Religion and your sense of morality is a private matter, has no place in determining a system of government and certainly doesn't need to be shoved down anyone's throat.Ifanyone runs for office in my district and uses the views you expressed in this thread as part of theirplatform, I will show no hesitation to organize against it (it wouldn't be the first time).So, I'm going to simply agree to disagree. I know afutile debate when I see one. Mikerobert luis rabello [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Michael Redler wrote:(Well, I wrote this part, not Michael!) "Morality is about "right conduct", and I think we all have a basic understanding of what this means."(To which Michael replied) The beginning of a slippery slope and it assumes that your basic understanding and mine are identical with no Grey areas.Hmm . .
Re: [Biofuel] Bin Laden citing US polls about withdrawing from Iraq
Michael Redler wrote: I included the whole quote so that I can't be accused of taking things out of context. After repeatedly asking WHO'S RELIGION and WHO'S MORALS, Yes, excellent questions. I've read through your response and I'm wondering why we're disagreeing here. This discussion has become exceedingly frustrating to me because I sense that you're not grasping what I'm trying to communicate. Leaders attempting to impose moral values on society have led to unimaginable carnage. Did I not agree with you in this? Did I not say that there have been abuses in the past? Morals are undefinable and those teaching it and believing they have the true meaning of it are dangerous people. So can we not agree that Do not commit murder is a moral command? Irrespective of where it came from, do we disagree on its value as a principle? If morals are indefinable, then how can we determine appropriate conduct? I'm baffled, sir. I'm simply not following where you're coming from in this! Those who try to incorporate religion in government as a way of injecting an illusion of morals, scare me more than anything. Some of the most horrible atrocities have been committed in the name of GOD, in an attempt to clean up society. One of the latest examples of imposed morals include the Taliban. Should we then banish any discussion of morality in the debate about law? Should we ignore the contribution of religion and philosophy to our body of legal thought simply because of its origin? Most of us in the west live in secular societies under secular governments. I'm not suggesting that we convert our governments to a particular religious faith, but I DO believe that we can't ignore how basic precepts of what is right and wrong undergirding our body of law have been formulated by religious and philosophical thought. Uh oh. Our society generally agrees? Whenever I see a sentence starting with that, I prepare myself for unsubstantiated and imaginative conjecture. Ok, I'll be specific. Our society agrees that committing murder is wrong. How can I substantiate that? Please don't ridicule what I've written. I'm trying to understand where you're coming from in this, but what I'm hearing is that you don't accept that there IS any consensus in our nation concerning what is right and what is wrong. If that is what you're intending to communicate, I'm astonished! (pedophilia) I'm disappointed. Certainly you can't believe that morals (whatever that means) or RELIGION (are you serious?!) helps us decide that pedophilia is wrong - not after all we've been through in this thread. Is that really such a poor example? It only takes a little evidence and history to reveal that children aren't developed enough to understand or consent to sexual relations with anyone. Charges of pedophilia take that information to prove that adults who have sex with children act maliciously and do untold damage to the further development of children. I see elements of psychology but, no need for religion or a particular interpretation of morals to see it as wrong. Yet the religious principle of do no harm to your neighbor and do not harm a child come directly from a tradition far older than psychology and the field of child development. (I can give you book, chapter and verse in the New Testament, if you require them, but I think you know exactly the places to which I'd refer.) Can you successfully deny that these principles, upon which our statutes are based, have no root in religion? Were statutes that protect children from such predators enacted only AFTER developmental psychologists discovered that children have a fundamental lack of ability to consent? Der Schutz des Kindes im Recht des frühen Mittelalters : eine Untersuchung über Tötung, Missbrauch, Körperverletzung, Freiheitsbeeinträchtigung, Gefährdung und Eigentumsverletzung anhand von Rechtsquellen des 5. bis 9. Jahrhunderts. By Heinz Wilhelm Schwarz. Siegburg : F. Schmitt, 1993. Bonner historische Forschungen ; Bd. 56 [Robarts - KJC 1018 .S38 1993X] The above citation, though in German, gives an overview of the body of law concerning child abuse during the Middle Ages. Here's another example that I'll quote directly: Reformers during the nineteenth century tried to bring the rest of society into the socializing mode by legislation designed to prevent outright battering and sexual abuse of children, which of course still went on in the majority of families around them. But those who tried to oppose buggering and beating boys in schools were opposed by parents who said It didn't hurt me. Those who tried to pass child labor legislation to reduce horrendous working conditions and hours were labeled Communists. And those who thought one could bring up children kindly were considered impractical visionaries.
Re: [Biofuel] Bin Laden citing US polls about withdrawing from Iraq
Public schools were run by the Catholic Church in Newfoundland and Labrador for many years, and the world did not end. The Catholic Church still run lots of schools in the UK and most are a lot better than our stateschools.The Protestant schools were mostly taken over by the state after the war.(not sure when). The Church and state have always been tied together here. Chris. Wessex Ferret Club www.wessexferretclub.co.uk ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Bin Laden citing US polls about withdrawing from Iraq
I used to think so too, however I went to a Jesuit college and found it to be quite tolerant of me not being Catholic. Only once or twice in four years and 50 some classes did I feel that I was under pressure to conform to their views, either socially or academically. I got an engineering degree and many people got science degrees, and I didn't feel that the religious afiliation of the school affected the quality of these. I had more trouble with the pervasive sexism in the engineering school than the catholic affiliation of the school. This relatively tolerant attitude is quite different from what I feel from the Religous Right in the US -- Evangelical Protestants.On 1/20/06, Michael Redler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Public schools were run by the Catholic Church in Newfoundland and Labrador for many years, and the world did not end.The Catholic church is one of the least tolerant of organized religions. I should know. While planning my wedding, my fiance's priest told methat I (having been baptized and confirmed in a protestant church) have to go through a nine month process with a tribunal where I'm required to undergo a psychological evaluation because I'm divorced (and not Catholic). The tribunal is composed mainly of priests -priests who feel they are an authority on morality,marriage, where and when to have sexual relations,whether or not you are competent to have a family and the status ofone's mental health. How can I be more explicit except to say, who the f**k are they to guide me, my family or my children through a life filled with their rules. It's too bad that the leaders of the churches I visited are often not a reflection of their more benevolent parishes.So,excuse me if I strongly appose any opinion which is apologetic toward incorporating church and State. I'm havingNONE of it! Mikerobert luis rabello [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Michael Redler wrote: I went to the link. One sentence stood out among the others: The province of Ontario has authorized the use of sharia law in civil arbitrations, if both parties consent. That's pretty scary stuff. I reminds me of towns in the US trying to push religion in science class (i.e. creative design). Canadians seem WAY less worried about mingling church and state than we Americans. When I first moved up here, I was APALLED to learn that private, parochial schools were accepting money from the provincial government. Canadians would look at me askance and respond: But we're paying taxes. Why SHOULDN'T our money go into private schools?Public schools were run by the Catholic Church in Newfoundland and Labrador for many years, and the world did not end. robert luis rabelloThe Edge of JusticeAdventure for Your Mindhttp://www.newadventure.ca Ranger Supercharger Project Pagehttp://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/ ___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Bin Laden citing US polls about withdrawing from Iraq
"The Catholic Church still run lots of schools in the UK and most are a lot better than our stateschools.The Protestant schools were mostly taken over by the state after the war."So, by your own example, despite having church and state "tied together", there is no clear benefit. According to your ownpost, there was one success and one failure from the efforts of churches involved in running schools."The Church and state have always been tied together here."It's one thing to state facts if your going to use it to back up an opinion. But, Ifail to see the significance of statingfact (I'm assuming you are correct in your observation) for the sake of stating fact.Here are some facts that contain the sentence fragment "have always":People"have always"been committing homicide. Women "have always" been used as prostitutes. People "have always" been killed in the name of a benevolent GOD.Secular government removes the temptation for a particular religion to dominate and later exclude thosewithvarying faiths from playing a significant role in decision making. How may examples does history have to providefor some people to understand the utter failureof religion in government to maintain equality among its citizens?If you want the catholic church to make decisions ingovernment, moveto a place where100% of the inhabitants are catholic. However, be prepared to give up many of your liberties because, most of the governments "run" by religion hardly make an effort to defend democracy and in fact, were the last to convert from a monarchy.Mike Chris lloyd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Public schools were run by the Catholic Church in Newfoundland and Labrador for many years, and the world did not end. The Catholic Church still run lots of schools in the UK and most are a lot better than our stateschools.The Protestant schools were mostly taken over by the state after the war.(not sure when). The Church and state have always been tied together here. Chris.Wessex Ferret Club www.wessexferretclub.co.uk ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Bin Laden citing US polls about withdrawing from Iraq
Michael Redler wrote: The Catholic church is one of the least tolerant of organized religions. I should know. While planning my wedding, my fiance's priest told me that I (having been baptized and confirmed in a protestant church) have to go through a nine month process with a tribunal where I'm required to undergo a psychological evaluation because I'm divorced (and not Catholic). Well, I was simply astonished at the degree of cooperation between church and state when I first moved up here. However, I'm merely pointing out, by using this example, that other freedom loving people do not see the separation issue in the same light that is typical of us Americans. My point is that a certain degree of cooperation and understanding may not always be a BAD thing between church and government. I don't like seeing a secular government legislating morality, and like many Americans, I would strongly oppose such a move. What bothers me far more, however, is the deception being promoted upon us now, whereby certain SECULAR leaders are being promoted as Christians when their behavior in office clearly illustrates that nothing could be further from truth! robert luis rabello The Edge of Justice Adventure for Your Mind http://www.newadventure.ca Ranger Supercharger Project Page http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Bin Laden citing US polls about withdrawing from Iraq
How may examples does history have to providefor some people to understand the utter failureof religion in government to maintain equality among its citizens? Just look at British history to see how bad it could get for the populationwhen a new head of state had a different religion than its predecessor.Perhaps Charley will turn Muslim and really stir things up. Chris. Wessex Ferret Club www.wessexferretclub.co.uk ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Bin Laden citing US polls about withdrawing from Iraq
Excellent point Chris! Thanks.This is an aspect of religion/government to which I had not given much thought.MikeChris lloyd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How may examples does history have to providefor some people to understand the utter failureof religion in government to maintain equality among its citizens? Just look at British history to see how bad it could get for the populationwhen a new head of state had a different religion than its predecessor.Perhaps Charley will turn Muslim and really stir things up. Chris. Wessex Ferret Club www.wessexferretclub.co.uk___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Bin Laden citing US polls about withdrawing from Iraq
"Well, I was simply astonished at the degree of cooperation between church and state when I first moved up here."Not surprising. My church has been equally benevolent. I never took a position against the intentions of any organized religion, only some of their leaders and their attemptto govern society."However, I'm merely pointing out, by using this example, that other 'freedom loving people'..."...sounds redundant. Who doesn't like freedom? "My point is that a certain degree of cooperation and understanding may not always be a BAD thing between church and government."Absolutely. I agree wholeheartedly. Cooperation and understanding can be kept outside the circles of power."I don't like seeing a secular government legislating morality"What's morality? There are as many definitions to this word as there are cultures and religions. Nobody (religious or not) has the authority to "legislate morality". It's the governments jobto protect the health and welfare of it's citizens and make sure that they havea minimum ofobstacles to improving the quality of their lives and define their own sense of morality. "Morality" does not necessarily play a role, irrespective of the definition you've chosen.Organized religion (including my own faith) is not exempt from the struggle to either define or follow any interpretation of "morality" (see below). Mike_ Reagan's Minister Resigns The minister who led prayers at both of Ronald Reagan's inaugurations, Rev. Donn Moomaw, 63, secretly resigned in 1993 because of "sexual contact" with 5 women while he was pastor of Bel Air Presbyterian Church, according to the church. The women have not filed lawsuits against Moomaw or the church for the abuse that took place between 1983-1992. The church cited his crossing over the "line of acceptable behavior" as reason for his resignation. Source: Los Angeles Times, 3/15/95Minister Liable For Abusing Power A jury said Rev. Albert Sweet, 68, a Methodist, twisted pastoral counseling sessions with Rev. Kay Wright, 53, then a congregation member, into a sexual relationship, exploiting the counselor/careseeker relationship. The jury awarded $135,000 in damages to her. Wright's attorney said Sweet abused his power when he mixed sex and "false religiosity" to continue the relationship. He handed Wright an article called "The Spirituality of Waiting," when she questioned when he would divorce his wife. United Methodist Church leaders refused the grievance plea of Wright's husband in 1990, adhering to the church's 2-year statute of limitations for filing grievances. Bishop Calvin McConnell, who sent Wright home in 1991 when she came forward to file a grievance, said he hoped victims will not hesitate to confide in him. Source: Seattle Times, 2/12/95Holy Childhood Hell The Holy Childhood of Jesus School, a boarding school in Harbor Springs run by the School Sister of Notre Dame, shut down 11 years ago, but the memories of sexual, physical and emotional abuse linger in the minds of numerous Native Americans who say they lost their ambitions there. Nine men, now in their 30s and 40s, said 2 unnamed nuns committed sex acts, ranging from fondling to intercourse, in the 1960s and early 1970s. One man, now 36, still feels ashamed at having lost his virginity at 12 to a nun. Nuns also reportedly would drape urine-soaked sheets over the heads of bed-wetters and call them "black savages" and "heathens." Sources: Jackson Citizen Patriot, 7/17/94; The Milwaukee Journal, 7/27/94Court Upholds Strange Conviction The Kentucky Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Baptist minister John R. Strange, who decapitated his wife, buried the head and set fire to the torso in May 1990. In October 1991, Strange was sentenced to 65 years in prison but had appealed. Source: Lexington Kentucky Herald Leader, 6/26/94Religious Commune Leader Convicted The leader of a religious commune in Clay County has been convicted of kidnapping, raping, sodomizing and restraining the daughter of one of his followers. The recommended sentence for Nelson DeCloud, 53, is 220 years in prison. Sources: Centre Daily Times, 8/5/94; AP, 8/4/94Minister Raped Daughter Rev. Joel Williams, 39, pleaded guilty to repeatedly raping the teenage daughter he called his "pride and joy" from March 1990 until she ran away 4 years later at age 17. Prosecutors said the abuse began a week after the death of his wife, the girl's mother. Source: Tribune-Democrat, 11/18/94Woman Denied Compassion After 27 years of repressing the painful memory, Patricia Marchant recalled how the priest in her Catholic grade school chose her, then 7, to deliver a carton of milk daily after Mass. Upon delivery, the priest would strip himself of his collar, sexually abusing her as the church bells rang. In 1992, Marchant, who has counseled sexual abuse and incest victims for 15 years, confronted the officials of
Re: [Biofuel] Bin Laden citing US polls about withdrawing from Iraq
Michael Redler wrote: ...sounds redundant. Who doesn't like freedom? I put it in quotes because that phrase is used so often by our imperious leader to mean people who are just like us. Canadians, though they sometimes don't like to admit it, differ from us Americans in very subtle ways. Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference at all. What's morality? There are as many definitions to this word as there are cultures and religions. Nobody (religious or not) has the authority to legislate morality. It's the governments job to protect the health and welfare of it's citizens and make sure that they have a minimum of obstacles to improving the quality of their lives and define their own sense of morality. Morality does not necessarily play a role, irrespective of the definition you've chosen. Morality is about right conduct, and I think we all have a basic understanding of what this means. There are three basic ways that people have of defining what is right and wrong. Either they accept the consensus of their society, select from various philosophical perspectives that work for them, or appeal to an objective, external standard by which conduct can be judged. I have a problem with people who insist that we put the 10 commandments up in public buildings then refuse to live by them. I have a problem when people who proclaim that abortion is murder, but think nothing of bombing civilians from 50 000 feet. I have a problem when someone says that THEIR version of Christianity leads to godly conduct, while at the same time advocating the exploitation of people (especially children!) and destruction of the earth. I have a problem with people who deny basic human rights to someone because of their race, religion, socio-economic status or sexual orientation, while using the name of God to justify intolerant and insensitive conduct. I have a problem with someone who thinks that we shouldn't have a healthy debate about the origins of humanity, while at the same time denying the right of other human beings to think differently. These issues are not the purvey of government. My SECULAR government shouldn't force me to think or behave against my own conscience. Am I making myself more clear? Organized religion (including my own faith) is not exempt from the struggle to either define or follow any interpretation of morality (see below). Sigh . . . Woe to those who cause one of my little ones to stumble! robert luis rabello The Edge of Justice Adventure for Your Mind http://www.newadventure.ca Ranger Supercharger Project Page http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Bin Laden citing US polls about withdrawing from Iraq
Re: Bin Laden's honesty: I agree totally with you Keith. Since reading Imperial Hubris I never trust the US media when a new report from Bin Laden comes out. I used to think that he was mad at the US primarily for our lousy foreign policy, but who was I to think that? When I found out that the CIA analysis showed that too, well... The average american has no clue about what Bin Laden thinks because the media never reports all of what he said. For example, the news this morning over here is all about major US cities being on alert because of Bin Laden's latest threat. Not a mention of his call for a truce or a withdraw from Iraq. And they keep reporting that intelligence experts are analyzing his newest messages for a secret message embedded in there. Amazing how they can do this, while missing the actual message... If anyone had read the full text of his message right before the election instead of just freaking out like headless chickens, they may have come to the conclusion that they should pick Kerry instead of Bush. But few did. On 1/20/06, Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The voting system itself makes some strange assumptions. There's noprovision for a dissenting vote for instance. The idea is that mostpeople will want to vote for someone, and the only other choice isnot to vote, not Yea's or Nay's, just Yea's or silence. And when indeed most people don't vote, like most times these days, it'sdismissed as apathy - natural-born apathy too, because that's theway we humans just are, selfish and apathetic. (I had a nice time trashing that last bit here more than once.) Those who say it's justapathy, including the politicians, shouldn't therefore have anyobjection to revising the rules so that voters could actively voteeither for or against a candidate. It shouldn't make any difference, right? I'm sure no politician would object to being put to the testthat way, after all that's what elections are for, putting candidatesto the test. Or maybe there'd be record high turn-outs and we'd getto see if anybody had a mandate at all, including the entire system. One more thing, I don't think Osama bin Laden is a liar. I can'tthink of any instance of his lying, nor of his breaking his word orbetraying anybody, he thinks the Prophet wouldn't like that and norwould Allah. He says so: We are a nation that Allah banned from lying and stabbing others in the back... He's certainly taking aleap of faith with his conclusion though: ... hence both parties ofthe truce will enjoy stability and security to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan, which were destroyed by war. Why would he trust the USto keep its word? But he says he's willing to try. Can you believehim? He says he can't lie and invokes Allah, I wonder how much of hissupport would survive if he was shown to have lied. Bin Laden is a very smart man. Kerry said Bin Laden's threat to theUS and his attack on Bush four days before the election had cost himthe vote. Quite a lot of other people thought that was just what Bin Laden had intended.According to Rivera, Kerry replied:It was that Osama tape - it scared them [the American people].Kerry told the Fox host that the terror master's October surprise came too late - just four days before the vote - for him to counter.Senator Kerry clearly believes not only is it the security issuethat cost him the election, but very specifically the Osama tapes coming out in the 11th hour, Rivera reported Friday.http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/11/21/212238.shtmlHe's a chess player, not a liar. He hasn't made a wrong move yet, you keep falling right into his hands. Why don't you listen to what theguy's saying for a change? He's said all along the problem is USforeign policy, he's completely consistent about it. Just abouteverybody else says so too, and they're right. http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-07-18-forum-new_x.htmUSATODAY.com -Posted 7/18/2004 9:41 PM QA with 'Anonymous'What if the United States has the important questions about Osama binLaden wrong? Why he's fighting the West, why he's trying to undermineArab rulers, why he's embraced by millions of Muslims. That's exactly what has happened, argues a CIA terrorism expert who, at theinsistence of the agency, writes under the name Anonymous. And thatmistake dooms the U.S. to endless wars, says the 23-year intelligence veteran, who directed research into bin Laden from 1996 to 1999, inhis most recent book, Imperial Hubris.http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0702-04.htm Published on Friday, July 2, 2004 by the Los Angeles TimesSeeing Islam Through a Lens of US HubrisOur National Mind-set may be Leading us Toward Defeat, a CIA Expert Saysby AnonymousYou can't trust terrorists!!! Right, and that's what they say about the US, with at least as much reason. Demonising Bin Laden surehasn't helped a lot, other than helping Bin Laden. And Bush.Aljazeera said the tape appeared to be aimed at the Americanpublic, ie not at Washington, so it's a propaganda effort,
Re: [Biofuel] Bin Laden citing US polls about withdrawing from Iraq
There are two parts of this thread that are very interesting and relevant as a Canadian. The first is this issue about the interaction between Muslim immigrants and the culture and government in the land they have immigrated to. I say this because the topic of Sharia law is one that has been in the news recently in Canada and I don't believe the debate is quite finished yet. We shall see what the fallout (no pun) of this will be. Here is a primer on the subject: http://www.youmeworks.com/sharia_canada.html Australia has spoken on the issue (below) quite differently than the way the subject is being handled in Canada. This is no surprise considering the element of national pride many Canadians associate with our ostensible leading role in multiculturalism. Not that it actually works that way in reality. I haven't confirmed this but I've been told that Toronto has the largest Chinatown in North America for instance, and I can forget that I am in my own country when I visit the Pacific Mall in Scarborough, which is very cool, but also speaks volumes on the subject of cultural integration. What integration? Sharia law is the bridge between church and state which many like to think should be kept separate and fundamentalist Muslims think the opposite. Interesting how that ties in with this thread that has gotten on to the democratic process which is the second part of the discussion which is interesting due to the timing. We are quickly approaching a federal election here in Canada since the liberals were kicked out in a vote of non confidence just before Christmas. The discussion about party dynamics, and three parties in the US boiling down essentially to a two party situation. I find this interesting in comparison to what is currently happening here. We have roughly four parties (plus the green party is struggling to convince the news networks that they should be invitied to the debates on the TV but being stonewalled) which equates to two parties. It is always amusing if one pays attention to the polls to see how the tides turn and shift as people react to the popularity race and vacillate between voting their conscience and voting strategically. Throw a huge financial scandal and nationalistic trepidations revolving around one of the provinces into the mix (one of the big four represents separatist interests there) and you get a scene which is anyone's guess despite what the pollsters say. Just to make it more juicy take all the above and throw in the fact that the country spans five time zones and how the western vote reacts to the tally coming in from the east as the day progresses and you end up with an election night more entertaining than a circus act! I wish there were no polls and that the results were not updated on the TV in realtime. I wish that people could just vote their conscience and we could find out the next day what happened. So much for wishes Joe Michael Redler wrote: Holy crap! I had no Idea Joe! You have my attention. I'll be scanning the web and waiting to see what happens. Keep us posted if you learn anything more. Australia doesn't get the whole worldwide criminal network thing either. I think I see something undesirable in my yard. Excuse me while I throw it in my neighbors yard. Mike Joe Street [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You may be right about another attack Mike; But will it occurr in North America or in Australia?? I just read that Australia is acting tough towards Muslims of fundamentalist nature. This was forwarded to me without citing reference to the source by a friend. CANBERRA.Australia : Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia, as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks. A day after a group of mainstream Muslim leaders pledged loyalty to Australia at a special meeting with Prime Minister John Howard, he and his ministers made it clear that extremists would face a crackdown. Treasurer Peter Costello hinted that some radical clerics could be asked to leave the country if they did not accept that Australia was a secular state and its laws were made by parliament. "If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you," he said on national television. "I'd be saying to clerics who are teaching that there are two laws governing people in Australia, one the Australian law and another the Islamic law, that this is false. If you can't agree with parliamentary law, independent courts, democracy! , and would prefer Sharia law, and have the opportunity to go to another country which practices it, perhaps, then, that's a better option," Costello said. Asked whether he meant radical clerics would be forced to leave, he said those with dual citizenship could possibly be asked move to the other country. Education Minister Brendan Nelson later told reporters
Re: [Biofuel] Bin Laden citing US polls about withdrawing from Iraq
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11615.htm Full Text of Bin Laden Tape By The Associated Press 01/19/06 ICH -- -- The following is the full text of a new audiotape from al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden. Parts of the tape were aired on Al-Jazeera television, which published the entire version on its Web site. The text was translated from the Arabic by The Associated Press. Bin Laden appears to be addressing the American people: My message to you is about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and how to end them. I did not intend to speak to you about this because this issue has already been decided. Only metal breaks metal, and our situation, thank God, is only getting better and better, while your situation is the opposite of that. But I plan to speak about the repeated errors your President Bush has committed in comments on the results of your polls that show an overwhelming majority of you want the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. But he (Bush) has opposed this wish and said that withdrawing troops sends the wrong message to opponents, that it is better to fight them (bin Laden's followers) on their land than their fighting us (Americans) on our land. I can reply to these errors by saying that war in Iraq is raging with no let-up, and operations in Afghanistan are escalating in our favor, thank God, and Pentagon figures show the number of your dead and wounded is increasing not to mention the massive material losses, the destruction of the soldiers' morale there and the rise in cases of suicide among them. So you can imagine the state of psychological breakdown that afflicts a soldier as he gathers the remains of his colleagues after they stepped on land mines that tore them apart. After this situation the soldier is caught between two hard options. He either refuses to leave his military camp on patrols and is therefore dogged by ruthless punishments enacted by the Vietnam Butcher (U.S. army) or he gets destroyed by the mines. This puts him under psychological pressure, fear and humiliation while his nation is ignorant of that (what is going on). The soldier has no solution except to commit suicide. That is a strong message to you, written by his soul, blood and pain, to save what can be saved from this hell. The solution is in your hands if you care about them (the soldiers). The news of our brother mujahideen (holy warriors) is different from what the Pentagon publishes. They (the news of mujahideen) and what the media report is the truth of what is happening on the ground. And what deepens the doubt over the White House's information is the fact that it targets the media reporting the truth from the ground. And it has appeared lately, supported by documents, that the butcher of freedom in the world (Bush) had decided to bomb the headquarters of the Al-Jazeera in Qatar after bombing its offices in Kabul and Baghdad. On another issue, jihad (holy war) is ongoing, thank God, despite all the oppressive measures adopted by the U.S Army and its agents (which is) to a point where there is no difference between this criminality and Saddam's criminality, as it has reached the degree of raping women and taking them as hostages instead of their husbands. As for torturing men, they have used burning chemical acids and drills on their joints. And when they give up on (interrogating) them, they sometimes use the drills on their heads until they die. Read, if you will, the reports of the horrors in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo prisons. And I say that, despite all the barbaric methods, they have not broken the fierceness of the resistance. The mujahideen, thank God, are increasing in number and strength - so much so that reports point to the ultimate failure and defeat of the unlucky quartet of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. Declaring this defeat is just a matter of time, depending partly on how much the American people know of the size of this tragedy. The sensible people realize that Bush does not have a plan to make his alleged victory in Iraq come true. And if you compare the small number of dead on the day that Bush announced the end of major operations in that fake, ridiculous show aboard the aircraft carrier with the tenfold number of dead and wounded who were killed in the smaller operations, you would know the truth of what I say. This is that Bush and his administration do not have the will or the ability to get out of Iraq for their own private, suspect reasons. And so to return to the issue, I say that results of polls please those who are sensible, and Bush's opposition to them is a mistake. The reality shows that the war against America and its allies has not been limited to Iraq as he (Bush) claims. Iraq has become a point of attraction and restorer of (our) energies. At the same time, the mujahideen (holy warriors), with God's grace, have managed repeatedly to penetrate all security measures adopted by
Re: [Biofuel] Bin Laden citing US polls about withdrawing from Iraq
Joe,I went to the link.One sentence stood out among the others:"The province of Ontario has authorized the use of sharia law in civil arbitrations, if both parties consent."That's pretty scary stuff. I reminds me oftowns in the US trying to push religion inscience class (i.e. creative design).Mike Joe Street jstreet@ecemail.uwaterloo.ca wrote: There are two parts of this thread that are very interesting and relevant as a Canadian. The first is this issue about the interaction between Muslim immigrants and the culture and government in the land they have immigrated to. I say this because the topic of Sharia law is one that has been in the news recently in Canada and I don't believe the debate is quite finished yet. We shall see what the fallout (no pun) of this will be. Here is a primer on the subject:http://www.youmeworks.com/sharia_canada.htmlAustralia has spoken on the issue (below) quite differently than the way the subject is being handled in Canada. This is no surprise considering the element of national pride many Canadians associate with our ostensible leading role in multiculturalism. Not that it actually works that way in reality. I haven't confirmed this but I've been told that Toronto has the largest Chinatown in North America for instance, and I can forget that I am in my own country when I visit the Pacific Mall in Scarborough, which is very cool, but also speaks volumes on the subject of cultural integration. What integration? Sharia law is the bridge between church and state which many like to think should be kept separate and fundamentalist Muslims think the opposite. Interesting how that ties in with this thread that has gotten on to the democratic process which is the second part of the discussion which is interesting due to the timing. We are quickly approaching a federal election here in Canada since the liberals were kicked out in a vote of non confidence just before Christmas. The discussion about party dynamics, and three parties in the US boiling down essentially to a two party situation. I find this interesting in comparison to what is currently happening here. We have roughly four parties (plus the green party is struggling to convince the news networks that they should be invitied to the debates on the TV but being stonewalled) which equates to two parties. It is always amusing if one pays attention to the polls to see how the tides turn and shift as people react to the popularity race and vacillate between voting their conscience and voting strategically. Throw a huge financial scandal and nationalistic trepidations revolving around one of the provinces into the mix (one of the big four represents separatist interests there) and you get a scene which is anyone's guess despite what the pollsters say. Just to make it more juicy take all the above and throw in the fact that the country spans five time zones and how the western vote reacts to the tally coming in from the east as the day progresses and you end up with an election night more entertaining than a circus act! I wish there were no polls and that the results were not updated on the TV in realtime. I wish that people could just vote their conscience and we could find out the next day what happened. So much for wishesJoeMichael Redler wrote:Holy crap! I had no Idea Joe! You have my attention. I'll be scanning the web and waiting to see what happens.Keep us posted if you learn anything more.Australia doesn't get the whole worldwide criminal network thing either. I think I see something undesirable in my yard. Excuse me while I throw it in my neighbors yard.Mike Joe Street [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You may be right about another attack Mike;But will it occurr in North America or in Australia?? I just read that Australia is acting tough towards Muslims of fundamentalist nature. This was forwarded to me without citing reference to the source by a friend.[snip]___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Bin Laden citing US polls about withdrawing from Iraq
On 1/20/06, Michael Redler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One sentence stood out among the others: The province of Ontario has authorized the use of sharia law in civil arbitrations, if both parties consent. That's pretty scary stuff. I reminds me of towns in the US trying to push religion in science class (i.e. creative design). That was Dover, PA. It recently got shot down and the school board was overthrown in the recent election. Dover is close enough to home that I was pretty interested in how that all turned out. Take care, ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Bin Laden citing US polls about withdrawing from Iraq
Michael Redler wrote: I went to the link. One sentence stood out among the others: The province of Ontario has authorized the use of sharia law in civil arbitrations, if both parties consent. That's pretty scary stuff. I reminds me of towns in the US trying to push religion in science class (i.e. creative design). Canadians seem WAY less worried about mingling church and state than we Americans. When I first moved up here, I was APALLED to learn that private, parochial schools were accepting money from the provincial government. Canadians would look at me askance and respond: But we're paying taxes. Why SHOULDN'T our money go into private schools? Public schools were run by the Catholic Church in Newfoundland and Labrador for many years, and the world did not end. robert luis rabello The Edge of Justice Adventure for Your Mind http://www.newadventure.ca Ranger Supercharger Project Page http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Bin Laden citing US polls about withdrawing from Iraq
"Public schools were run by the Catholic Church in Newfoundland and Labrador for many years, and the world did not end."The Catholic church is one of the least tolerant of organized religions. I should know. While planning my wedding, my fiance's priest told methat I (having been baptized and confirmed in a protestant church) have to go through a nine month process with a tribunal where I'm required to undergo a psychological evaluation because I'm divorced (and not Catholic).The tribunal is composed mainly of priests -priests who feel they are an authority on morality,marriage, where and when to have sexual relations,whether or not you are competent to have a family and the status ofone's mental health. How can I be more explicit except to say, who the f**k are they to guide me, my family or my children through a life filled with their rules. It's too bad that the leaders of the churches I visited are often not a reflection of their more benevolent parishes.So,excuse me if I strongly appose any opinion which is apologetic toward incorporating church and State. I'm havingNONE of it!Mikerobert luis rabello [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Michael Redler wrote: I went to the link. One sentence stood out among the others: "The province of Ontario has authorized the use of sharia law in civil arbitrations, if both parties consent." That's pretty scary stuff. I reminds me of towns in the US trying to push religion in science class (i.e. creative design). Canadians seem WAY less worried about mingling church and state than we Americans. When I first moved up here, I was APALLED to learn that private, parochial schools were accepting money from the provincial government. Canadians would look at me askance and respond: "But we're paying taxes. Why SHOULDN'T our money go into private schools?"Public schools were run by the Catholic Church in Newfoundland and Labrador for many years, and the world did not end.robert luis rabello"The Edge of Justice"Adventure for Your Mindhttp://www.newadventure.caRanger Supercharger Project Pagehttp://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Bin Laden citing US polls about withdrawing from Iraq
Considering that the administration has only given lip service to protect us from a situation for which they are partially responsible, another attack hasn't occurred(IMO) because they don't want it to occur - yet.I believesome predictions that an attack will occur at a time and place of their choosing. I also believe that any appeal made by radicalMuslim organizationshave two mutually exclusive objectives in an attempt to influence the "infidels":** Theywant theirappeal to be ignored so thatthe aftermath of an attack willinclude (more) resentment toward the federalgovernment.** They want "the infidels" to believe the appeal and feel safe by expressing an interest in dialog whichmight present additional opportunitiesfor attack.Bin Laden has absolutely nothing to loose by making such an appeal.Ihave beenstrongly against nearly all of the federal government's foreign policy decisions over the past...well...for a really long time. However, that doesn't make me any less aware ofIslam's turn to launch a "crusade/inquisition/jihad" and the radicals' ambition to kill every man, woman and child outsideof their religion (according to their interpretation of Islam).Let's hope that the radical Muslims are not as successful as their Christian counterparts were (and from which we are still influenced) and that the cycle of "holy wars" comes to an end.Religious wars have haunting similarities:"A statue in a Spanish cathedral showing St James slicing the heads off Moorish invaders..."http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3680331.stm Mike Zeke Yewdall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is bizzare -- at least if you pay too much attention to USgovernment media."It was not my intention to talk to you about this, because those warsare definitely going our way. But what triggered my desire to talk toyou is the continuous deliberate misinformation given by yourPresident [George] Bush, when it comes to polls made in your homecountry which reveal that the majority of your people are willing towithdraw US forces from Iraq. We know that the majority of your peoplewant this war to end and opinion polls show the Americans don't wantto fight the Muslims on Muslim land, nor do they want Muslims to fightthem on their (US) land."http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/593298A0-3C1A-4EB4-B29D-EA1A9678D922.htmThursday 19 January 2006, 18:39 Makka Time, 15:39 GMTBin Laden had not been heard from since December 2004In an audio tape broadcast on Aljazeera, Osama bin Laden has warnedthat al-Qaida was preparing an attack very soon, but also offeredAmericans a "long-term truce"."The new operations of al-Qaida has not happened not because we couldnot penetrate the security measures. It is being prepared and you'llsee it in your homeland very soon," the voice attributed to bin Ladensaid, apparently addressing Americans.But the voice on the tape, which appeared to be aimed at the Americanpublic, also offered a truce: "We do not mind establishing a long-termtruce between us and you."The tape, broadcast on Thursday but dated to December last year, comesafter a year of silence from the al-Qaida leader."This message is about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and how to endthose wars," it began."It was not my intention to talk to you about this, because those warsare definitely going our way."But what triggered my desire to talk to you is the continuousdeliberate misinformation given by your President [George] Bush, whenit comes to polls made in your home country which reveal that themajority of your people are willing to withdraw US forces from Iraq.Americans want peace"We know that the majority of your people want this war to end andopinion polls show the Americans don't want to fight the Muslims onMuslim land, nor do they want Muslims to fight them on their (US)land."The new operations of al-Qaida has not happened not because we couldnot penetrate the security measures. It is being prepared and you'llsee it in your homeland very soon"Osama bin Laden"But Bush does not want this and claims that it's better to fight hisenemies on their land rather than on American land."Bush tried to ignore the polls that demanded that he end the war in Iraq."We are getting increasingly stronger while your situation is gettingfrom bad to worse," he told the US, referring to poor US troop moraleand the huge economic losses inflicted by the war."The war in Iraq is raging and the operations in Afghanistan are increasing."Truce offer"In response to the substance of the polls in the US, which indicatethat Americans do not want to fight Muslims on Muslim land, nor dothey want Muslims to fight them on their land, we do not mind offeringa long-term truce based on just conditions that we will stick to."We are a nation that Allah banned from lying and stabbing others inthe back, hence both parties of the truce will enjoy stability andsecurity to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan, which were destroyed by war."In response to the substance of the
Re: [Biofuel] Bin Laden citing US polls about withdrawing from Iraq
You may be right about another attack Mike; But will it occurr in North America or in Australia?? I just read that Australia is acting tough towards Muslims of fundamentalist nature. This was forwarded to me without citing reference to the source by a friend. CANBERRA.Australia : Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia, as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks. A day after a group of mainstream Muslim leaders pledged loyalty to Australia at a special meeting with Prime Minister John Howard, he and his ministers made it clear that extremists would face a crackdown. Treasurer Peter Costello hinted that some radical clerics could be asked to leave the country if they did not accept that Australia was a secular state and its laws were made by parliament. "If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you," he said on national television. "I'd be saying to clerics who are teaching that there are two laws governing people in Australia, one the Australian law and another the Islamic law, that this is false. If you can't agree with parliamentary law, independent courts, democracy! , and would prefer Sharia law, and have the opportunity to go to another country which practices it, perhaps, then, that's a better option," Costello said. Asked whether he meant radical clerics would be forced to leave, he said those with dual citizenship could possibly be asked move to the other country. Education Minister Brendan Nelson later told reporters that Muslims who did not want to accept local values should "clear off". "Basically, people who don't want to be Australians, and they don't want to live by Australian values and understand them, well then they can basically clear off," he said. Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spies monitoring the nation's mosques. Joe Michael Redler wrote: Considering that the administration has only given lip service to protect us from a situation for which they are partially responsible, another attack hasn't occurred(IMO) because they don't want it to occur - yet. I believesome predictions that an attack will occur at a time and place of their choosing. I also believe that any appeal made by radicalMuslim organizationshave two mutually exclusive objectives in an attempt to influence the "infidels": ** Theywant theirappeal to be ignored so thatthe aftermath of an attack willinclude (more) resentment toward the federalgovernment. ** They want "the infidels" to believe the appeal and feel safe by expressing an interest in dialog whichmight present additional opportunitiesfor attack. Bin Laden has absolutely nothing to loose by making such an appeal. Ihave beenstrongly against nearly all of the federal government's foreign policy decisions over the past...well...for a really long time. However, that doesn't make me any less aware ofIslam's turn to launch a "crusade/inquisition/jihad" and the radicals' ambition to kill every man, woman and child outsideof their religion (according to their interpretation of Islam). Let's hope that the radical Muslims are not as successful as their Christian counterparts were (and from which we are still influenced) and that the cycle of "holy wars" comes to an end. Religious wars have haunting similarities: "A statue in a Spanish cathedral showing St James slicing the heads off Moorish invaders..." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3680331.stm Mike Zeke Yewdall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is bizzare -- at least if you pay too much attention to US government media. "It was not my intention to talk to you about this, because those wars are definitely going our way. But what triggered my desire to talk to you is the continuous deliberate misinformation given by your President [George] Bush, when it comes to polls made in your home country which reveal that the majority of your people are willing to withdraw US forces from Iraq. We know that the majority of your people want this war to end and opinion polls show the Americans don't want to fight the Muslims on Muslim land, nor do they want Muslims to fight them on their (US) land." http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/593298A0-3C1A-4EB4-B29D-EA1A9678D922.htm Thursday 19 January 2006, 18:39 Makka Time, 15:39 GMT Bin Laden had not been heard from since December 2004 In an audio tape broadcast on Aljazeera, Osama bin Laden has warned that al-Qaida was preparing an attack very soon, but also offered Americans a "long-term truce". "The new operations of al-Qaida has not happened not because we could not penetrate the security measures. It is being prepared and you'll see it in your homeland very soon," the voice attributed to bin Laden said, apparently addressing Americans.
Re: [Biofuel] Bin Laden citing US polls about withdrawing from Iraq
So, what might happen if the US did take Bin Laden up on his truce offer and withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan.1) We'd be seen by the terrorists as giving up, which would just give them more hope. Well, they don't seem too discouraged or hopeless right now. 2) The victory could be used to recruit more terrorists.But it's always easier to recruit people to resist an invader, than to invade somewhere else. Even non-radical muslims can be convinced to fight a local invader (especially if they just accidentially blew up your wife and kids), but it takes someone pretty dedicated to travel all the way round the world to kill someone who isn't doing anything against you. 3) Bin Laden wouldn't hold up his end of the bargain, and would attack us here in the US. I'd like to believe that we really pulled out of interfering in ALL the Muslim countries' affairs, he wouldn't attack the US again (Bin Laden probably understands 11 below). But for those who would say Of course he'll attack us after promising not to. It doesn't sound like he's ruled out an attack on American soil right now, so how would we be any worse off? At least we wouldn't be so distracted overseas and could focus on protecting ourselves here better. 4) Iraq and Afghanistan would become havens for terrorists. They aren't already?5) We'd be abandoning the Iraqi people.There are widely varying opinions among knowledgeable people whether the average Iraqi would be better or worse off if we completely and immediately withdrew. We did some good by geting rid of Saddam (after supporting him for so many years), but we also made an awful mess there, and should accept responsibility for it. But it is also pretty clear that continuing to occupy the country like we now are is not helping. 6) The US would loose our international credibility.Uh.. we already have.7) We'd be betraying our soldiers who have already died in Iraq and AfghanistanThey were betrayed the minute we got into this war without a plan for victory. Killing more of them isn't going to make it better. Now for some fairly good arguments (at least what I think are the real ones) why we can't withdraw8) We'd loose control of the middle eastern and southwestern asian oil supplies (I'm sure Bin Laden would include getting out of Saudi Arabia and Iran's affairs as well as Iraq and Afghanistan) 9) We'd impede a billion dollar industry of building war machines. Halliburton, Lockheed Martin, Martin Marietta, etc. These companies are now in control of our government.10) The republicans would completely lose credibilty in US politics if they supported a withdrawal. 11) if we withdrew, then there was a domestic terrorist attack (from Bin Laden, or staged by internal political interests), the Bush administration could say I told you so, and launch even bigger more ill thought out wars -- likely with nuclear weapons. The democrats would complete lose credibility in US politics if they had supported the withdrawal. 12) If 10 and/or 11, then our two party democracy is in danger of becoming a real democracy, which everyone (with money) knows is a bad thing.On 1/19/06, Michael Redler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Considering that the administration has only given lip service to protect us from a situation for which they are partially responsible, another attack hasn't occurred(IMO) because they don't want it to occur - yet. I believesome predictions that an attack will occur at a time and place of their choosing. I also believe that any appeal made by radicalMuslim organizationshave two mutually exclusive objectives in an attempt to influence the infidels: ** Theywant theirappeal to be ignored so thatthe aftermath of an attack willinclude (more) resentment toward the federalgovernment.** They want the infidels to believe the appeal and feel safe by expressing an interest in dialog whichmight present additional opportunitiesfor attack. Bin Laden has absolutely nothing to loose by making such an appeal.Ihave beenstrongly against nearly all of the federal government's foreign policy decisions over the past...well...for a really long time. However, that doesn't make me any less aware ofIslam's turn to launch a crusade/inquisition/jihad and the radicals' ambition to kill every man, woman and child outsideof their religion (according to their interpretation of Islam). Let's hope that the radical Muslims are not as successful as their Christian counterparts were (and from which we are still influenced) and that the cycle of holy wars comes to an end. Religious wars have haunting similarities:A statue in a Spanish cathedral showing St James slicing the heads off Moorish invaders... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3680331.stm Mike Zeke Yewdall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is bizzare -- at least if you pay too much attention to US government media.It was not my intention to talk to you about this, because those warsare definitely going our way. But what triggered my desire to
Re: [Biofuel] Bin Laden citing US polls about withdrawing from Iraq
Holy crap! I had no Idea Joe! You have my attention. I'll be scanning the web and waiting to see what happens.Keep us posted if you learn anything more.Australia doesn't get the whole worldwide criminal network thing either. I think I see something undesirable in my yard. Excuse me while I throw it in my neighbors yard.Mike Joe Street [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You may be right about another attack Mike;But will it occurr in North America or in Australia?? I just read that Australia is acting tough towards Muslims of fundamentalist nature. This was forwarded to me without citing reference to the source by a friend.CANBERRA.Australia : Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia, as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks. A day after a group of mainstream Muslim leaders pledged loyalty to Australia at a special meeting with Prime Minister John Howard, he and his ministers made it clear that extremists would face a crackdown. Treasurer Peter Costello hinted that some radical clerics could be asked to leave the country if they did not accept that Australia was a secular state and its laws were made by parliament. "If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you," he said on national television. "I'd be saying to clerics who are teaching that there are two laws governing people in Australia, one the Australian law and another the Islamic law, that this is false. If you can't agree with parliamentary law, independent courts, democracy! , and would prefer Sharia law, and have the opportunity to go to another country which practices it, perhaps, then, that's a better option," Costello said. Asked whether he meant radical clerics would be forced to leave, he said those with dual citizenship could possibly be asked move to the other country. Education Minister Brendan Nelson later told reporters that Muslims who did not want to accept local values should "clear off". "Basically, people who don't want to be Australians, and they don't want to live by Australian values and understand them, well then they can basically clear off," he said. Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spies monitoring the nation's mosques.Joe___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Bin Laden citing US polls about withdrawing from Iraq
You make some good points Zeke. Some of them came from a completely different direction than I was thinking (a good thing). My mind set in terms of the war in Iraq hasn't changed since the invasion. We never had a good reason for being there and I think most of usin this forum agree.I still feel that if it weren't for the ulterior motives of the White House (and friends), the terrorist networks would be seen for what they are - an international, organized criminal entity which should be treated with the same intelligence as any other criminal entity. If invading a country for the purpose of fighting organized crime was a successful strategy, Sicily would have been bombed every time Al Capone had a turf war in Chicago.Invading Iraq, a country with almost no relevance in terms of fighting Muslim extremists,is akin to beating atree limb with a large stick in order to killahornets nest, four feet awaywhere it is hanging.Our government employedthe wrong strategy in the wrong location.Of course, we seem toagree on that too.Thanks again ZekeMikeZeke Yewdall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, what might happen if the US did take Bin Laden up on his truce offer and withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan.1) We'd be seen by the terrorists as giving up, which would just give them more hope. Well, they don't seem too discouraged or hopeless right now. 2) The "victory" could be used to recruit more terrorists.But it's always easier to recruit people to resist an invader, than to invade somewhere else. Even non-radical muslims can be convinced to fight a local invader (especially if they just accidentially blew up your wife and kids), but it takes someone pretty dedicated to travel all the way round the world to kill someone who isn't doing anything against you. 3) Bin Laden wouldn't hold up his end of the bargain, and would attack us here in the US.I'd like to believe that we really pulled out of interfering in ALL the Muslim countries' affairs, he wouldn't attack the US again (Bin Laden probably understands 11 below). But for those who would say "Of course he'll attack us after promising not to". It doesn't sound like he's ruled out an attack on American soil right now, so how would we be any worse off? At least we wouldn't be so distracted overseas and could focus on protecting ourselves here better. 4) Iraq and Afghanistan would become havens for terrorists. They aren't already?5) We'd be abandoning the Iraqi people.There are widely varying opinions among knowledgeable people whether the average Iraqi would be better or worse off if we completely and immediately withdrew. We did some good by geting rid of Saddam (after supporting him for so many years), but we also made an awful mess there, and should accept responsibility for it. But it is also pretty clear that continuing to occupy the country like we now are is not helping. 6) The US would loose our international credibility.Uh.. we already have.7) We'd be betraying our soldiers who have already died in Iraq and AfghanistanThey were betrayed the minute we got into this war without a plan for victory. Killing more of them isn't going to make it better. Now for some fairly "good" arguments (at least what I think are the real ones) why we can't withdraw8) We'd loose control of the middle eastern and southwestern asian oil supplies (I'm sure Bin Laden would include getting out of Saudi Arabia and Iran's affairs as well as Iraq and Afghanistan) 9) We'd impede a billion dollar industry of building war machines. Halliburton, Lockheed Martin, Martin Marietta, etc. These companies are now in control of our government.10) The republicans would completely lose credibilty in US politics if they supported a withdrawal. 11) if we withdrew, then there was a domestic terrorist attack (from Bin Laden, or staged by internal political interests), the Bush administration could say "I told you so", and launch even bigger more ill thought out wars -- likely with nuclear weapons. The democrats would complete lose credibility in US politics if they had supported the withdrawal. 12) If 10 and/or 11, then our two party "democracy" is in danger of becoming a real democracy, which everyone (with money) knows is a bad thing. On 1/19/06, Michael Redler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Considering that the administration has only given lip service to protect us from a situation for which they are partially responsible, another attack hasn't occurred(IMO) because they don't want it to occur - yet.I believesome predictions that an attack will occur at a time and place of their choosing. I also believe that any appeal made by radicalMuslim organizationshave two mutually exclusive objectives in an attempt to influence the "infidels": ** Theywant theirappeal to be ignored so thatthe aftermath of an attack willinclude (more) resentment toward the federalgovernment.** They want "the infidels" to believe the appeal and feel safe by expressing an interest in dialog whichmight
Re: [Biofuel] Bin Laden citing US polls about withdrawing from Iraq
"You either vote for one guy or the other because if you vote for guy C then you are most likely taking votes away from the original guy you would have supported."I don't disagree,assuming there'stwo parties to start with or an original guy to support. The problem with a two party system is thatthe Democrats and Republicans (in our case)get to be buddies after a while and forget who they are supposed to be serving.There is a real, practical function for a third (or fourth) party when the two parties you started with begin serving each other rather thanthe voters. It revives accountability (the threat of losing votes), givesvoters the ability to vote their conscience and allows them notto vote for a candidate they don't believe in whilepreservingones motivation to exercise their rights (instead ofstaying home).You might remember the last election where Naderbrilliantly pointed out the weakness and appropriately called the current two party system a "duopoly".MikePaul Webber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As to your #12, the US will always have just two main parties because it cannot support more than that the way the government is set up. You either vote for one guy or the other because if you vote for guy C then you are most likely taking votes away from the original guy you would have supported. Basically, if you have a democrat and a republican running head to head, and an independant decides to run also, then he will take more votes away from one candidate than the other ( lets say the democrat ) then the other candidate ( the republican ) will win. This is why in the 2000 election people accused the green party of costing Gore the election. Most likely, if Nader had not run, then the people that voted for him would have voted for Gore instead and Gore would have won Florida and the election. So, basically, while it is possible that the republican party and/or democratic party could disappear, after a year or two, two other parties would take the lead and the US would again be a two-party democracy. I personally believe this is one of the largest flaws in our government, but I am not smart enough to come of with a good plan for doing it differently, and I try not to whine too much if I cannot give an alternative. On 1/19/06, Zeke Yewdall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, what might happen if the US did take Bin Laden up on his truce offer and withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan.1) We'd be seen by the terrorists as giving up, which would just give them more hope. Well, they don't seem too discouraged or hopeless right now. 2) The "victory" could be used to recruit more terrorists.But it's always easier to recruit people to resist an invader, than to invade somewhere else. Even non-radical muslims can be convinced to fight a local invader (especially if they just accidentially blew up your wife and kids), but it takes someone pretty dedicated to travel all the way round the world to kill someone who isn't doing anything against you. 3) Bin Laden wouldn't hold up his end of the bargain, and would attack us here in the US.I'd like to believe that we really pulled out of interfering in ALL the Muslim countries' affairs, he wouldn't attack the US again (Bin Laden probably understands 11 below). But for those who would say "Of course he'll attack us after promising not to". It doesn't sound like he's ruled out an attack on American soil right now, so how would we be any worse off? At least we wouldn't be so distracted overseas and could focus on protecting ourselves here better. 4) Iraq and Afghanistan would become havens for terrorists. They aren't already?5) We'd be abandoning the Iraqi people.There are widely varying opinions among knowledgeable people whether the average Iraqi would be better or worse off if we completely and immediately withdrew. We did some good by geting rid of Saddam (after supporting him for so many years), but we also made an awful mess there, and should accept responsibility for it. But it is also pretty clear that continuing to occupy the country like we now are is not helping. 6) The US would loose our international credibility.Uh.. we already have.7) We'd be betraying our soldiers who have already died in Iraq and AfghanistanThey were betrayed the minute we got into this war without a plan for victory. Killing more of them isn't going to make it better. Now for some fairly "good" arguments (at least what I think are the real ones) why we can't withdraw8) We'd loose control of the middle eastern and southwestern asian oil supplies (I'm sure Bin Laden would include getting out of Saudi Arabia and Iran's affairs as well as Iraq and Afghanistan) 9) We'd impede a billion dollar industry of building war machines. Halliburton, Lockheed Martin, Martin Marietta, etc. These companies are now in control of our government.10) The republicans would completely lose credibilty in US politics if they supported a withdrawal. 11) if we withdrew, then there was a domestic terrorist
Re: [Biofuel] Bin Laden citing US polls about withdrawing from Iraq
The voting system itself makes some strange assumptions. There's no provision for a dissenting vote for instance. The idea is that most people will want to vote for someone, and the only other choice is not to vote, not Yea's or Nay's, just Yea's or silence. And when indeed most people don't vote, like most times these days, it's dismissed as apathy - natural-born apathy too, because that's the way we humans just are, selfish and apathetic. (I had a nice time trashing that last bit here more than once.) Those who say it's just apathy, including the politicians, shouldn't therefore have any objection to revising the rules so that voters could actively vote either for or against a candidate. It shouldn't make any difference, right? I'm sure no politician would object to being put to the test that way, after all that's what elections are for, putting candidates to the test. Or maybe there'd be record high turn-outs and we'd get to see if anybody had a mandate at all, including the entire system. One more thing, I don't think Osama bin Laden is a liar. I can't think of any instance of his lying, nor of his breaking his word or betraying anybody, he thinks the Prophet wouldn't like that and nor would Allah. He says so: We are a nation that Allah banned from lying and stabbing others in the back... He's certainly taking a leap of faith with his conclusion though: ... hence both parties of the truce will enjoy stability and security to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan, which were destroyed by war. Why would he trust the US to keep its word? But he says he's willing to try. Can you believe him? He says he can't lie and invokes Allah, I wonder how much of his support would survive if he was shown to have lied. Bin Laden is a very smart man. Kerry said Bin Laden's threat to the US and his attack on Bush four days before the election had cost him the vote. Quite a lot of other people thought that was just what Bin Laden had intended. According to Rivera, Kerry replied: It was that Osama tape - it scared them [the American people]. Kerry told the Fox host that the terror master's October surprise came too late - just four days before the vote - for him to counter. Senator Kerry clearly believes not only is it the security issue that cost him the election, but very specifically the Osama tapes coming out in the 11th hour, Rivera reported Friday. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/11/21/212238.shtml He's a chess player, not a liar. He hasn't made a wrong move yet, you keep falling right into his hands. Why don't you listen to what the guy's saying for a change? He's said all along the problem is US foreign policy, he's completely consistent about it. Just about everybody else says so too, and they're right. http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-07-18-forum-new_x.htm USATODAY.com - Posted 7/18/2004 9:41 PM QA with 'Anonymous' What if the United States has the important questions about Osama bin Laden wrong? Why he's fighting the West, why he's trying to undermine Arab rulers, why he's embraced by millions of Muslims. That's exactly what has happened, argues a CIA terrorism expert who, at the insistence of the agency, writes under the name Anonymous. And that mistake dooms the U.S. to endless wars, says the 23-year intelligence veteran, who directed research into bin Laden from 1996 to 1999, in his most recent book, Imperial Hubris. http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0702-04.htm Published on Friday, July 2, 2004 by the Los Angeles Times Seeing Islam Through a Lens of US Hubris Our National Mind-set may be Leading us Toward Defeat, a CIA Expert Says by Anonymous You can't trust terrorists!!! Right, and that's what they say about the US, with at least as much reason. Demonising Bin Laden sure hasn't helped a lot, other than helping Bin Laden. And Bush. Aljazeera said the tape appeared to be aimed at the American public, ie not at Washington, so it's a propaganda effort, aimed at these people: We know that the majority of your people want this war to end and opinion polls show the Americans don't want to fight the Muslims on Muslim land, nor do they want Muslims to fight them on their (US) land. Of course it will be rejected or dismissed or ignored by Washington, in which case bin Laden scores heavy PR points anyway. But it could be a serious overture nonetheless, I don't think he'd have said so otherwise, propaganda or not. There are more and more calls for negotiations with al-Qaida. Best wishes Keith You either vote for one guy or the other because if you vote for guy C then you are most likely taking votes away from the original guy you would have supported. I don't disagree, assuming there's two parties to start with or an original guy to support. The problem with a two party system is that the Democrats and Republicans (in our case) get to be buddies after a while and forget who they are supposed to be serving. There is a real,
