Re: [Vo]: OFF TOPIC How to deal with terrorism
Jed wrote:- And now they have stopped, thank goodness. I think it is over. That's my point; these things eventually stop. The centuries old troubles stopped because there was recently a power sharing agreement between the British (Northern Ireland) and Southern Ireland governments. The conflict was because the Brits originally colonised by force Northern Ireland. The Sinn Fein (Republican movement, of which the IRA were the armed soldiers/ terrorists, wanted the whole of Ireland back under their control - most of the Northern Irish Protestant majority wanted to stay loyal to Britain. The Protestants were the descendants of the invaders but, as Northern Ireland was their home, they didn't want to give it up. Impasse? The Muslim terrorists are no more evil than the pilot of the Enola Gay was evil. Terrorists are usually created by a large organised force ( in this case the USA) that will not listen or care when people object to what it is doing. If those with the greatest power will not listen, or believe that they have a divine right to ride rough shod over others in the pursuit of their objectives, whether voted on democratically or not, there is NO CHOICE for the abused other than to adopt the tactics of asymmetric threat Until the ordinary American realises that they have encouraged their government to push around and manipulate less powerful countries for the benefit of the USA's extreme and pathological greed AND TELLS THEM TO STOP, there will be no end to it. Philip Winestone wrote:- But some (many) people are envious of this water - without regard to the blood, sweat and tears that it took to create it - and would like to either steal it or spill it on the ground just to satisfy this envy Don't believe this evil piece of propaganda put about by Bush, Cheney et al to fool the simple minded that you have God on your side. In a large proportion of the thinking peoples of the world, the USA is despised for its overbearing, cheap, decadent and greedy culture. YOU TOOK TOO MUCH WATER at the expense of others. That is why you are hated. Nick Palmer
RE: [Vo]: OFF TOPIC How to deal with terrorism
What is disturbing also are the bogus assumptions that pass for thinking about terrorism. Such as: Appeasement: the biggest one of all. Europeans love appeasement. Ignore the terror, pay them off, hope for a better tomorrow. If that doesn't work, so what? If your art and literature is swelled with nihilism - and your baby cribs are collectively empty , remember that life has no meaning, anyway. Slash your military and pontificate to the rest of the world like old men on a porch, watching the world go by. Give Gaza back and things will improve. Retreat from Lebanon and things will get better. Accept blame for terror and accept Muslim victimhood and things will get better. Guess what? The more you do the above, the more effective terror tactics become! Imputing fairness to others: related to the above, what is fair? What was fair to Hitler? More importantly, what is fair to radical Muslims who see it as their God-given right to impose their religious law on you? And that Dhimmi-hood ( you PAY them as cursed infidels) is fair also? It is this fairness that causes European Muslim leaders to tell their flocks that welfare payments are owed to them, because the government is non Islamic and non believers owe them money, thereby. It is this fairness that causes Palestinian leaders to announce that they will target every city in Israel with rockets after Israel withdraws from the West Bank. And finally, the biggest human fallacy in social relations: Never, never, never understand that being positive to a spoiled child makes everything worse, Once the initial capitulation wears off. I'm sorry you're angry Mr. Hitler. If you promise to be good, we'll give you the Sudetenland? All right, all right, if you stop the tantrum , we'll let you have Czechoslovakia, too. Please be good, please, please. Treating these childish nations like adults is long overdue. Set up reasonable negotiations and don't let them weasel out of them. The two state solution In Palestine is a good start. If a Palestinian state ever emerges, it will exist purely because Israel exists. Or has Palestine not been dominated by every Passing empire across thousands of years of history?
RE: [Vo]: OFF TOPIC How to deal with terrorism
Comparing the Japanese to modern suicide warriors brings little satisfaction. Their suicide was in defense of a nation with borders, not some vague fanatical notion Of a Muslim people. Thus, defeat or victory was easy to define. In addition, the suicide spirit was cultivated in wartime Japan, amidst all the isolation that entailed. This is a far cry from wandering thru airports, western colleges, strip bars, and various part time jobs in western businesses. A few officers like Yamamoto had extensive exposure to western lands and culture. His experience therefore made him more realistic - and somewhat pessimistic - about war with the US. He knew they needed a quick victory - something very different from the twisted schemes of Muslim fanatics. Shinto was the religion of a single nation and not something easily exported by missionaries, unlike the aggressive claims of Islam. The recent attempted bombings in London did not manifest a great deal of invested money - plane tickets and peroxide bombs are the weapons of the poor. Pakistan is not an oil power. On the other hand, loss of oil money might dry up some Wahabist schools. I also see some value in the current Shia/Sunni divide coming out in the open. It may be best to keep them divided and killing each other, if rationality cannot otherwise prevail.
RE: [Vo]: OFF TOPIC How to deal with terrorism
Zell, Chris wrote: In addition, the suicide spirit was cultivated in wartime Japan, amidst all the isolation that entailed. This is a far cry from wandering thru airports, western colleges, strip bars, and various part time jobs in western businesses. Of course it is very different. The point is, fanatical, suicidal people came to their senses and stopped the carnage. This kind of craziness does not usually continue indefinitely. A few officers like Yamamoto had extensive exposure to western lands and culture. His experience therefore made him more realistic - and somewhat pessimistic - about war with the US. Very pessimistic. Actually, all Navy officers went on compulsory overseas tours and compared to the average person they were sophisticated and exposed to Western nations, so many of them felt misgivings about the war. The army top brass was more provincial. Unfortunately the army took over the country, and army hotheads tried to assassinate Yamamoto. Shinto was the religion of a single nation and not something easily exported by missionaries, unlike the aggressive claims of Islam. Actually, it was mainly cobbled together in the late 19th century as a mind-control tool to crack down on the people. So was Wahhabism, in the mid-18th century. These things have not been around long, and I doubt they will last. People often imagine that such institutions are ancient and permanent, but that is not the case. It may be best to keep them divided and killing each other, if rationality cannot otherwise prevail. Division and killing are bad for everyone. Misery breeds more misery. The only hope is that these societies will turn to constructive, life-affirming paths. And they probably will! Most societies do, sooner or later. Looking at the sum-total of history, and at present cultures in the world, you seldom find ones that are deeply dysfunctional and mired in self-destructive misery. They self-correct after a while, or self-destruct and go extinct, as described by J. Diamond in Collapse. Naturally there are always criminals, social problems, and disruption. But the notion that we will be locked in an unending culturally-based war with these people for decades or centuries strikes me as profoundly unrealistic, ignorant of history, and far too pessimistic. The only country stuck in that kind of mess is Israel, sad to say. Along the same lines, the notion that we are going to run out of oil and then be plunged into a new dark age of starvation and $20 per gallon gasoline strikes me as ludicrous. No doubt we will run out of oil, and the sooner the better. The result will almost certainly be the rapid development of superior technology and an overall improvement in living standards, reduced pollution, and so on. As I said in chapter 18, this is a sure thing, unless we let idiots like Rifkin and the editor of SciAm stand in the way. See: S. L. Sass, Scarcity, Mother of Invention http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/10/opinion/10sass.html?_r=1oref=slogin Throughout history, shortages of vital resources have driven innovation, and energy has often starred in these technological dramas. The desperate search for new sources of energy and new materials has frequently produced remarkable advances that no one could have imagined when the shortage first became evident. See also S. L. Sass, prof. of materials science and engineering, Cornell, The Substance of Civilization: Materials and Human History From the Stone Age to the Age of Silicon. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: OFF TOPIC How to deal with terrorism
On 8/14/06, Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: No one can win against a foe who is willing to die for their belief . . . True for non-conventional wars. I always drawn back to this article by the late Robin Cook: http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,1523838,00.html written after the London bombings. I find this excerpt amusing: Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally the database, was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west. Terry
Re: [Vo]: OFF TOPIC How to deal with terrorism
Philip Winestone wrote: Good points Ed. As for the lack of parental control (and ultimately the lack of self-control), I think I know what you're getting at; rules in some form are very necessary, despite our dislike of people curtailing our freedom (although the rules, in the case of honour killings (I like to call them ego killings) are decidedly less favourable toward women than men). In our case, the pendulum has swung far too far where permissiveness is concerned... And I'll let it go at that!!! As for the water analogy, that's a whole discussion in itself. Briefly, I'm a great admirer of the Americans (I was born and educated in Scotland and now live in Canada) because they essentially made their own water as a nation; took risks and used their resourcefulness to create the water they now have. But some (many) people are envious of this water - without regard to the blood, sweat and tears that it took to create it - and would like to either steal it or spill it on the ground just to satisfy this envy. Here is where we differ. Although envy is real and can motivate an individual for good or ill, I do not think it can mobilize many people and cause them to die for the idea. The root cause has to be a universal feeling, like pride, fairness, justice or just plane old self defense. Once these trip wires stir up the emotions, the other side naturally finds all kinds of defects in their enemy to justify killing them. We all see examples of great wealth in our countries, but very few people are motivated to attack these people even if they could. On the other hand, if a group attacks us, steals our livelihood, or treats us like dirt, must people would be first in line to kill them. The West has systematically done this to the Moslems nations over many years. For example, we supported the Shaw of Iran even though he was a very unpopular dictator. When he was thrown out by popular revolution, we did everything we could to intervene. We even supported Iraq in the war between Iran and Iraq. We treated the popular will of Iran like dirt. If Mexico had done the same thing to us, there would have been war. I find many people in the West can not believe our actions are not pure and good. When other people object, we believe they must be doing this with bad motives, which justifies our increased control. Of course, things get out of hand, like a bar fight after a few punches are thrown. At this point, being nice will not stop the fight. Only calling the cops will work. But would it not be better to know how to keep a bar fight from getting started in the first place? Most people know how prevent pissing the other guy off. The US government has never learned this because we were always the biggest guy in the bar. Now, the little guys have learned how to gang up and hit us when our back is turned. Being big no longer works. Ed P. At 07:21 PM 8/14/2006 -0600, you wrote: Philip Winestone wrote: Tut Tut Ed... The problem is that you believe everyone thinks rationally and quasi-legally like you do. Most don't. Good point, Philip. Nevertheless, most people, except the insane, are rational if the rules of the game are understood. For example, as you note below, honor killing is very rational if the law is designed to be implemented by the individual rather than by the state. And as for: A sane person does not try to murder his neighbor because he thinks she is a slut. On the other hand, if, for example, the neighbor takes all the water, treats you like dirt, and kills your friends, you might think of murder. You haven't heard of honour killings? More often than not they murder their own offspring for that very reason. So we're talking certain levels of sanity here. Some societies are designed to be self policing. The father has the right to control his children by any means he thinks necessary. If the child can not be controlled or will not follow the rules, he/she can be killed. I don't recommend this approach, but it works better than our system seems to work in some cases. And what if I deserve to be treated like dirt because... well... perhaps I am dirt? Have you never experienced neighbours like that? Some people just can't get their heads around quantum physics, so they resort to... mayhem. And as dirt often associates with dirt... well you get the picture... Agreed, some people are just plain mean and irrational. We use the state (courts or police) to control them. Some societies allow the individual to take action. I have known occasions when I wished this method was used more often here. And the water? Well why does dirt (me, remember?) care so much about water? Water is a analogy for all that makes life possible. If you take my water you make my life impossible and I have nothing to lose by killing you. Ed P. At 03:21 PM 8/14/2006 -0600, you wrote: I don't believe they hate our freedom
Re: [Vo]: OFF TOPIC How to deal with terrorism
Yes - good points. I understand that the US has done some harebrained (dare I say flagrantly dishonest?) things during the past century and this has rubbed people the wrong way. Of course ALL of the Western nations - many of whom were colonialists - did some dubious things. Even the jolly old Brits, who, believe it or not, supported the Arabs in their war of potential annihilation in 1948. And look at the Italians Descendents of the Romans You see, it starts to get silly. The Muslims are still bitching about the Crusades And as for: The West has systematically done this to the Moslems nations over many years. What the West has done to the Muslims is nothing compared to what they have done - or not done - to themselves. And ask the people of India - the Hindus that is - how they were treated by the Moguls during their invasions; 70 million killed, among other dreadful and disgusting things. The history of Islam is one of plunder and death. You don't have to do too much to help yourself by creating things - becoming industrious - if you can assemble a ruthless army and just TAKE whatever you want. This is all verifiable by various history books. Aside from what I wrote above about the Americans (whom I still admire greatly), a bunch of poor refugees landed at Plymouth Sound several years ago and forged, from the ground up, a great, wealthy, risk-taking, generous, industrious nation. With all the untold oil revenues the Arabs have, they have done, in comparison, nothing... except build schools of indoctrination, and buy weapons for terrorists. So I don't think we can really talk in this respect about the West stealing their water... They really didn't have it in the first place. P. At 04:38 PM 8/15/2006 -0600, you wrote: Philip Winestone wrote: Good points Ed. As for the lack of parental control (and ultimately the lack of self-control), I think I know what you're getting at; rules in some form are very necessary, despite our dislike of people curtailing our freedom (although the rules, in the case of honour killings (I like to call them ego killings) are decidedly less favourable toward women than men). In our case, the pendulum has swung far too far where permissiveness is concerned... And I'll let it go at that!!! As for the water analogy, that's a whole discussion in itself. Briefly, I'm a great admirer of the Americans (I was born and educated in Scotland and now live in Canada) because they essentially made their own water as a nation; took risks and used their resourcefulness to create the water they now have. But some (many) people are envious of this water - without regard to the blood, sweat and tears that it took to create it - and would like to either steal it or spill it on the ground just to satisfy this envy. Here is where we differ. Although envy is real and can motivate an individual for good or ill, I do not think it can mobilize many people and cause them to die for the idea. The root cause has to be a universal feeling, like pride, fairness, justice or just plane old self defense. Once these trip wires stir up the emotions, the other side naturally finds all kinds of defects in their enemy to justify killing them. We all see examples of great wealth in our countries, but very few people are motivated to attack these people even if they could. On the other hand, if a group attacks us, steals our livelihood, or treats us like dirt, must people would be first in line to kill them. The West has systematically done this to the Moslems nations over many years. For example, we supported the Shaw of Iran even though he was a very unpopular dictator. When he was thrown out by popular revolution, we did everything we could to intervene. We even supported Iraq in the war between Iran and Iraq. We treated the popular will of Iran like dirt. If Mexico had done the same thing to us, there would have been war. I find many people in the West can not believe our actions are not pure and good. When other people object, we believe they must be doing this with bad motives, which justifies our increased control. Of course, things get out of hand, like a bar fight after a few punches are thrown. At this point, being nice will not stop the fight. Only calling the cops will work. But would it not be better to know how to keep a bar fight from getting started in the first place? Most people know how prevent pissing the other guy off. The US government has never learned this because we were always the biggest guy in the bar. Now, the little guys have learned how to gang up and hit us when our back is turned. Being big no longer works. Ed P. At 07:21 PM 8/14/2006 -0600, you wrote: Philip Winestone wrote: Tut Tut Ed... The problem is that you believe everyone thinks rationally and quasi-legally like you do. Most don't. Good point, Philip. Nevertheless, most people, except the insane, are
Re: [Vo]: OFF TOPIC How to deal with terrorism
- Original Message - From: Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Vo]: OFF TOPIC How to deal with terrorism I think Robin misses a point here: snip IOW the US administration has propped up corrupt puppet governments that ensured an ongoing flow of cheap oil. A policy that the US has imperfectly followed is to deal with the government of a nation and not to intefere with its internal affairs. [Note I said imperfectly, of the US has covertly meddled in the affairs of other nations, but not to the extent that Russia did.] This often leaves us in the position of 'propping up corrupt governments' to get oil, minerals, or banannas [as in 'bananna republics'] What would Robin have us do, foment revolution, establish representative government and forced redistribution of wealth? I think we tried that in Iraq, and it isn't going well for various reasons. Where the wealth of a country comes from a valuable, concentrated resource like oil, copper, or banannas it is possible for a kelptocracy to form as it takes few people to control the operation and support a series of thugs in power, wo do not use the welath for the betterment of all the people. And all the oil nations are not alike, someof the Emirates are investing their welath in the whole populace. The US often winds up supporting the 'bad guys' as seen from the perspective of Austrailia and other nations. Just remember that the finger of greed points in all directions. Mike Carrell
Re: [Vo]: OFF TOPIC How to deal with terrorism
- Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Vo]: OFF TOPIC How to deal with terrorism snip snip . For example, we supported the Shaw of Iran even though he was a very unpopular dictator. When he was thrown out by popular revolution, we did everything we could to intervene. At least one reason the US supported the Shah of Iran is that he allowed the US to establish secret listening posts near the Soviet missile test ranges, where intercepted signals gave clues to the status and caapability of Soviet missiles. It was so easy fot US dimplomats to be cozy with the Shah and his entourage and ignore reports about this obscure Ayatolla. Some US private interests supported early White Russian rebellion against the communists, earning decades of distrust of the west. In the end, the US faced down the communist empire by military challanges it could not match, and it collapsed switftly. Would those no so critical of the US prefer the scenario of the domination of a command economy? And, yes, Soviety power in Afghhanastan had to be opposed, as it seems the Islamic extremists as well. We continue to miscalculate the consequences of our actions -- but somehow US popular culture is well received in many places, if not the 'thinking people' everywhere. Mike Carrell
Re: [Vo]: OFF TOPIC How to deal with terrorism
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Mon, 14 Aug 2006 18:36:28 -0400: Hi, [snip] Put them in charge of a cold fusion desalination megaproject to transform the region they will never again contemplate suicide! Correct! - even just a chance to work on the project in any capacity. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
Re: [Vo]: OFF TOPIC How to deal with terrorism
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Mon, 14 Aug 2006 18:36:28 -0400: Hi, [snip] When you give any group of people a reasonably peaceful, fair, orderly society to live in and they will always do fine. Correct again. The average man on the street just wants a reasonable chance at a future for himself and his family (in all countries). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
Re: [Vo]: OFF TOPIC How to deal with terrorism
In reply to Mike Carrell's message of Tue, 15 Aug 2006 22:08:20 -0400: Hi, [snip] What would Robin have us do, foment revolution, establish representative government and forced redistribution of wealth? No, if the US stops supplying such governments with arms, ammunition, and training for their armed forces, the people themselves have a much better chance of overthrowing their corrupt governments. I think we tried that in Iraq, and it isn't going well for various reasons. No, that is not what your government is trying to do in Iraq, it's just what they tell you they are trying to do, because they know it will sound good to you. You really need to take a look at who is benefiting from this war (hint look up Carlyle Group), and contrast that with who is paying for it. Where the wealth of a country comes from a valuable, concentrated resource like oil, copper, or banannas it is possible for a kelptocracy to form as it takes few people to control the operation and support a series of thugs in power, wo do not use the welath for the betterment of all the people. Indeed, but as I said above, they tend not to do so well when military support is missing. (And BTW I agree that the US is not the only guilty party in this regard - all the major powers have had a hand in it). And all the oil nations are not alike, someof the Emirates are investing their welath in the whole populace. Also true, at the least, in the form of very cheap gasoline. The US often winds up supporting the 'bad guys' as seen from the perspective of Austrailia and other nations. Just remember that the finger of greed points in all directions. Indeed, which is why we need to follow it to find a real solution to the problem. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
RE: [Vo]: OFF TOPIC How to deal with terrorism
I agree that cutting off the flow of oil derived wealth is the likely solution to most of the terror. Many Arab countries might be better off if their oil disappeared and they were forced to develop real, balanced economies that involve manufacturing and trade - like Turkey. If oil wealth were to evaporate, Iran in particular might become a surprizingly liberal democracy, with a secular basis. Supposedly, less than 25% of Iranians see religion as the dominant influence in their life. The best way to kill religion is to enshrine it as the government itself. That's why Americans are still religious and Europeans ( mostly) aren't - the failure of state sponsored religion. Even as I say this about oil wealth and terror, I realize that there is also some frightening evidence to the contrary. The Wall Street Journal published details, some time ago, about Bin Laden directed groups operating on a shoestring, with agents barely living on part time jobs while they plot murder. In addition, Atlantic magazine wrote about interviews with young Muslim men in Europe, who complained that they felt like nothing. It isn't politically correct to talk about this - but I think it should be clear that the ugly contrast of a prosperous and advanced Western world while Muslim countries are often miserable AND Muslims elevating themselves into the Favored of Allah ( with all others being infidels) - creates hate filled fantasies to explain why their culture is so backward. Jews, The Great Satan and infantile conspiracy theories take the place of harsh self analysis and change. You see this sort of sick reasoning everytime Indonesia has a tsunami. Things don't get any better as the 'idol-worshipping' Indians are finding prosperity. I hope that Doha, Qatar and other efforts give Muslims something to take pride In. Otherwise, a lack of oil money may not do the trick.
Re: [Vo]: OFF TOPIC How to deal with terrorism
Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: No one can win against a foe who is willing to die for their belief . . . True for non-conventional wars. Many Japanese people were willing to die for their country in 1945 but the U.S. won with conventional weapons and techniques. (I think the war would have been over soon even without the atomic bomb.) and people are only willing to die when they feel very strong about their belief and see no alternative. The question is, how can the rest of us respond in a way that is more effective and avoid being sucked into the black hole of attack and counter attack? I don't think this approach will work under present conditions. In the process of denying funding, the people will get even more improvised and desperate. Funding can not be cut fast enough to stop the growing desperation. This method worked occasionally in the past but now things have changed. The physical infrastructure and economic stricture on which modern society is based is more fragile. Therefore, small isolated terrorists attacks can have a much bigger effect. Take 911 for example. The lose of life and damage to the economy was relatively small. However, the cost of the response has been huge, including the cost of the war in Iraq. The attempt to down airliners with explosive, even though it failed, will significantly increase the cost of doing business for the airlines, which are already near bankruptcy already. Many examples can be provided to show that the effect of this method of combat is increasing. If the price of gas goes much higher, a worldwide depression might be triggered. This would be a maximum effect that could be caused by a small action. So, we can not continue down the present path. Quite simply, I believe Bush is leading us all into disaster. Ed
RE: [Vo]: OFF TOPIC How to deal with terrorism
Zell, Chris wrote: If oil wealth were to evaporate, Iran in particular might become a surprizingly liberal democracy, with a secular basis. Supposedly, less than 25% of Iranians see religion as the dominant influence in their life. I have heard that. There is also a lot of support for the US in Iran. There appears to be a lot of interest in cold fusion, too! That's a good sign. Even as I say this about oil wealth and terror, I realize that there is also some frightening evidence to the contrary. . . .The Wall Street Journal published details, some time ago, about Bin Laden directed groups operating on a shoestring, with agents barely living on part time jobs while they plot murder. In addition, Atlantic magazine wrote about interviews with young Muslim men in Europe, who complained that they felt like nothing. Sure. The people plotting to blow up aircraft with liquid explosives were born in England. Their money and expertise apparently was coming from Pakistan. Cutting off the money is necessary but not sufficient. But as I said, these things tend to burn themselves out. The fever passes, the society recovers. In the 1960s, the US was plagued by war and riot, which has for the most part subsided. Many young Muslim men of Europe probably have a right to feel oppressed, ignored and angry. For that matter, many young black men in the US felt that way back in 1968, but over time they decided that burning down their own houses was not making things any better, so they stopped. As I see it, Middle Eastern societies have to stop trying to turn back the clock 800 years, and turn it back about a thousand years instead, to get back to their real roots as enlightened men of science. And we Europeans Americans have to get back to *our* roots. We must return to the 1950s ideal of a brighter future, a middle-class life for everyone, technological progress, and education -- not Empire! -- as the source of wealth and power. One of the most despicable things about Dick Cheney is his espousal of the notion that the US should be an empire, lording over other countries. Nothing could be more un-American, or more self-destructive. This super-power garbage makes me sick. As a Russian said just before the fall of the Soviet Union, we just want to live in an ordinary country. Nothing super about it -- just ordinary people going about their business. It will be good when the rest of the world catches up to the U.S. in wealth and military power (or potential military power), and the U.S. stops thinking it is the world's policeman. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: OFF TOPIC How to deal with terrorism
Edmund Storms wrote: I don't think this approach will work under present conditions. In the process of denying funding, the people will get even more improvised and desperate. There are 2 billion people in the world living in desperate conditions on the edge of starvation. They are not attacking us. All of the 9/11 plotters and all leading members of Al Qaeda are educated, middle-class people, or extremely wealthy people. Terrorism is not caused by poor and desperate people. Funding can not be cut fast enough to stop the growing desperation. Of course it could. If the US had launched a massive World War II style effort to fix the problem starting in 2001, oil would be worth practically nothing today. In January 1942 the US government closed down the entire automobile industry, confiscated every last assemble vehicle and spare part, and banned the sale of cars to civilians for the duration of the war (except to doctors and a few others). If we had taken similar bold action in 2001, and ordered the entire automobile industry to begin manufacturing plug-in hybrids only, we would be well on our way to reducing oil consumption by a factor of 10. Ford and General Motors would dominate the international market and would be selling tens of millions of ultra-efficient cars to China and other countries. Oil would be selling for $10 a barrel, and even at that price sales would be dropping. Saddam Hussein, the Saudi and Iranian governments would be bankrupt and probably overthrown by now. All this and more could have been done . . . but nothing was done. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: OFF TOPIC How to deal with terrorism
not all terrorist groups are muslim, and not all muslim groups are oil funded. drugs funds a lot of them as well, and some are funded through other, not oil businesses. On 8/14/06, Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Edmund Storms wrote:No one can win against a foe who is willing to die for their belief . . . True for non-conventional wars. Many Japanese people were willing todie for their country in 1945 but the U.S. won with conventionalweapons and techniques. (I think the war would have been over sooneven without the atomic bomb.) and people are only willing to die when they feel very strong abouttheir belief and see no alternative.The question is, how can therest of us respond in a way that is more effective and avoid being sucked into the black hole of attack and counter attack?I think the only way to win is to hit them in the pocketbook. We haveto take away their source of funding, which is oil money from SaudiArabia and Iran. If cold fusion makes oil worthless, the terror will dry up in a few years. Heck, plug-in hybrid automobiles could do it.Despite all the talk about unconventional and asymmetric war, itstill costs a great deal to run an organization like al-Qaeda, and the fundamental cause of the war is social disruption triggered byoceans of cash flowing through and corrupting these societies. Ifal-Qaeda did not have hundreds of millions of dollars to throw intothese crazy schools and training camps in places like Pakistan, they would soon lose their appeal and people would stop sending theirchildren to be indoctrinated. Muslim families do not do that inIndia, the Philippines or anyplace else they can have a life and getan actual education. The Saudi government sponsors school for diplomat's kids in Maryland,that was described in the Washington Post a few years ago. It soundedto me like a recruiting office for jihad and an effort to turn back the clock 800 years. That kind of thing can never win and never last,but as long as they can pay for it, it will cause disruption,heartache and ruined lives. To the extent they do succeed they hurtthemselves most, and they fast-forward to the day when they will revert to a camel-based economy facing starvation.Of course the Saudi people do not have to do this to themselves,anymore than the flower of Japanese youth had to fly kamikazeairplanes in 1945. The Japanese stopped their blood-mad insanity 61 years ago tomorrow. The Saudis might come to their senses, turnaround beginning today, and embrace modernity, science, rationalityand progress. They might take the lead in cold fusion research andbecome the super-power of the 21st century. Never forget that Moslem society took the place of the Greeks as the leaders in science andenlightenment, and triggered the European Renaissance. Nothinginherent to Muslim culture prevents this from happening again. Theyare enslaved by history, hate and oil money, not religion. (Not that religion does any good as far as I can tell. The leastreligious modern nations, in Western Europe and Japan, are the mostlaw abiding, peaceful, wealthy, best educated, with the lowest infantmortality and so on. I think it would be best if scientific and technological progress extinguished religion altogether, but perhapsthat is too much to hope for. Anyway religion does little harm aslong as you keep it out of public schools, science classes, thelaboratory and the government.) There have been fanatical movements in the past devoted to deathcults and self-annihilation. They did not last long because theself-annihilated. I think the technique is to kill and capture them,drain the funding, and wait for the fever to pass. The British approach last week, of treating this as a problem for the anti-terrorpolice squad, seems right to me. See:http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/13/weekinreview/13sanger.html?ref=weekinreview Does Calling It Jihad Make It So?Quotes:. . . British officials, on the other hand, referred to the men incustody as main players, and declined to discuss either their motives or ideology so that they would not jeopardize criminal proceedings.The difference in these initial public characterizations wasrevealing: The American president summoned up language reaffirming that the United States is locked in a global war in which its enemiesare bound together by a common ideology, and a common hatred ofdemocracy. For the moment, the British carefully stuck to thetoned-down language of law enforcement. - Jed-- That which yields isn't always weak.
Re: [Vo]: OFF TOPIC How to deal with terrorism
Leaking pen wrote: not all terrorist groups are muslim, and not all muslim groups are oil funded. The only terrorists threatening the US and the UK are Muslim. Everything and everyone in the Middle East outside of Israel is funded by oil. They have no other industry or source of income. The whole area of about a dozen nations combined (excluding Israel) has an industrial GNP smaller than Finland. . . . drugs funds a lot of them as well, and some are funded through other, not oil businesses. Drug dealers do not want to disrupt society. In any case, if the oil money is cut off, the Middle Eastern societies which today breed terrorism would be so caught up in their own internal crisis, they would have no energy left to bother us. If they deal with the problem correctly they will soon be as wealthy as Japan was after it recovered from the devastation of World War II. Or, if they choose to continue down the path of nihilism they will soon be a basket case worse than the most desperate nations of sub-Saharan Africa. There are no terrorists coming from Mali or Tanzania. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: OFF TOPIC How to deal with terrorism
Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: I don't think this approach will work under present conditions. In the process of denying funding, the people will get even more improvised and desperate. There are 2 billion people in the world living in desperate conditions on the edge of starvation. They are not attacking us. All of the 9/11 plotters and all leading members of Al Qaeda are educated, middle-class people, or extremely wealthy people. Terrorism is not caused by poor and desperate people. OK, what do you think causes terrorism? Why would an educated person give up their life to blow up an airplane? These people are not insane or without love of life, and the 72 virgins reason is pure propaganda. Of course, starving and ignorant people will not and can not cause much damage, unless as a mob. The effective terrorist acts are well planned and carried out as a military operation. This means the people are smart and view the act as being more important than their own life, just as all solders are taught. Why do you think they would come to this conclusion? If a person is smart and educated, they could normally get a good job and live a happy life. What makes these people so angry they would give this up and want to kill us? I don't believe they hate our freedom and our good life as we are encouraged to believe. I believe we have done and continue to do things any rational person would find upsetting if these same things were done to us. Of course, the situation has now gone beyond just being nice now and expect a change. We have to defend against the poison that has been created, but we can avoid making more in the future. To avoid making more , we need to know what went wrong and not continue to make the same mistake. This requires knowledge on our part, not propaganda and get even response. Funding can not be cut fast enough to stop the growing desperation. Of course it could. If the US had launched a massive World War II style effort to fix the problem starting in 2001, oil would be worth practically nothing today. Yes, and if the government gave everyone 1 million dollars, we would all be rich. But like this silly example, such things will not be done and if they were, other worse consequences would result. Solutions have to involve what can happen and then not produce worse situations. Some people would like us to nuke the whole region as a solution, but it is easy to predict this would result in a very much worse situation. If the administration wanted to solve the problems, a few useful things could be done. For example, tax breaks for the oil industry could be reduced and these applied to other energy sources at a level sufficient to cause rapid change. A tax break could be applied to buying small cars rather than big ones. Bush could lower the tension by talking to the bad guys rather than taking a superior approach. People who have some knowledge about their jobs, rather than party loyalty, could be placed in important positions. However, all of these suggestions will be ignored because this is not the style of our present government. Ed In January 1942 the US government closed down the entire automobile industry, confiscated every last assemble vehicle and spare part, and banned the sale of cars to civilians for the duration of the war (except to doctors and a few others). If we had taken similar bold action in 2001, and ordered the entire automobile industry to begin manufacturing plug-in hybrids only, we would be well on our way to reducing oil consumption by a factor of 10. Ford and General Motors would dominate the international market and would be selling tens of millions of ultra-efficient cars to China and other countries. Oil would be selling for $10 a barrel, and even at that price sales would be dropping. Saddam Hussein, the Saudi and Iranian governments would be bankrupt and probably overthrown by now. All this and more could have been done . . . but nothing was done. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: OFF TOPIC How to deal with terrorism
Edmund Storms wrote: OK, what do you think causes terrorism? Why would an educated person give up their life to blow up an airplane? These people are not insane or without love of life, and the 72 virgins reason is pure propaganda. I believe the pattern of history is clear on this. The French reign of terror, the Russian Revolution, the Nazis, the Japanese militarist of the 1930s and many other terrorist regimes came about when society began to backslide, because of war or depression or some other widespread, severe social problem. Such movements are usually led by educated lower- and middle-class young man felt left out, without hope, or betrayed. Once the movement starts up, poor people may fill its ranks, but people like Lenin, Mao, Stalin and the Japanese officer corps that overthrew democracy in the 1930s were educated. Ambition and skill that is not channeled into socially beneficial work goes into destruction instead. Perhaps it makes things even worse when the fanatics believe in some sort of violent religion, such as the Japanese emperor worship, or communism (which was really a religion in 1917), or today's Muslim extremism. I do not think those 72 virgins are propaganda. I am quite sure most of the Japanese fanatics actually did worship the Emperor. A number of the survivors and right wing grandsons still do worship him. It is creepy and it seems unbelievable to those of us outside the movement, but it is real. The North Koreans also worship Kim Jong Il. Of course, starving and ignorant people will not and can not cause much damage, unless as a mob. With poor people it is always local. If a person is smart and educated, they could normally get a good job and live a happy life. Not when society is collapsing all around them, and access to advancement and wealth are cut off by the ruling class. I have read books describing modern-day Saudi society and the level of corruption and power grabbing makes Japan in the 1930s look civilized. Everything which is not nailed down is stolen by the ~20,000 princes in the Royal family. If you start a company, or open a restaurant in a shopping mall, and you begin to make a profit, some prince soon strolls in off the street, gives you a wad of cash amounting to ten cents on the dollar for your assets, and either you hand over all of your wealth or you are dead. This is what happens when you concentrate vast power and wealth in the hands of despots. What makes these people so angry they would give this up and want to kill us? Actually, we have little to do with it. It is a fight within these countries, which is spilling over to us. Our administrations going back to FDR have contributed by helping these governments crush opposition, and of course we are the ones who hand over billions of dollars, and make SUVs to drive up the cost of oil. I don't believe they hate our freedom and our good life as we are encouraged to believe. They say they do! Have you read bin Laden speeches? You can see what he has to say in books such as, Imperial Hubris. He is the most popular man in the Muslim world and millions of people have named their sons after him and, so I think many people agree with him. I think they are misguided. Millions of Japanese people agreed with the militarists too. No doubt the majority of the country did, even though it was pretty obvious after 1938 that they were dragging the nation into Hell. Of course it could. If the US had launched a massive World War II style effort to fix the problem starting in 2001, oil would be worth practically nothing today. Yes, and if the government gave everyone 1 million dollars, we would all be rich. But like this silly example, such things will not be done and if they were, other worse consequences would result. Such things were done in the past when the nation was in crisis. If FDR or Lincoln were in charge, this and much more would be done now. I mean immediately, within a week. They would impose a five dollar emergency wartime gasoline tax, draft a million men women to fight the war in Afghanistan (which we are losing), and ban the use of SUVs. If this is really a war, as the leaders claim, it is their responsibility to do such things. Wars are never won by half-measures. The nation would follow I am sure. As Lincoln put it: Will not the good people respond to a united, and earnest appeal from us? Can we, can they, by any other means, so certainly, or so speedily, assure these vital objects? We can succeed only by concert. It is not 'can any of us imagine better?' but, 'can we all do better?' The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise -- with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country. Fellow-citizens, we cannot escape history. We of this
Re: [Vo]: OFF TOPIC How to deal with terrorism
al queada, based out of afghanistan, is funded primarily by the manufacture and sale of opium and heroin. middle east countries have many other sources of income besides oil. And hows about the basque terrorists? Hows about the oklahoma city bombing, was that a muslim? didnt think so, and groups like his still exist. there are still anti government riots and terror attacks and plots from many groups that are not muslim. assuming otherwise becuase a single convenient scapegoat makes you FEEL better is foolhardy. On 8/14/06, Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Leaking pen wrote:not all terrorist groups are muslim, and not all muslim groups are oil funded. The only terrorists threatening the US and the UK are Muslim.Everything and everyone in the Middle East outside of Israel isfunded by oil. They have no other industry or source of income. Thewhole area of about a dozen nations combined (excluding Israel) has an industrial GNP smaller than Finland.. . . drugs funds a lot of them as well, and some are funded throughother, not oil businesses.Drug dealers do not want to disrupt society. In any case, if the oil money is cut off, the Middle Easternsocieties which today breed terrorism would be so caught up in theirown internal crisis, they would have no energy left to bother us. Ifthey deal with the problem correctly they will soon be as wealthy as Japan was after it recovered from the devastation of World War II.Or, if they choose to continue down the path of nihilism they willsoon be a basket case worse than the most desperate nations ofsub-Saharan Africa. There are no terrorists coming from Mali or Tanzania. - Jed-- That which yields isn't always weak.
Re: [Vo]: OFF TOPIC How to deal with terrorism
leaking pen wrote: Ohh, and, the main breeding of terrorism is the prescence of other groups within thier countries. namely, us and israeli prescence. if it werent for our bases in iran and turkey, osama bin laden wouldnt have given two pieces of ratshit for us in the usa. That is not what he says. He says the problem is our support for the Saudi government. Plus naturally he plans to nuke Israel, along with us. I suggest you read what he says. He is not keeping his agenda secret any more than Hitler did. As a general rule, when a powerful despotic leader threatens to kill millions of people the way Hitler, Stalin, Mao and now bin Laden did, you want to take him seriously. You should assume he means it. He also seriously expects us to surrender, convert to Islam and begin imposing sharia law on ourselves. The Japanese seriously believed we would surrender in 1942, and negotiate a treaty. You can be 100% sure of that; they never would have attacked otherwise. (They would have attacked Russia instead, which they almost did, but after a debate they decided the U.S. was a softer target which they could knock off in six months.) I realize that sounds crazy from our point of view, but that is what they believed. Of course I agree our presence is not improving things. Even the U.S. generals admit that these days. - Jed
RE: [Vo]: OFF TOPIC How to deal with terrorism
When 9-11 happened, what depressed and horrified me the most was not the actual losses of life and property, although they were bad enough. What horrified me most was hearing that the Muslim men involved might have attended college, gone to strip clubs and consumed alcohol. In short, they had every available benefit or pleasure western society offered - and still dedicated themselves to mass murder and suicide. If we cannot count on these sort of activities civilizing a person - or at least allowing them to release whatever intense emotion dominates them - I'm not sure what hope for humanity remains. What I fear most is the inevitable expansion of technology getting into Muslim hands - I hesitate to say radical Muslims because it still is not clear to me that such radicalism is really radical among large numbers of Muslims. At any rate, while cold fusion may not give us fissionable materials at present, We can't be sure that a simple procedure won't allow that kind of threat in the future, by whatever physics uncovers. We, of the west, have a right to survive as individuals and as a culture. I continue to hope that negotiation and good sense prevail everywhere, especially In the Middle East. Nevertheless, if these countries refuse to reform - and technology of mass destruction falls into the hands of terrorists with their blessings, I would not flinch at their mass annihilation. I am also horrified at the numbers of people who ignore this - and eagerly seize upon schemes of appeasement In the present crisis. Let's all hope for 'free energy' and the peace that it might bring about.
Re: [Vo]: OFF TOPIC How to deal with terrorism
I don't believe they hate our freedom and our good life as we are encouraged to believe. They say they do! Have you read bin Laden speeches? You can see what he has to say in books such as, Imperial Hubris. He is the most popular man in the Muslim world and millions of people have named their sons after him and, so I think many people agree with him. I think they are misguided. Millions of Japanese people agreed with the militarists too. No doubt the majority of the country did, even though it was pretty obvious after 1938 that they were dragging the nation into Hell. I think this conclusion is too simplistic. What they hate are certain behaviors that are permitted by our society and our attitude toward sex. Some Christians in the US have a similar problem with these subjects, although they would not suggest the same solution. However, I don't believe these reasons are the main driving force for the movement. A sane person does not try to murder his neighbor because he thinks she is a slut. On the other hand, if, for example, the neighbor takes all the water, treats you like dirt, and kills your friends, you might think of murder. Ed Of course it could. If the US had launched a massive World War II style effort to fix the problem starting in 2001, oil would be worth practically nothing today. Yes, and if the government gave everyone 1 million dollars, we would all be rich. But like this silly example, such things will not be done and if they were, other worse consequences would result. Such things were done in the past when the nation was in crisis. If FDR or Lincoln were in charge, this and much more would be done now. I mean immediately, within a week. They would impose a five dollar emergency wartime gasoline tax, draft a million men women to fight the war in Afghanistan (which we are losing), and ban the use of SUVs. If this is really a war, as the leaders claim, it is their responsibility to do such things. Wars are never won by half-measures. The nation would follow I am sure. As Lincoln put it: Will not the good people respond to a united, and earnest appeal from us? Can we, can they, by any other means, so certainly, or so speedily, assure these vital objects? We can succeed only by concert. It is not 'can any of us imagine better?' but, 'can we all do better?' The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise -- with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country. Fellow-citizens, we cannot escape history. We of this Congress and this administration, will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance, or insignificance, can spare one or another of us. . . . We know how to save the Union. The world knows we do know how to save it. We -- even we here -- hold the power, and bear the responsibility. . . . http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/congress.htm All of that applies as much to the energy/terror crisis today as it did to the crisis of slavery in December 1862. Then and now, we know what must be done. We need only summon up the will to *do* it. And we may yet take action. Don't bet against it! You should never sell the United States or its people short. The Japanese did in 1941 and look where it got them. Probably more than any other people on earth, we are capable of doing extraordinary deeds in a short time. As Edward Grey put it, the United States is like a gigantic boiler. Once the fire is lighted under it there is no limit to the power it can generate. The only thing we lack are leaders with guts vision. Leaders who are not afraid to demand sacrifices from everyone, not just army volunteers. In the past, such people have often stepped forth when they were needed. But it has always been a close call. Lincoln nearly lost the election and FDR had great difficulty securing the nomination. The people next in line who would have won if they had lost would have led the nation into oblivion. - Jed
RE: [Vo]: OFF TOPIC How to deal with terrorism
Zell, Chris wrote: What horrified me most was hearing that the Muslim men involved might have attended college, gone to strip clubs and consumed alcohol. In short, they had every available benefit or pleasure western society offered - and still dedicated themselves to mass murder and suicide. If we cannot count on these sort of activities civilizing a person - or at least allowing them to release whatever intense emotion dominates them - I'm not sure what hope for humanity remains. Don't fret too much. You can say the same thing for the officers and men of the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy. They had every available benefit of our society, but they attacked Pearl Harbor and as a group they committed some of the worst crimes against humanity in history, in China. They were aided, abetted and celebrated by the whole society for doing things such as cutting innocent civilian's heads off with swords, and torturing American POWs in unspeakable ways. Of course many of the individuals who did that got what they deserved -- they were hanged -- but the point is that society as a whole was in very much in favor of this savagery. They seemed incorrigible in 1945, but things changed and most of them lived decent, upstanding, civilized lives. I knew several of them, and they were fine people. Most of them sincerely came to believe in democracy and to want to live in peace. Only a few harbored animosity toward the U.S. For that matter, it is pretty horrifying to think of the finest collection of scientists in history devising nuclear weapons at Los Alamos, which were used to kill 300,000 people with the utmost cruelty. I met some of those scientists, and I expect everyone here has read books and papers by them. They were not monsters. They were good, decent people doing what they thought was a moral imperative, and perhaps they were right. People can change. Societies change, reform and progress. You must forgive and move on. The burden of history would be too heavy for any of us to bear otherwise. Yes, the 100 million people who support Al Qaeda will dance in the streets if 10 million of us are killed by nuclear weapons. But that may not happen, and sooner or later these people will come to their senses. Their hate will subside -- it always does. People in the past have often laid down their weapons and lived together peacefully even after long, bitter, terrible wars, such as the U.S. Civil War, which lasted 103 years from 1860 to 1963, counting the Jim Crow reign of terror against black people. The thing is, in the meanwhile, before the Muslim extremists come to their senses, we must take steps to try to ensure they do not get nuclear bombs. We must capture and kill them whenever possible, and above all take away their money. All the anger and the world will avail them nothing if they have no money. We have to stop handing over billions of dollars to these people! It is like selling scrap metal to the Japanese when we know they plan to use it for shrapnel in bombs they drop on us. (That happened, by the way.) - Jed
Re: [Vo]: OFF TOPIC How to deal with terrorism
Jed Rothwell wrote:- Leaking pen wrote: not all terrorist groups are muslim, and not all muslim groups are oil funded. The only terrorists threatening the US and the UK are Muslim. True now; but in the UK, we had the IRA terrorists bombing civilians for decades. They got a lot of financial support from the Boston, USA area of America and got a fair proportion of their weapons from the USA too. By the logic of Bush and Cheney, and some posters on Vortex, we Brits would have been justified in turning the daytime temperature of Boston and Dublin to 1,000,000 degrees or invading Ireland to change the government in a war against terrorism. Nick Palmer
Re: [Vo]: OFF TOPIC How to deal with terrorism
Jed, you are proposing we treat the Moslem countries exactly how we treated Germany after WWI. The plan was make them pay for what they did during WWI and make them too poor to ever do it again. As a result Hitler and WWII resulted. On the other hand, after WWII we gave a great deal of money to Japan and to Germany, which helped them become prosperous. As a result, we have had no more problems. Also, how do you plan to deny terrorists money without making the entire region poor and pissed off? Ed Jed Rothwell wrote: Zell, Chris wrote: What horrified me most was hearing that the Muslim men involved might have attended college, gone to strip clubs and consumed alcohol. In short, they had every available benefit or pleasure western society offered - and still dedicated themselves to mass murder and suicide. If we cannot count on these sort of activities civilizing a person - or at least allowing them to release whatever intense emotion dominates them - I'm not sure what hope for humanity remains. Don't fret too much. You can say the same thing for the officers and men of the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy. They had every available benefit of our society, but they attacked Pearl Harbor and as a group they committed some of the worst crimes against humanity in history, in China. They were aided, abetted and celebrated by the whole society for doing things such as cutting innocent civilian's heads off with swords, and torturing American POWs in unspeakable ways. Of course many of the individuals who did that got what they deserved -- they were hanged -- but the point is that society as a whole was in very much in favor of this savagery. They seemed incorrigible in 1945, but things changed and most of them lived decent, upstanding, civilized lives. I knew several of them, and they were fine people. Most of them sincerely came to believe in democracy and to want to live in peace. Only a few harbored animosity toward the U.S. For that matter, it is pretty horrifying to think of the finest collection of scientists in history devising nuclear weapons at Los Alamos, which were used to kill 300,000 people with the utmost cruelty. I met some of those scientists, and I expect everyone here has read books and papers by them. They were not monsters. They were good, decent people doing what they thought was a moral imperative, and perhaps they were right. People can change. Societies change, reform and progress. You must forgive and move on. The burden of history would be too heavy for any of us to bear otherwise. Yes, the 100 million people who support Al Qaeda will dance in the streets if 10 million of us are killed by nuclear weapons. But that may not happen, and sooner or later these people will come to their senses. Their hate will subside -- it always does. People in the past have often laid down their weapons and lived together peacefully even after long, bitter, terrible wars, such as the U.S. Civil War, which lasted 103 years from 1860 to 1963, counting the Jim Crow reign of terror against black people. The thing is, in the meanwhile, before the Muslim extremists come to their senses, we must take steps to try to ensure they do not get nuclear bombs. We must capture and kill them whenever possible, and above all take away their money. All the anger and the world will avail them nothing if they have no money. We have to stop handing over billions of dollars to these people! It is like selling scrap metal to the Japanese when we know they plan to use it for shrapnel in bombs they drop on us. (That happened, by the way.) - Jed
Re: [Vo]: OFF TOPIC How to deal with terrorism
Nick Palmer wrote: True now; but in the UK, we had the IRA terrorists bombing civilians for decades. And now they have stopped, thank goodness. I think it is over. That's my point; these things eventually stop. They got a lot of financial support from the Boston, USA area of America and got a fair proportion of their weapons from the USA too. My point is that financial support is where the Muslim terrorists are uniquely vulnerable. It is their Achilles' heel. Suppose that you knew 99% of the IRA money was coming out of Boston, and furthermore you knew that 99% of Boston's income came from oil, sold mainly to the UK. That would make it easy. Just stop buying oil, the price collapses, and suddenly your IRA terrorists can hardly afford to buy bullets. It does not fix the problem but it sure helps make it manageable. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: OFF TOPIC How to deal with terrorism
hes also stating that the average person ever sees dime one of the oil money. its the primary income for the RICH. not every one else there. On 8/14/06, Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jed, you are proposing we treat the Moslem countries exactly how wetreated Germany after WWI.The plan was make them pay for what they did during WWI and make them too poor to ever do it again.As a resultHitler and WWII resulted.On the other hand, after WWII we gave a greatdeal of money to Japan and to Germany, which helped them becomeprosperous. As a result, we have had no more problems. Also, how do you plan to deny terrorists money without making the entire region poor andpissed off?EdJed Rothwell wrote: Zell, Chris wrote: What horrified me most was hearing that the Muslim men involved might have attended college, gone to strip clubs and consumed alcohol.In short, they had every available benefit or pleasure western society offered- and still dedicated themselves to mass murder and suicide. If we cannot count on these sort of activities civilizing a person - or at least allowing them to release whatever intense emotion dominates them - I'm not sure what hope for humanity remains. Don't fret too much. You can say the same thing for the officers and men of the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy. They had every available benefit of our society, but they attacked Pearl Harbor and as a group they committed some of the worst crimes against humanity in history, in China. They were aided, abetted and celebrated by the whole society for doing things such as cutting innocent civilian's heads off with swords, and torturing American POWs in unspeakable ways. Of course many of the individuals who did that got what they deserved -- they were hanged -- but the point is that society as a whole was in very much in favor of this savagery. They seemed incorrigible in 1945, but things changed and most of them lived decent, upstanding, civilized lives. I knew several of them, and they were fine people. Most of them sincerely came to believe in democracy and to want to live in peace. Only a few harbored animosity toward the U.S. For that matter, it is pretty horrifying to think of the finest collection of scientists in history devising nuclear weapons at Los Alamos, which were used to kill 300,000 people with the utmost cruelty. I met some of those scientists, and I expect everyone here has read books and papers by them. They were not monsters. They were good, decent people doing what they thought was a moral imperative, and perhaps they were right. People can change. Societies change, reform and progress. You must forgive and move on. The burden of history would be too heavy for any of us to bear otherwise. Yes, the 100 million people who support Al Qaeda will dance in the streets if 10 million of us are killed by nuclear weapons. But that may not happen, and sooner or later these people will come to their senses. Their hate will subside -- it always does. People in the past have often laid down their weapons and lived together peacefully even after long, bitter, terrible wars, such as the U.S. Civil War, which lasted 103 years from 1860 to 1963, counting the Jim Crow reign of terror against black people. The thing is, in the meanwhile, before the Muslim extremists come to their senses, we must take steps to try to ensure they do not get nuclear bombs. We must capture and kill them whenever possible, and above all take away their money. All the anger and the world will avail them nothing if they have no money. We have to stop handing over billions of dollars to these people! It is like selling scrap metal to the Japanese when we know they plan to use it for shrapnel in bombs they drop on us. (That happened, by the way.) - Jed-- That which yields isn't always weak.
Re: [Vo]: OFF TOPIC How to deal with terrorism
Edmund Storms wrote: I don't believe they hate our freedom and our good life as we are encouraged to believe. They say they do! Have you read bin Laden speeches? You can see what he has to say in books such as, Imperial Hubris. . . . I think this conclusion is too simplistic. What they hate are certain behaviors that are permitted by our society and our attitude toward sex. The quotes from bin Laden in the book Imperial Hubris do not mention that kind of thing. No doubt he does hate those behaviors, but as the author points out, he could not motivate dozens of young men to kill themselves because they do not like our attitude toward sex, and he could not gather $3 million a day to combat such attitudes. (The author was the CIA's top expert in Al Qaeda terrorism, and he seems to know what he is talking about.) I think the reasons given by bin Laden are the real ones, and they are the reasons that stir up his many supporters. I do not think it is any great mystery why these people are attacking us. Their reasons seem crazy to me, but you can say the same about the Japanese rationale for attacking Pearl Harbor. Just because it sounds crazy to us does not mean they are dissembling or they do not believe it themselves. I also think it would be pretty easy for us to stop most of the attacks by choking off their money. The situation seems cut and dry to me. It is much less complicated than some previous wars. My proposal, to eliminate the use of conventional automobiles and cut oil consumption by a factor of 10, would not instantly destroy bin Laden but it would certainly hurt him far more than anything else we have done so far. It would also be far cheaper than what the war has cost so far, with the total is expected to cost which is now roughly $1 trillion, counting the money will pay in the future to disabled soldiers and things like that. It would start to cure the fever that is affecting Middle Eastern society. Of course there would be other benefits to reducing oil consumption by a factor of 10, such as the money we would save, preventing global warming, and giving US automakers overwhelming dominance in the world market. It could easily be done! The technology has been in place for decades. Do not let anyone tell you Americans are incapable of implementing technological leaps on short notice. As I said, it would call for near-term sacrifice and national unity, which no politician today thinks he or she can ask for. Actually, the politicians have it backward. The people are ready to sacrifice, and any leader who carries out a bold and successful plan such as the one I described here would have an 80% approval rating. They simply do not realize that the problem can be fixed, or how to lead, or what people are willing to do. The politicians have no faith in the people, but they darn well should. Of course the automobile companies would squawk, just as they did in 1942. Of course many people would evade the $5 emergency wartime tax and the 95% emergency wartime income tax at the top brackets. But Americans know how to sacrifice and work together. If the politicians make a convincing case that we are seriously at war and we may be destroyed by nuclear weapons if we do not act, the people can be counted upon to do whatever is needed. They are strong, brave and resourceful, as they have shown countless times in the past. If we are not seriously at war, we have no right to ask even one volunteer soldier to give his life. That's not how a democracy works. We have to pull out immediately and, in effect, surrender. A burden as harsh as war must be shared by everyone. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: OFF TOPIC How to deal with terrorism
Zell, Chris wrote: When 9-11 happened, what depressed and horrified me the most was not the actual losses of life and property, although they were bad enough. What horrified me most was hearing that the Muslim men involved might have attended college, gone to strip clubs and consumed alcohol. In short, they had every available benefit or pleasure western society offered - and still dedicated themselves to mass murder and suicide. If we cannot count on these sort of activities civilizing a person - or at least allowing them to release whatever intense emotion dominates them - I'm not sure what hope for humanity remains. What I fear most is the inevitable expansion of technology getting into Muslim hands - I hesitate to say radical Muslims because it still is not clear to me that such radicalism is really radical among large numbers of Muslims. At any rate, while cold fusion may not give us fissionable materials at present, We can't be sure that a simple procedure won't allow that kind of threat in the future, by whatever physics uncovers. We, of the west, have a right to survive as individuals and as a culture. I continue to hope that negotiation and good sense prevail everywhere, especially In the Middle East. Nevertheless, if these countries refuse to reform - and technology of mass destruction falls into the hands of terrorists with their blessings, I would not flinch at their mass annihilation. Yes, a very simple solution. How would you do this? Actually, the use of an atom bomb by terrorists would be very irrational. What would they gain? The US would still exist and be as mad as Hell. Yes, we would hurt, but what advantage would this give the terrorist? The whole world would be after them, as they were after 911 until Bush blew the opportunity. They want power in their own region. The worst thing they can do is make us mad before we have destroyed our own economy by trying to fight them by conventional methods. Ed I am also horrified at the numbers of people who ignore this - and eagerly seize upon schemes of appeasement In the present crisis. Let's all hope for 'free energy' and the peace that it might bring about.
Re: [Vo]: OFF TOPIC How to deal with terrorism
While we are on the subject... What is the value of a term like Islamic-fascist ? Was Nazis Germany ruled by Christian-fascists? Harry
Re: [Vo]: OFF TOPIC How to deal with terrorism
Tut Tut Ed... The problem is that you believe everyone thinks rationally and quasi-legally like you do. Most don't. And as for: A sane person does not try to murder his neighbor because he thinks she is a slut. On the other hand, if, for example, the neighbor takes all the water, treats you like dirt, and kills your friends, you might think of murder. You haven't heard of honour killings? More often than not they murder their own offspring for that very reason. So we're talking certain levels of sanity here. And what if I deserve to be treated like dirt because... well... perhaps I am dirt? Have you never experienced neighbours like that? Some people just can't get their heads around quantum physics, so they resort to... mayhem. And as dirt often associates with dirt... well you get the picture... And the water? Well why does dirt (me, remember?) care so much about water? P. At 03:21 PM 8/14/2006 -0600, you wrote: I don't believe they hate our freedom and our good life as we are encouraged to believe. They say they do! Have you read bin Laden speeches? You can see what he has to say in books such as, Imperial Hubris. He is the most popular man in the Muslim world and millions of people have named their sons after him and, so I think many people agree with him. I think they are misguided. Millions of Japanese people agreed with the militarists too. No doubt the majority of the country did, even though it was pretty obvious after 1938 that they were dragging the nation into Hell. I think this conclusion is too simplistic. What they hate are certain behaviors that are permitted by our society and our attitude toward sex. Some Christians in the US have a similar problem with these subjects, although they would not suggest the same solution. However, I don't believe these reasons are the main driving force for the movement. A sane person does not try to murder his neighbor because he thinks she is a slut. On the other hand, if, for example, the neighbor takes all the water, treats you like dirt, and kills your friends, you might think of murder. Ed Of course it could. If the US had launched a massive World War II style effort to fix the problem starting in 2001, oil would be worth practically nothing today. Yes, and if the government gave everyone 1 million dollars, we would all be rich. But like this silly example, such things will not be done and if they were, other worse consequences would result. Such things were done in the past when the nation was in crisis. If FDR or Lincoln were in charge, this and much more would be done now. I mean immediately, within a week. They would impose a five dollar emergency wartime gasoline tax, draft a million men women to fight the war in Afghanistan (which we are losing), and ban the use of SUVs. If this is really a war, as the leaders claim, it is their responsibility to do such things. Wars are never won by half-measures. The nation would follow I am sure. As Lincoln put it: Will not the good people respond to a united, and earnest appeal from us? Can we, can they, by any other means, so certainly, or so speedily, assure these vital objects? We can succeed only by concert. It is not 'can any of us imagine better?' but, 'can we all do better?' The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise -- with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country. Fellow-citizens, we cannot escape history. We of this Congress and this administration, will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance, or insignificance, can spare one or another of us. . . . We know how to save the Union. The world knows we do know how to save it. We -- even we here -- hold the power, and bear the responsibility. . . . http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/congress.htm All of that applies as much to the energy/terror crisis today as it did to the crisis of slavery in December 1862. Then and now, we know what must be done. We need only summon up the will to *do* it. And we may yet take action. Don't bet against it! You should never sell the United States or its people short. The Japanese did in 1941 and look where it got them. Probably more than any other people on earth, we are capable of doing extraordinary deeds in a short time. As Edward Grey put it, the United States is like a gigantic boiler. Once the fire is lighted under it there is no limit to the power it can generate. The only thing we lack are leaders with guts vision. Leaders who are not afraid to demand sacrifices from everyone, not just army volunteers. In the past, such people have often stepped forth when they were needed. But it has always been a close call. Lincoln nearly lost the election and FDR had great difficulty securing the
Re: [Vo]: OFF TOPIC How to deal with terrorism
Philip Winestone wrote: Tut Tut Ed... The problem is that you believe everyone thinks rationally and quasi-legally like you do. Most don't. Good point, Philip. Nevertheless, most people, except the insane, are rational if the rules of the game are understood. For example, as you note below, honor killing is very rational if the law is designed to be implemented by the individual rather than by the state. And as for: A sane person does not try to murder his neighbor because he thinks she is a slut. On the other hand, if, for example, the neighbor takes all the water, treats you like dirt, and kills your friends, you might think of murder. You haven't heard of honour killings? More often than not they murder their own offspring for that very reason. So we're talking certain levels of sanity here. Some societies are designed to be self policing. The father has the right to control his children by any means he thinks necessary. If the child can not be controlled or will not follow the rules, he/she can be killed. I don't recommend this approach, but it works better than our system seems to work in some cases. And what if I deserve to be treated like dirt because... well... perhaps I am dirt? Have you never experienced neighbours like that? Some people just can't get their heads around quantum physics, so they resort to... mayhem. And as dirt often associates with dirt... well you get the picture... Agreed, some people are just plain mean and irrational. We use the state (courts or police) to control them. Some societies allow the individual to take action. I have known occasions when I wished this method was used more often here. And the water? Well why does dirt (me, remember?) care so much about water? Water is a analogy for all that makes life possible. If you take my water you make my life impossible and I have nothing to lose by killing you. Ed P. At 03:21 PM 8/14/2006 -0600, you wrote: I don't believe they hate our freedom and our good life as we are encouraged to believe. They say they do! Have you read bin Laden speeches? You can see what he has to say in books such as, Imperial Hubris. He is the most popular man in the Muslim world and millions of people have named their sons after him and, so I think many people agree with him. I think they are misguided. Millions of Japanese people agreed with the militarists too. No doubt the majority of the country did, even though it was pretty obvious after 1938 that they were dragging the nation into Hell. I think this conclusion is too simplistic. What they hate are certain behaviors that are permitted by our society and our attitude toward sex. Some Christians in the US have a similar problem with these subjects, although they would not suggest the same solution. However, I don't believe these reasons are the main driving force for the movement. A sane person does not try to murder his neighbor because he thinks she is a slut. On the other hand, if, for example, the neighbor takes all the water, treats you like dirt, and kills your friends, you might think of murder. Ed Of course it could. If the US had launched a massive World War II style effort to fix the problem starting in 2001, oil would be worth practically nothing today. Yes, and if the government gave everyone 1 million dollars, we would all be rich. But like this silly example, such things will not be done and if they were, other worse consequences would result. Such things were done in the past when the nation was in crisis. If FDR or Lincoln were in charge, this and much more would be done now. I mean immediately, within a week. They would impose a five dollar emergency wartime gasoline tax, draft a million men women to fight the war in Afghanistan (which we are losing), and ban the use of SUVs. If this is really a war, as the leaders claim, it is their responsibility to do such things. Wars are never won by half-measures. The nation would follow I am sure. As Lincoln put it: Will not the good people respond to a united, and earnest appeal from us? Can we, can they, by any other means, so certainly, or so speedily, assure these vital objects? We can succeed only by concert. It is not 'can any of us imagine better?' but, 'can we all do better?' The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise -- with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country. Fellow-citizens, we cannot escape history. We of this Congress and this administration, will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance, or insignificance, can spare one or another of us. . . . We know how to save the Union. The world knows we do know how to save it. We -- even we here -- hold the power, and bear the responsibility. . . .
Re: [Vo]: OFF TOPIC How to deal with terrorism
Harry Veeder wrote: While we are on the subject... What is the value of a term like Islamic-fascist ? Well, they consider themselves Islamic and we think they are fascist. I doubt they would object. Many of them are in sympathy with the Nazis, although not the Italian fascists as far as I know. Was Nazis Germany ruled by Christian-fascists? No. Hitler was more or less atheist, I think. The closest thing to a specifically Christian movement similar the modern Islamic-fascist would be the Crusades, I suppose, or perhaps the conquistadores. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: OFF TOPIC How to deal with terrorism
Good points Ed. As for the lack of parental control (and ultimately the lack of self-control), I think I know what you're getting at; rules in some form are very necessary, despite our dislike of people curtailing our freedom (although the rules, in the case of honour killings (I like to call them ego killings) are decidedly less favourable toward women than men). In our case, the pendulum has swung far too far where permissiveness is concerned... And I'll let it go at that!!! As for the water analogy, that's a whole discussion in itself. Briefly, I'm a great admirer of the Americans (I was born and educated in Scotland and now live in Canada) because they essentially made their own water as a nation; took risks and used their resourcefulness to create the water they now have. But some (many) people are envious of this water - without regard to the blood, sweat and tears that it took to create it - and would like to either steal it or spill it on the ground just to satisfy this envy. P. At 07:21 PM 8/14/2006 -0600, you wrote: Philip Winestone wrote: Tut Tut Ed... The problem is that you believe everyone thinks rationally and quasi-legally like you do. Most don't. Good point, Philip. Nevertheless, most people, except the insane, are rational if the rules of the game are understood. For example, as you note below, honor killing is very rational if the law is designed to be implemented by the individual rather than by the state. And as for: A sane person does not try to murder his neighbor because he thinks she is a slut. On the other hand, if, for example, the neighbor takes all the water, treats you like dirt, and kills your friends, you might think of murder. You haven't heard of honour killings? More often than not they murder their own offspring for that very reason. So we're talking certain levels of sanity here. Some societies are designed to be self policing. The father has the right to control his children by any means he thinks necessary. If the child can not be controlled or will not follow the rules, he/she can be killed. I don't recommend this approach, but it works better than our system seems to work in some cases. And what if I deserve to be treated like dirt because... well... perhaps I am dirt? Have you never experienced neighbours like that? Some people just can't get their heads around quantum physics, so they resort to... mayhem. And as dirt often associates with dirt... well you get the picture... Agreed, some people are just plain mean and irrational. We use the state (courts or police) to control them. Some societies allow the individual to take action. I have known occasions when I wished this method was used more often here. And the water? Well why does dirt (me, remember?) care so much about water? Water is a analogy for all that makes life possible. If you take my water you make my life impossible and I have nothing to lose by killing you. Ed P. At 03:21 PM 8/14/2006 -0600, you wrote: I don't believe they hate our freedom and our good life as we are encouraged to believe. They say they do! Have you read bin Laden speeches? You can see what he has to say in books such as, Imperial Hubris. He is the most popular man in the Muslim world and millions of people have named their sons after him and, so I think many people agree with him. I think they are misguided. Millions of Japanese people agreed with the militarists too. No doubt the majority of the country did, even though it was pretty obvious after 1938 that they were dragging the nation into Hell. I think this conclusion is too simplistic. What they hate are certain behaviors that are permitted by our society and our attitude toward sex. Some Christians in the US have a similar problem with these subjects, although they would not suggest the same solution. However, I don't believe these reasons are the main driving force for the movement. A sane person does not try to murder his neighbor because he thinks she is a slut. On the other hand, if, for example, the neighbor takes all the water, treats you like dirt, and kills your friends, you might think of murder. Ed Of course it could. If the US had launched a massive World War II style effort to fix the problem starting in 2001, oil would be worth practically nothing today. Yes, and if the government gave everyone 1 million dollars, we would all be rich. But like this silly example, such things will not be done and if they were, other worse consequences would result. Such things were done in the past when the nation was in crisis. If FDR or Lincoln were in charge, this and much more would be done now. I mean immediately, within a week. They would impose a five dollar emergency wartime gasoline tax, draft a million men women to fight the war in Afghanistan (which we are losing), and ban the use of SUVs. If this is really a war, as the leaders claim, it is their
Re: [Vo]: OFF TOPIC How to deal with terrorism
Jed Rothwell wrote: Harry Veeder wrote: While we are on the subject... What is the value of a term like Islamic-fascist ? Well, they consider themselves Islamic and we think they are fascist. I doubt they would object. Many of them are in sympathy with the Nazis, although not the Italian fascists as far as I know. Who is they? All of Islam? Was Nazis Germany ruled by Christian-fascists? No. Hitler was more or less atheist, I think. The closest thing to a specifically Christian movement similar the modern Islamic-fascist would be the Crusades, I suppose, or perhaps the conquistadores. - Jed Geneva under Calvin. Harry
Re: [Vo]: OFF TOPIC How to deal with terrorism
Oh fuddle duddle... The notion of a self-made nation is an ego trip like the self-made man. Harry Philip Winestone wrote: Good points Ed. As for the lack of parental control (and ultimately the lack of self-control), I think I know what you're getting at; rules in some form are very necessary, despite our dislike of people curtailing our freedom (although the rules, in the case of honour killings (I like to call them ego killings) are decidedly less favourable toward women than men). In our case, the pendulum has swung far too far where permissiveness is concerned... And I'll let it go at that!!! As for the water analogy, that's a whole discussion in itself. Briefly, I'm a great admirer of the Americans (I was born and educated in Scotland and now live in Canada) because they essentially made their own water as a nation; took risks and used their resourcefulness to create the water they now have. But some (many) people are envious of this water - without regard to the blood, sweat and tears that it took to create it - and would like to either steal it or spill it on the ground just to satisfy this envy. P. At 07:21 PM 8/14/2006 -0600, you wrote: Philip Winestone wrote: Tut Tut Ed... The problem is that you believe everyone thinks rationally and quasi-legally like you do. Most don't. Good point, Philip. Nevertheless, most people, except the insane, are rational if the rules of the game are understood. For example, as you note below, honor killing is very rational if the law is designed to be implemented by the individual rather than by the state. And as for: A sane person does not try to murder his neighbor because he thinks she is a slut. On the other hand, if, for example, the neighbor takes all the water, treats you like dirt, and kills your friends, you might think of murder. You haven't heard of honour killings? More often than not they murder their own offspring for that very reason. So we're talking certain levels of sanity here. Some societies are designed to be self policing. The father has the right to control his children by any means he thinks necessary. If the child can not be controlled or will not follow the rules, he/she can be killed. I don't recommend this approach, but it works better than our system seems to work in some cases. And what if I deserve to be treated like dirt because... well... perhaps I am dirt? Have you never experienced neighbours like that? Some people just can't get their heads around quantum physics, so they resort to... mayhem. And as dirt often associates with dirt... well you get the picture... Agreed, some people are just plain mean and irrational. We use the state (courts or police) to control them. Some societies allow the individual to take action. I have known occasions when I wished this method was used more often here. And the water? Well why does dirt (me, remember?) care so much about water? Water is a analogy for all that makes life possible. If you take my water you make my life impossible and I have nothing to lose by killing you. Ed P. At 03:21 PM 8/14/2006 -0600, you wrote: I don't believe they hate our freedom and our good life as we are encouraged to believe. They say they do! Have you read bin Laden speeches? You can see what he has to say in books such as, Imperial Hubris. He is the most popular man in the Muslim world and millions of people have named their sons after him and, so I think many people agree with him. I think they are misguided. Millions of Japanese people agreed with the militarists too. No doubt the majority of the country did, even though it was pretty obvious after 1938 that they were dragging the nation into Hell. I think this conclusion is too simplistic. What they hate are certain behaviors that are permitted by our society and our attitude toward sex. Some Christians in the US have a similar problem with these subjects, although they would not suggest the same solution. However, I don't believe these reasons are the main driving force for the movement. A sane person does not try to murder his neighbor because he thinks she is a slut. On the other hand, if, for example, the neighbor takes all the water, treats you like dirt, and kills your friends, you might think of murder. Ed Of course it could. If the US had launched a massive World War II style effort to fix the problem starting in 2001, oil would be worth practically nothing today. Yes, and if the government gave everyone 1 million dollars, we would all be rich. But like this silly example, such things will not be done and if they were, other worse consequences would result. Such things were done in the past when the nation was in crisis. If FDR or Lincoln were in charge, this and much more would be done now. I mean immediately, within a week. They would impose a five dollar emergency wartime gasoline tax, draft a
Re: [Vo]: OFF TOPIC How to deal with terrorism
Zell, Chris wrote: When 9-11 happened, what depressed and horrified me the most was not the actual losses of life and property, although they were bad enough. What horrified me most was hearing that the Muslim men involved might have attended college, gone to strip clubs and consumed alcohol. In short, they had every available benefit or pleasure western society offered - and still dedicated themselves to mass murder and suicide. If we cannot count on these sort of activities civilizing a person - or at least allowing them to release whatever intense emotion dominates them - I'm not sure what hope for humanity remains. Disaffected young men and women appear in every society. What I fear most is the inevitable expansion of technology getting into Muslim hands - I hesitate to say radical Muslims because it still is not clear to me that such radicalism is really radical among large numbers of Muslims. At any rate, while cold fusion may not give us fissionable materials at present, We can't be sure that a simple procedure won't allow that kind of threat in the future, by whatever physics uncovers. We, of the west, have a right to survive as individuals and as a culture. I continue to hope that negotiation and good sense prevail everywhere, especially In the Middle East. As a gesture of good faith one could exchange a couple of ICBMs for more business opportunities. ;-) Harry
Re: [Vo]: OFF TOPIC How to deal with terrorism
Harry Veeder writes: Well, they consider themselves Islamic and we think they are fascist. I doubt they would object. Many of them are in sympathy with the Nazis, although not the Italian fascists as far as I know. Who is they? All of Islam? Of course not. Only the ones who have it in for us, and are training in camps, making bombs and so on. They have many supporters among other Moslems, but I doubt many people would join them. The closest thing to a specifically Christian movement similar the modern Islamic-fascist would be the Crusades, I suppose, or perhaps the conquistadores. - Jed Geneva under Calvin. Good example. I am sure there are others, in varying degrees. Salem, MA during the witch hunt, for example. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: OFF TOPIC How to deal with terrorism
Jed Rothwell wrote: Harry Veeder writes: Well, they consider themselves Islamic and we think they are fascist. I doubt they would object. Many of them are in sympathy with the Nazis, although not the Italian fascists as far as I know. Who is they? All of Islam? Of course not. Only the ones who have it in for us, and are training in camps, making bombs and so on. They have many supporters among other Moslems, but I doubt many people would join them. My point is that we should refer to such fascist interests with more precision. Harry
Re: [Vo]: OFF TOPIC How to deal with terrorism
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Mon, 14 Aug 2006 15:22:41 -0400: Hi, [snip] What makes these people so angry they would give this up and want to kill us? Actually, we have little to do with it. It is a fight within these countries, which is spilling over to us. Our administrations going back to FDR have contributed by helping these governments crush opposition, and of course we are the ones who hand over billions of dollars, and make SUVs to drive up the cost of oil. First you say we have little to do with it, then in the next breath you say Our administrations going back to FDR have contributed by helping these governments crush opposition. IOW the US administration has propped up corrupt puppet governments that ensured an ongoing flow of cheap oil. The man on the street in these countries may be poor, but he is not stupid. He sees this just as well as you do. No wonder he is pissed off. If you want to know what to do about terrorism, it's simple. 1) Get rid of your own corrupt government. 2) Stop supporting corrupt puppet governments elsewhere. 3) Let the people in those nations share in the wealth beneath their feet, iso forcing them to give it to the US in exchange for paper that the US prints (this goes for Nigeria and various other poor Nations with oil around the globe too). 4) Give up some of the wealthy life style you enjoy, so that others may share in it, by paying more for the oil you get. (and if you did as I suggest here, the price would go up, because the value of the $ would drop). That is what this struggle is really about. Equality and fairness. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
Re: [Vo]: OFF TOPIC How to deal with terrorism
lets also recall where osama bin laden got his training in guerilla warfare. yup, us, when we supported him in afghanistan to drive out russia. On 8/14/06, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In reply toJed Rothwell's message of Mon, 14 Aug 2006 15:22:41-0400:Hi,[snip]What makes these people so angry they would give this up and want to kill us? Actually, we have little to do with it. It is a fight within thesecountries, which is spilling over to us. Our administrations goingback to FDR have contributed by helping these governments crush opposition, and of course we are the ones who hand over billions ofdollars, and make SUVs to drive up the cost of oil.First you say we have little to do with it, then in the nextbreath you say Our administrations going back to FDR have contributed by helping these governments crush opposition.IOW the US administration has propped up corrupt puppetgovernments that ensured an ongoing flow of cheap oil.The man on the street in these countries may be poor, but he is not stupid. He sees this just as well as you do. No wonder he ispissed off.If you want to know what to do about terrorism, it's simple.1) Get rid of your own corrupt government.2) Stop supporting corrupt puppet governments elsewhere. 3) Let the people in those nations share in the wealth beneaththeir feet, iso forcing them to give it to the US in exchange forpaper that the US prints (this goes for Nigeria and various otherpoor Nations with oil around the globe too). 4) Give up some of the wealthy life style you enjoy, so thatothers may share in it, by paying more for the oil you get.(and if you did as I suggest here, the price would go up, becausethe value of the $ would drop). That is what this struggle is really about. Equality and fairness.Regards,Robin van Spaandonkhttp://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.-- That which yields isn't always weak.
