 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Maintenance and Repair / September 2005Avoid Major Oil companies
This makes MUCH MORE SENSE than the "don't buy gas on a certain day" >> campaign that was going around last April or May! >> >> The oil companies just laughed at that because they knew we wouldn't >> continue to "hurt" ourselves by refusing to buy gas. >> >> It was more of an inconvenience to us than it was a problem for them. >> >> BUT, whoever thought of this idea, has come up with a plan that can >> really work. Please read it and join with us! By now you're probably >> thinking gasoline priced at about $1.50 is super cheap. Me too! It is >> currently $2.43 for regular unleaded in my town. Now that the oil >> companies and the OPEC nations have conditioned us to think that the >> cost of a gallon of gas is CHEAP at $1.50- $1.75, we need to take >> aggressive action to teach them that BUYERS control the market >> place....not sellers. With the price of gasoline going up more each day, >> we consumers need to take action. The only way we are going to see the >> price of gas come down is if we hit someone in the pocketbook by not >> purchasing their gas! And we can do that WITHOUT hurting ourselves. >> >> HOW? >> >> Since we all rely on our cars, we can't just stop buying gas. But we CAN >> have an impact on gas prices if we all act together to force a price >> war. >> >> Here's the idea: >> >> For the rest of this year, DON'T purchase ANY gasoline from the TWO >> BIGGEST COMPANIES (which now are one), EXXON and MOBIL. If they are not >> selling any gas, they will be inclined to reduce their prices. If they >> reduce their prices, the other companies will have to follow suit. >> >> But to have an impact, we need to reach literally millions of Exxon and >> Mobil gas buyers. >> >> It's really simple to do!! >> >> Now, don't whimp out on me at this point... keep reading and I'll >> explain how simple it is to reach millions of people!! >> >> I am sending this note to about thirty people. If each of you send it to >> at least ten more (30 x 10 = 300) ... and those 300 send it to at least >> ten more (300 x 10 = 3,000)...and so on, by the time the message reaches >> the sixth generation of people, we will have reached over THREE MILLION >> consumers. If those three million get excited and pass this on to ten >> friends each, then 30 million people will have been contacted! >> >> If it goes one level further, you guessed it..... THREE HUNDRED MILLION >> PEOPLE!!! >> >> Again, all You have to do is send this to 10 people. That's all. >> >> How long would all that take? If each of us sends this e-mail out to ten >> more people within one day of receipt, all 300 MILLION people could >> conceivably be contacted within the next 8 days!!! >> >> I'll bet you didn't think you and I had that much potential, did you! >> Acting together we can make a difference. >> >> If this makes sense to you, please pass this message on. >> >> PLEASE HOLD OUT UNTIL THEY LOWER THEIR PRICES TO THE >> >> $1.30 RANGE AND KEEP THEM DOWN. >> >> THIS CAN REALLY WORK. >> >> Kerry Lyle, Director, Research Coordinator Interventional Cardiology >> Research Laboratories Division of Cardiovascular Diseases 932 >> >> Ziegler Research Bldg >> >> 703 South 19th Street >> >> University of Alabama @ B'ham >> >> hmmm...might be worth a try, folks....nothing else has worked... Get on >> board???? >> >> The most beautiful things in the world are not seen or touched. They are >> felt with the heart The novelist George Eliot once said that "it is never too late to become what you might have been." > This makes MUCH MORE SENSE than the "don't buy gas on a certain day" > >> campaign that was going around last April or May! [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > > The novelist George Eliot once said that "it is never too late to become what you might have been." Hmm...my guess is that you Ralf and Kerry must both have advanced degrees in economics to come up with such a brilliant chain letter. The only thing missing are directions for the latest respondent to send $5.00 to the 10 names listed at the bottom. How do you plan to control the fuel that Exxon/Mobil sells to other refiners, to other non-house filling stations and on the international market. Don't forget that gasoline is a homogenous commodity. >>>It's really simple to do!! >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >>>If it goes one level further, you guessed it..... THREE HUNDRED MILLION >>>PEOPLE!!! All this will do is make sure you get the same chain letter back from 10,000 people every day for the rest of your life. I bet this guy plays the lottery a lot. Try this right now in the Atlanta area and you may not be able to get gasoline. Many of the independents in my area are now out of at least RUL gasoline even at $3+ per gal. Lugnut >This makes MUCH MORE SENSE than the "don't buy gas on a certain day" >>> campaign that was going around last April or May! [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > >The novelist George Eliot once said that "it is never too late to become what you might have been." According to FOX news this evening, some stations in Atlanta are selling gas for nearly $6.00 a gallon today! > Try this right now in the Atlanta area and you may not be > able to get gasoline. Many of the independents in my area [quoted text clipped - 93 lines] >>The novelist George Eliot once said that "it is never too late to become >>what you might have been." > According to FOX news this evening, some stations in Atlanta are selling gas > for nearly $6.00 a gallon today! I saw that too. I cant see how that would not be regulated by gouging laws. >> According to FOX news this evening, some stations in Atlanta are selling > gas >> for nearly $6.00 a gallon today! > > I saw that too. I cant see how that would not be regulated by gouging > laws. One would think. >>> According to FOX news this evening, some stations in Atlanta are selling >> gas >>> for nearly $6.00 a gallon today! That's still cheaper than the regular prices in Europe. shakiro >> I saw that too. I cant see how that would not be regulated by gouging >> laws. > > One would think. >>>> According to FOX news this evening, some stations in Atlanta are selling >>> gas [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >shakiro And we are still not financing every social program in the country based on gasoline taxes as are many countries where gasoline is more expensive for this reason alone. The gasoline cost pretty much the same all over the world. It is all the pork barrel spending by the politicians that accounts for a huge portion of the price difference you pay at the pump. Lugnut >>> I saw that too. I cant see how that would not be regulated by gouging >>> laws. >> >> One would think. >>>>> According to FOX news this evening, some stations in Atlanta are selling >>>> gas [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > country based on gasoline taxes as are many countries where > gasoline is more expensive for this reason alone. True, and in Europe there's not that huge porverty problem that exists in the USA, thanks to those taxes. So no people here who need to go stealing for their living, hence Europe isn't the part of the world with the relatively highest number of prisoners (per head of population). > The > gasoline cost pretty much the same all over the world. It > is all the pork barrel spending by the politicians that > accounts for a huge portion of the price difference you pay > at the pump. In the banana republic there's indeed the 'pork barrel' (maybe also in the US?) that's spent exclusively for the politicians, not so much in Europe. shakiro > Lugnut > >>>> I saw that too. I cant see how that would not be regulated by gouging >>>> laws. >>> >>> One would think. >>>>>> According to FOX news this evening, some stations in Atlanta are selling >>>>> gas [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >for their living, hence Europe isn't the part of the world with the >relatively highest number of prisoners (per head of population). You may or may not have a valid point. It is a hotly debated topic in this country. I think our standard of living stacks up pretty well against most any other country. The government has set the so called poverty level relatively high making it seem as though there is much poverty compared to other countries. Poverty certainly exist but, not to the degree you may perceive based on the politicians assertions. If it were as bad as you hear, there wouldn't be so many people doing whatever is necessary to get into the USA - and do it again if found and deported. As far as the prison population, I think it is probably the result of this "war on drugs" that evryone believes to be so important. It has gotten to the point that our economy would suffer if the war on drugs was somehow ended abruptly and drugs legalized. Our law enforcement and justice system would damn near collapse without drug and alcohol enforcement generated or related revenues. I think other countries are more tolerant of drug and alcohol use. Hell, this country still treats alcohol with a stigma whereas other countries accept it as a normal part of their culture. Most of them are fairly harsh on those who drive while impaired because of irresponsible drinking. This tends to deter the behavior and I have no problem with that approach. I don't know the current statistics but, at one time something over half of our prison population was a result of drug or alcohol infractions. Of course, there are those countries who do not have a drug or alcohol problem because the penalty is execution. There are some where you could stay incarcerated an for years before going to trial only to be found guilty. Lugnut >> The >> gasoline cost pretty much the same all over the world. It [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >>>> >>>> One would think. I have seen both sides of this coin. I lived in northern Europe from approximately 1981 to 2003. You can't equate the systems exactly. The USA does not have the highest standard of living in the world, across the board. For those who do enjoy a high standard, there is no place quite like it, but for the lower socioeconomic levels, it isn't so hot. The people who want to come here are from places where it is worse, and there are many. One of the big problems is the ethnic diversity we have in the USA, each subculture being more or less distinct and culturally polarized. In Norway, where I lived, people worked because they wanted to do so, not because there was no social system to help them if they chose not to work. If you opened that sort of opportunity in the USA, how many people would hold jobs, and how many would sit on the sofa waiting for food to be delivered? [snip> >>True, and in Europe there's not that huge porverty problem that exists in >>the USA, thanks to those taxes. So no people here who need to go stealing [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > relatively high making it seem as though there is much > poverty compared to other countries. Poverty certainly I'm not so convinced, for example, there's no medical insurance for the poor people. In Europe's most countries, the state will provide medical insurance, in any way covering the very high costs that the pple themselves can not bear because of lack of income. > exist but, not to the degree you may perceive based on the > politicians assertions. If it were as bad as you hear, > there wouldn't be so many people doing whatever is necessary > to get into the USA - and do it again if found and deported. There have been numerous cases presented on television here where people, apparently at a high level of wealth, get jobless, lose their medical insurance, get sick, have to sell their house, and end up living in a camper on some farm in misery and poverty. At least in our perception. > As far as the prison population, I think it is probably the > result of this "war on drugs" that evryone believes to be so important. Sounds like an assumption :) Even if the government would take the 'drugs problem' a bit more relaxed, then still, because of the poverty many people are caught in, there would still be a lot of 'offenders' of hard drugs laws, hence put in prison. Further, if the prison system is privatised, certainly the last thing a prison director would want, is to launch a social rehabilitation problem preventing recidivism once they get out. The more cruel and de-humanising the system, the more chance those private companies will see their 'customers' return. shakiro > It has gotten to the point that our economy would suffer if the war on > drugs was somehow ended abruptly and drugs legalized. Our law [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >>>>>> >>>>> One would think. > > As far as the prison population, I think it is probably the > > result of this "war on drugs" that evryone believes to be so important. > > Sounds like an assumption :) That's not an assumption. The facts are available. In fact, something like 90 percent of women in prison are directly there because of drugs--either their sales or the sales of their boyfriends. Drug laws are the most common that have mandatory sentences. US prisons often have to free more violent criminals to make room for non-violent drug offenders who have mandatory sentences. > Even if the government would take the 'drugs problem' a bit more relaxed, > then still, because of the poverty many people are caught in, there would > still be a lot of 'offenders' of hard drugs laws, hence put in prison. Except that poverty doesn't cause drug use--nor does it cause crime. Contrary to popular opinion, only a minority of poor people are either criminals or drug users. If poverty CAUSED either one, the percentage would be much higher (and rich people would never be criminals or drug users). >> > As far as the prison population, I think it is probably the >> > result of this "war on drugs" that evryone believes to be so important. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 90 percent of women in prison are directly there because of drugs--either > their sales or the sales of their boyfriends. I'd be interested to know what part is for soft drugs, and what part hard drugs. > Drug laws are the most common that have mandatory sentences. US prisons > often have to free more violent criminals to make room for non-violent drug > offenders who have mandatory sentences. Sounds like... euhm... nah, never mind :) >> Even if the government would take the 'drugs problem' a bit more relaxed, >> then still, because of the poverty many people are caught in, there would [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > criminals or drug users. If poverty CAUSED either one, the percentage would > be much higher (and rich people would never be criminals or drug users). Still government could take the 'drugs problem' a bit more relaxed :) I remember the world championship (or was it european, i don't remember because i'm not so much of a soccer fan) where the final 2 games were divided between belgium and the netherlands. In Belgium there were a lot of problems with fighting hooligans, in The Netherlands no violence at all. All hooligans were peacefully smoking and enjoying pot :) shakiro >Drug laws are the most common that have mandatory sentences. US prisons >often have to free more violent criminals to make room for non-violent drug >offenders who have mandatory sentences. Of course, the hidden truth in this is that many of these offenders pleaded down from more egregious charges, with the prosecution having full knowledge that they would serve a mandatory sentence (no sentencing discretion, and without possibility of parole). So they may not be non-violent individuals, they just happen to be serving time for a non-violent crime. Now, this Rube Goldberg system is not necessary in any way; if the mandatory non-violent sentences were not available, there would simply be a lesser degree of plea-bargaining. Using drug sentences as plea-bargain bait just happens to be the status quo, and law enforcement certainly likes it that way because plea bargains tend to get them testimony when they can't otherwise build a case. The feds for the most part try to stay out of local cases unless someone is making the feds look bad, or if the feds simply disagree with the local policy and wish to make a political example of it. See Raich, Emery, et.al. >Except that poverty doesn't cause drug use--nor does it cause crime. >Contrary to popular opinion, only a minority of poor people are either >criminals or drug users. If poverty CAUSED either one, the percentage would >be much higher (and rich people would never be criminals or drug users). I think the prevailing fiction is that drug use causes poverty. One might be able to make the claim that drug *dependence* or abuse has a high association with poverty, and even use cigarettes and alcoholism towards proving that claim. But good luck separating *use* from *abuse* in any layman's mind. The crossover word is "addiction". A responsible user could be viewed as addicted by some people's definitions simply because he enjoys his chemical of choice and does not plan to discontinue its use. But a person who has become irresponsible or physically dependent and thus has placed his future success in jeopardy is also referred to as addicted. In that way all users are placed in one group that is propagandized away from the mainstream with a force equal to that group's force of normalization. (Conveniently, all citizens' tax dollars are used by ONDCP to perform this marginalization, rather than placing the onus onto concerned citizens to finance their own propaganda campaigns.) The true dependents who are allowing their lives to be destroyed by alcohol or other drugs make up maybe 5-10% of the whole at most, according to NIDA and interest group statistics. I've always been puzzled at why it would be considered more effective to enforce the law and incarcerate 100% of illegal drug users and continue to pay for a demonstrably ineffective propaganda campaign, as opposed to simply funding treatment for the 5-10% who actually have a measurable problem. This puzzlement is compounded by the fact that 30 years of WoD-style enforcement has been associated with an overall *increase* in drug use, so it is clearly a failed policy compared to the only controls we have (Dutch and Canadian liberalization policies, for example). Why do we continue to spend money on this boondoggle? Think how much engineering, science, and education could have been done with $600b over the last 30 years, and that's just at the federal level. Then there are all the problems of a black market that we know very well from alcohol prohibition: association with crime and violence, impure and fake products, not discriminating against minors in sales, and the 'forbidden fruit' phenomenon that attracts people, especially youths, to something that they may have otherwise been disinterested in. With over 40% of adults having consumed marijuana at some point in their life, and 95% of high school students currently having what they consider to be easy access to it, not to mention recent research debunking most of its supposed health risks, it is difficult to imagine how much longer the government can keep its head in the sand on that particular issue. It has lost its credibility with youths by employing hyperbole in a failed attempt to convince them to abstain entirely from marijuana, instead of conveying its risks realistically so that an individual can make an informed decision. Then when the youth does inevitably give marijuana a try, they find that they have been lied to, and subsequently disbelieve any other claim from authority that marijuana could be bad at all. Experienced users know that marijuana must be used with moderation, like any other intoxicant. The youth, however, has been set up for a drug problem, all because an abstinence-based approach was attempted. The principles of responsible use in order to minimize potential harms associated with a drug were never conveyed to him, so he will have to learn them on his own. (Compare to alcohol: don't drink and drive, drink responsibly, have parents present if you party, etc. Youths still get into alcohol, but at least they know better and can choose to act on that knowledge.) Abstinence versus harm reduction is a debate that has several contexts, but it is quite appropriate here too. A harm reduction approach prevents the 'fall from grace' that typically accompanies a failed abstinence approach. Whether harm reduction actually increases the overall level of irresponsible or harmful behavior is an open question though. The War on Drugs will continue until it manages to affect a large number of people personally in some way. At the polls, the WoD is a non-issue except to those who have a personal stake in it, so politicians can continue to get away with the abuses of the Constitution that form its foundation, with few people changing their vote as long as no junkies are breaking into their house for a "fix". We do need to limit imports as we currently do with alcohol and enforce against external smuggling. A sane import policy in general would place an extremely high duty on imports from countries with authoritarian or non-representative governments, not only to prevent domestic consumption of their products, but to send a message to those regimes. Such a policy should extend to intoxicating substances especially. It is utter nonsense to be using our freedom, won by our forefathers' blood and passed down to us, as currency to trade for cheap imported goods! I feel sympathy for the individuals who were born into those regimes, but they are not going to be in a position to demand freedom as long as we continue to fill the coffers of the state-run industries who bankroll their continued oppression. So there's a load of cra^W^W^Wmy opinion on that topic for you. People sell drugs because they make easy money doing it, I think. Working for a living is pretty hard, and the pay may be low, especially if one has not chosen to take advantage of educating himself. Here, 'getting ahead' is everything for some people. Steal, scam, sell dope, prostitute, lie... all are justified as long as you are 'getting ahead', at least for some people. The Netherlands' rather open drug policy has, at last report, had better results than our war on drugs. Their sex education program, which we have been assured will ruin our society, has not seemed to hurt them, as more girls go to the altar virginally than in the USA. ( We have subcultures here where over 60% of children are out of wedlock. And they often grow up to be the drug pushers of our society.) Complex issues. Our system, if indeed there be one, does not always work as hyped. On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 12:42:04 +0000, HLS wrote: > People sell drugs because they make easy money doing it, I think. Working > for a living [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Our system, if indeed there be one, does not always work as hyped. I think it can be 'analysed' back as a difference in political structure, partly based in the historical development of usa against that in for instance the netherlands. Whereas the dutch social structure is based on various 'columnar groups' of socialists, protestants, roman catholics, conservatives (also called 'liberals' :) etc. which reflects in a multi-party parliamentary democratic political system, the usa has a two-party system of highly conservatives, based on the theological dogmatic rigor of the 'founding fathers' who mainly were highly religiously protestant immigrants from western Europe vs. the more loosely minded 'democrats', sarcastically called 'liberals', who are engaged in a continuous political 'battle of giants', not allowing any other political party to arise, because that would inevitably take away the much needed support of one of the existing parties, immediately turning it into a political 'looser'. This huge influence of highly religious values on the 'politically correct' and much advertised high 'moral' values is what makes the usa rather extremist also in their assessment of politics. At least (if not only :) at a verbal level. I think this is where the extremism in american politics, especially where the neo-conservative republicans are involved, as opposed to the more 'enlighted' and 'liberal' democrats comes from. This inevitably will lead to the so much observed extreme measures, like 'zero tolerance' on drugs. And also to the refererences made by the Bush administration to the 'american values' and to the democratic 'evangelism', which are used to argue that the american foreign politics of defending existing economic and strategic 'interests' -- even if it involves the use of a huge amount of violence and economic 'bullying' -- are unquestionably legitimately allowed. That's why the americans buy it all, I think. Combined with the fact that the bigger a system becomes, the less intelligently it behaves. Fiercely fighting drugs, where a more flexible and intelligent approach (no wonder it works in The Netherlands, because that's a comparatively tiny country) would yield better results. Invading Iraq whereas the 'terrorists' weren't there at all (yes, now they are). You name it ... :) shakiro -- what was my point anyway? hehehe >, the usa has a > two-party system of highly conservatives, based on the theological [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > support of one of the existing parties, immediately turning it into a > political 'looser'. No. You're looking only at the last century in the US. Intially, the 13 colonies that became the first United States were far more varied. Even though half of them had their own religions (which varied in terms of social outlook), the other half was as staunchly insistent of a separation of church and state. In fact, it was a radical Puritan (and the founder of the American Baptist convention) who coined the phrase "wall of separation between Church and State," and that was based on Protestant values. In fact, if people knew the truth, the separation of Church and State is the ONLY Christian/Protestant value invested into the government of the US. What you see in the US today is a continuance of Americans copying (toward the end of the 19th century) the British wave of religiosity (embedded in their "White Man's Burden" to Christianize the world). The US was not very religious as a "national value" until then. What followed during the 20th century, of course, was the rise of the US as a world power, and as ALL world powers have done since Sargon the Great, the presumption world success is the evidence that we MUST be God's favored nation (not many Christians realize that the reason pagan Rome persecuted Christians was not because Christians worshipped Christ. The Romans were PAGANS after all--they didn't care how many gods you worshipped, as long as you gave a nod to the national patron gods, including Caesar, so the nation could continue to prosper. The Christians refused, so they were persecuted for atheism). > This huge influence of highly religious values on the 'politically > correct' and much advertised high 'moral' values is what makes the usa [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > especially where the neo-conservative republicans are involved, as opposed > to the more 'enlighted' and 'liberal' democrats comes from. Don't be so sure about those characterizations. Democrats will burn books just as quickly as Republicans...just different titles. They all believe in government controlling the lives of citizens, just different areas of control. In terms of being totalitarianist social planners, both Democrats and Republicans are just very pale shades of Communists. There had previously been a lot of wild and wooly cross politicalization in the US, and not nearly as much polarization most of the time. Most people don't realize that today's Democrats were actually the progressive wing of the Republican party 100 years ago. At the start of the 20th century, the term "progressive" was owned by the Republicans. All social progress--economic, ecological, racial matters, gender equality--all were planks of the Republican platform. The Democrats were the social conservatives. >>, the usa has a >> two-party system of highly conservatives, based on the theological [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > No. You're looking only at the last century in the US. Yes. I was. > Intially, the 13 > colonies that became the first United States were far more varied. Even [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > if people knew the truth, the separation of Church and State is the ONLY > Christian/Protestant value invested into the government of the US. Yes, clearly by choice, formally... > What you see in the US today is a continuance of Americans copying (toward > the end of the 19th century) the British wave of religiosity (embedded in > their "White Man's Burden" to Christianize the world). The US was not very > religious as a "national value" until then. Interesting, thanks. Was the influence of the other states joining in the federation meaningless (in that respect)? > What followed during the 20th century, of course, was the rise of the US > as a world power, and as ALL world powers have done since Sargon the > Great, the presumption world success is the evidence that we MUST be > God's favored nation Of course (I assume) this has not been formalised, but rather became part of the us' cultural (sub)conscience? > (not many Christians realize that the reason pagan > Rome persecuted Christians was not because Christians worshipped Christ. > The Romans were PAGANS after all--they didn't care how many gods you > worshipped, as long as you gave a nod to the national patron gods, > including Caesar, so the nation could continue to prosper. The > Christians refused, so they were persecuted for atheism). I think this is well-known to people who are raised as protestant. >> This huge influence of highly religious values on the 'politically >> correct' and much advertised high 'moral' values is what makes the usa [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > believe in government controlling the lives of citizens, just different > areas of control. Maybe, yet I expect a lot less attempts of 'mind-control', combined with rigorous personal-freedom affecting measures (as with McCarthy then, Bush' adm. now), from the democrats than from the republicans. Just a feeling. I think the democrats are more into the control of circumstances than of the people themselves. I remember the father of friend of mine telling me that he, as an Egyptian professor, held a chair in a NY Univ. in the McCarthy era, and upon arrival a woman immediately asked him: "Are you a communist?". His response was a bit amused and he asked: "Why did you think of that?" and immediately she reported him with the university's administration. He had some work in undoing (and here's where the danger is of such types of witch hunts) the damage. If he'd enter there today, the daughter of that lady probably would ask him: "Are you a terrorist?", after which the whole procedure would repeat itself... > In terms of being totalitarianist social planners, > both Democrats and Republicans are just very pale shades of Communists. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > equality--all were planks of the Republican platform. The Democrats > were the social conservatives. Well, at least I did not realise that. Thanks, shakiro "shakiro" <shakiro@shaka.khan> wrote in message > > Don't be so sure about those characterizations. Democrats will burn > > books just as quickly as Republicans...just different titles. They all [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > feeling. I think the democrats are more into the control of circumstances > than of the people themselves. They certainly have you fooled. It's the Democrats (rather "liberal") who are far more into "mind control" than the Right Wing. The Right Wing doesn't really care what you think--just what you do. It will be Liberals who will most insist that you *think* properly, and who will ensure that proper thought is incalcated into all educational forums. The Right Wing will just use police force. > I remember the father of friend of mine telling me that he, as an Egyptian > professor, held a chair in a NY Univ. in the McCarthy era, and upon [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > him: "Are you a terrorist?", after which the whole procedure would repeat > itself... No, what actually happens on US campuses today is that someone representing the right will NOT BE PERMITTED TO SPEAK AT ALL. Someone representing a terrorist viewpoint would be welcomed. > "shakiro" <shakiro@shaka.khan> wrote in message >> > Don't be so sure about those characterizations. Democrats will burn [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > the right will NOT BE PERMITTED TO SPEAK AT ALL. Someone representing a > terrorist viewpoint would be welcomed. Well, maybe such a guest speaker could spread some more light onto the real causes (and causers) of 'terrorism'? Everything would be better than Bush' comment like "considering the amount of terrorism we see in Iraq, it's a good thing we entered there to fight it". Before the war in Iraq there were no terrorists there. Same goes for the 'war on drugs'. Before the removal of the Taliban there was no drugs production in Afghanistan, now there's plenty. shakiro >Well, maybe such a guest speaker could spread some more light onto the >real causes (and causers) of 'terrorism'? Everything would be better than >Bush' comment like "considering the amount of terrorism we see in >Iraq, it's a good thing we entered there to fight it". Well, Hussein was paying Palestinian families when their sons would blow themselves up in Israel. That qualifies as supporting terrorism. The ties to Al-Qaeda are quite a bit weaker, though. So we aren't really providing consequences to the 9/11 terrorist network by taking out Iraq. >Before the war in Iraq there were no terrorists there. That would be a difficult claim to swallow, given that Islam has a history of violence and desperate extremism that compares to no other religion in the world. >Same goes for the 'war on drugs'. Before the removal of the Taliban there >was no drugs production in Afghanistan, now there's plenty. What makes you so sure? Afghan hash has for decades been among the best quality in the world. And as for opium farming, it could very well be that we didn't know the extent of it until we shined a light in their direction. >>Well, maybe such a guest speaker could spread some more light onto the >>real causes (and causers) of 'terrorism'? Everything would be better than [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Well, Hussein was paying Palestinian families when their sons would blow > themselves up in Israel. That qualifies as supporting terrorism. I do not agree on that one. The Palestinians are a people highly oppressed by the Israeli military power and are that desperate that the only way they can defend themselves is to blow themselves up in the face of the Israelies. Nobody called the Japanese WWII kamikaze pilots 'terrorists'. > The ties to > Al-Qaeda are quite a bit weaker, though. So we aren't really providing [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > violence and desperate extremism that compares to no other religion in the > world. Oops, are you now suggesting to kill all moslims because you think their religion sucks? >>Same goes for the 'war on drugs'. Before the removal of the Taliban there >>was no drugs production in Afghanistan, now there's plenty. > > What makes you so sure? Afghan hash has for decades been among the best > quality in the world. And as for opium farming, it could very well be that we > didn't know the extent of it until we shined a light in their direction. Yes, it was very good, but after the Taliban kicked out the Shah and took over, they also introduced death penalty for hash growers. And when they also carried out their threats, the farmers quickly found something else to grow. shakiro >> Well, Hussein was paying Palestinian families when their sons would blow >> themselves up in Israel. That qualifies as supporting terrorism. >I do not agree on that one. The Palestinians are a people highly oppressed >by the Israeli military power and are that desperate that the only way >they can defend themselves is to blow themselves up in the face of the >Israelies. Nobody called the Japanese WWII kamikaze pilots 'terrorists'. There is a difference between a people whose government has declared war on another nation in order to defend themselves from perceived aggression, and individuals who decide violence is the best way to carry out their agenda. One is morally defensible. The other is people who are unsatisfied with their lot taking out their dissatisfaction by destroying other people's lives. I might agree with you if Palestianian aggression was only carried out against the Israeli military, but the truth is, many civilians are killed by suicide bombers. The rationale? They support the military, so they are somehow morally implicated in the stealing of Palestianian land by the Israeli government. Civilians do not deserve to be under attack, because they have not harmed you except through their implicit cooperation with the government. That is why what the Palestianian bombers are doing is terrorism. They are using the government's actions as an excuse to kill civilians who have done no harm. >>>Before the war in Iraq there were no terrorists there. >> >> That would be a difficult claim to swallow, given that Islam has a history of >> violence and desperate extremism that compares to no other religion in the >> world. >Oops, are you now suggesting to kill all moslims because you think their >religion sucks? Don't put words in my mouth. The probability that terrorists existed in Iraq before the US police action began is very high. That is because of the level of Muslim population there, and because terrorist activity is almost limited to Muslim radicals. It is not necessarily as high as some other Islamic countries due to Iraq being a relatively secular nation, but it is higher than any Western nation where the percentage, and perhaps even the raw number of Muslims is much lower. It would be idiocy to claim that all Muslims support or practice terrorism. It would also be idiocy to state that all terrorists are Muslims, because we do not have every terrorist in custody to query their religious and political views. But it is not unreasonable to state that of the terrorists that have been identified, most are Muslim radicals. A sad fact, but a fact nonetheless. That does not justify a discriminatory or profiling policy against Muslims as you suggest, because of all Muslims, very few are terrorists. >Yes, it was very good, but after the Taliban kicked out the Shah and took >over, they also introduced death penalty for hash growers. And when they >also carried out their threats, the farmers quickly found something else >to grow. I was not aware of this, thanks. >>> Well, Hussein was paying Palestinian families when their sons would blow >>> themselves up in Israel. That qualifies as supporting terrorism. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > another nation in order to defend themselves from perceived aggression, and > individuals who decide violence is the best way to carry out their agenda. Well, if your country would have been colonised, imperialised and ruled by some foreign country, would you perceive that as 'legal'? So, if such country leave your country, but not before giving 50% of your country's area away to another ethnic group, would you perceive that as friendly? Declaration of war against a country that, in your perception, then is illegally occupying your territory, seems a logic thing to do then for me. One of the main forces to push for this to happen in Palestina after WWII was the zionist representation group in the US, so already there the US was one of the founders of tensions and conflicts in the Middle East. Only to now keep their agenda focused on the interests of the jewish state of Israel exclusively, proclaiming they only want 'peace in the M.E.', but are not willing to force parties to a fair agreement. Oh, and by the way: The top 'individual' who decides violence is the best way to carry out his agenda for me is still Mr. G.W.B. :) > One > is morally defensible. The other is people who are unsatisfied with their lot [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > morally implicated in the stealing of Palestianian land by the Israeli > government. I still fail to see what was the 'rationale' for the allied forces to kill so many harmless civilians in WW II in Dresden, Berlin, Hiroshima, Nagasaki. I can think of one reason for the Palestinian suicide bombers to kill civilians. And that's because their state is so much oppressed, and all ways of trade are so much blocked, that there are no military means available to defend themselves against the almighty israelian armed forces occupying their region. So, as a last resort, in their despair they see only one remaining action of resistance, and that's to kill the, yes, ultimately responsible people for their situation, the voters, the civilians who ultimately chose to support or even ask for the oppression of their territory. > Civilians do not deserve to be under attack, because they have not harmed you > except through their implicit cooperation with the government. That is why > what the Palestianian bombers are doing is terrorism. They are using the > government's actions as an excuse to kill civilians who have done no harm. If you read my comment above you might realise that in fact I do not share your belief in 'innocent civilians'. It is exactly them that define the direction of the government by the democratic process of elections. So, in my view they are ultimately and principally responsible. You could argue the same against the more or less automatic acceptance of 'collateral damage' caused by american attacks on 'terrorists' in Iraq -- everytime we hear on CNN that the US army has killed 'several insurgents', the television also reports that, according to Iraqi doctors and hospitals, a big part of those so called insurgents, in fact are 'innocent civilians'. Does that make the us soldiers terrorists? One could argue that the answer is affirmative. Also the acts of the Israelian army in Palestina. The oppressive state is 'hunting terrorists' and, in the process, kills a lot of innocent civilians and additionally destroys their homes. One should be very careful in separating propaganda and the accompanying definitions and use of words from factual representations. The us, and in their tail the isrealians, are very good in propaganda. Remember that not one day after the collapse of the WTC Sharon immediately hyjacked the term 'terrorists' for the first time to apply the definition onto the Palestinian freedom fighters (the term I prefer to use), claiming the right to treat them from them on the same as the us was going to treat the Al-Qaida members: as lawless elements, not deserving a fair treat. Politicians are excellent in not telling the whole truth. They forget to tell that the basis of foreign policy has been for decades, and -- make no mistake -- still is the creation of tension between other countries and ethnic groups. Planting the seeds for armed conflicts and the build-up of generations of hate. Then they choose the side of the party that best defends their (financial) interests et voila: the palestinian conflict is totally explained. Or the Iran-Iraq war (Hussein was a fool to let him be used by the us in that way). Or even the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait, as when the English left Irak after their occupation, they deliberately created the state of Kuwait, including the islands of Boebijan and Djahra blocking the entry to the persian gulf for Iraq. A favourite, albeit very cynical, quote of mine in this context is that of the english commander of the British forces that occupied Iraq in 1917: "Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators. Your wealth has been stripped of you by unjust men ... The government of Iraq, and the future of your country will soon belong to you. ... We will end a brutal regime ... so that Iraqis can live in security."General F. S. Maude, commander of the British forces, to the people of Mesopotamia, 1917. But when they left, the only did so after leaving a conflict-laden situation which would cause many really innocent civilians to die. When Hussein returned the american favors by attacking Iran, he was not able to win because the Iranians have a reputation of being fighters, even when command structure has broken down, as was the case. He was a fool then to fullfil the wishes of his american 'friends' at that time. After losing, he only had Kuwait to 'save his face' in the Arab world, and when he brought up the subject and asked his 'american friends' what they would do in case Iraq would occupy Kuwait, the us ambassador told him that that would not be of any interest to the americans. So, he invaded Iraq, only to find out he was fooled again by his 'american friends'. Of course this does not make him innocent, but it demonstrates that if one looks at conflicts, the real responsible people are often the countries that afterwards work for a 'peaceful solution'. But only the one that maximises the accomplishment of their particular interests. Fairness is not part of their vocabulary, other than to fool their own people and the rest of the world, through propagande, in order to get approval and support for their actions. >>>>Before the war in Iraq there were no terrorists there. >>> >>> That would be a difficult claim to swallow, given that Islam has a history of >>> violence and desperate extremism that compares to no other religion in the >>> world. Well, it was easy to claim :) But let me refine that statement a bit. Maybe there were 'potential terrorists' in their, but they were tightly kept in control by Saddam Hussein. Once this man was removed, the us came in, failed to control the borders (as well as the looting and cultural inheritance and the civilian infrastructure), and attracted, of course, a lot of foreign 'insurgents'. >>Oops, are you now suggesting to kill all moslims because you think their >>religion sucks? > > Don't put words in my mouth. Sorry, that was a slip of the tongue, as well as of the mind. > The probability that terrorists existed in Iraq > before the US police action began is very high. That is because of the level [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Western nation where the percentage, and perhaps even the raw number of Muslims > is much lower. I still fail to see how you can claim that, if terrorist activity is 'almost limited to Muslim radicals', this would imply that the presence of Muslims makes the existence of terrorists very probable. I would agree if you stated that Muslim religion is a requirement for the presence of terrorists. But stating that Muslim population implies the presence of terrorists is not ok to me. Their was no cause for terrorism in Iraq, apart from 'terrorism' against Saddam Hussein. But to be honest I don't think you would apply the term 'terrorist' rather than 'freedom fighter' to that situation. > It would be idiocy to claim that all Muslims support or practice terrorism. It > would also be idiocy to state that all terrorists are Muslims, because we do > not have every terrorist in custody to query their religious and political > views. But it is not unreasonable to state that of the terrorists that have > been identified, most are Muslim radicals. Yes, on that one I agree with you. > A sad fact, but a fact nonetheless. > > That does not justify a discriminatory or profiling policy against Muslims as > you suggest, because of all Muslims, very few are terrorists. Right. >>Yes, it was very good, but after the Taliban kicked out the Shah and took >>over, they also introduced death penalty for hash growers. And when they >>also carried out their threats, the farmers quickly found something else >>to grow. > > I was not aware of this, thanks. And now the Taliban regime left the country, Bush has to extend his 'war on drugs' to Afghanistan again. Thanks for the discussion, shakiro >Well, if your country would have been colonised, imperialised and ruled by >some foreign country, would you perceive that as 'legal'? Yes, as long as the amount of freedom I enjoy is equal to or greater than the amount of freedom I enjoyed before. >So, if such country leave your country, but not before giving 50% of your >country's area away to another ethnic group, would you perceive that as >friendly? I wouldn't care, because ethnicity and religion are irrelevant to me. I prefer to get along with those surrounding me instead of alienating and condemning them based on trifling differences. >Declaration of war against a country that, in your perception, then is >illegally occupying your territory, seems a logic thing to do then for me. Palestine never declared war on Israel. As a nation, they are too weak to wage war. The conflict is waged by civilian militants who are killing other civilians who have not harmed them. This is inexcusable. Note that I do not support US intervention for any other reason than to preserve life and liberty. If we send standing forces to Israel, we should also send them to Palestine, because life and liberty should be preserved in both places. Unfortunately, Palestine would never permit this because they have this "with us or against us" mentality like all simple minded and backward folk. Waging a purely symbolic battle is clearly more important to them than making peace. It's their loss. Note that Israel feels the same way, because they are also backwards, so if we stationed troops in Palestine, Israel would resent it. The most logical alternative is to pull out entirely since we are forced by these people's own intolerance to pick one favorite or the other. Pulling out entirely would allow innocent Israeli citizens to die at the hands of PLO types, so we do not do so. But aiding the Israeli military in their own aggression would be a mistake, because then we have intertwined our interests. As far as I know, we avoid doing this. All Palestine and Israeli citizens have to do is let their differences fall to the side, and then they can live amongst one another, and the border conflict becomes moot. Instead, they choose to fight. In some ways, this is natural selection at work. If people want to fight, you can't keep them from fighting. All you can do is try to protect a victim if there is one, and that is what we do by sending soldiers to Israel to protect the citizens. >One of the main forces to push for this to happen in Palestina after WWII >was the zionist representation group in the US, so already there the US >was one of the founders of tensions and conflicts in the Middle East. The tensions and conflicts in the Middle East cannot be traced to one event or one group, but to a 100 year history of intervention all over the East from all sides of federal policy. >Only to now keep their agenda focused on the interests of the jewish state >of Israel exclusively, proclaiming they only want 'peace in the M.E.', but >are not willing to force parties to a fair agreement. Perhaps if it weren't for this silly Iraq issue, we would have the resources to carry out such a plan. >Oh, and by the way: >The top 'individual' who decides violence is the best way to carry out >his agenda for me is still Mr. G.W.B. :) GWB is held accountable by his people should they choose to hold him accountable. Terrorists are held accountable by nobody. >I still fail to see what was the 'rationale' for the allied forces to kill >so many harmless civilians in WW II in Dresden, Berlin, Hiroshima, >Nagasaki. I have not advocated attacking civilians. I have advocated defending civilians. The Japanese strikes should have been on military and industrial targets, not populated areas. >I can think of one reason for the Palestinian suicide bombers to kill >civilians. I can think of several reasons, but if those civilian targets have not harmed them in the first place, all of those reasons would be morally bankrupt. >And that's because their state is so much oppressed, and all >ways of trade are so much blocked, that there are no military means [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >civilians who ultimately chose to support or even ask for the oppression >of their territory. Well, that is their problem if that is the only solution they 'see'. If they fail to 'see' that they are simply not in a position to struggle in a military fashion, they could very well choose another obvious choice, to set aside their religious and ethnic differences. Instead they kill innocent people who have not harmed them. Your rationale here is dangerous because it could be used in a similar fashion to justify the 9/11 attacks. >If you read my comment above you might realise that in fact I do not share >your belief in 'innocent civilians'. It is exactly them that define the >direction of the government by the democratic process of elections. We will have to disagree here. In a republic, we elect our leaders and hold them accountable through our vote. We cannot control their actions while they hold office. That is what the system of checks and balances is for. All we know about them is the promises they make when campaigning. If they break these promises, you have a dilemma of intent. Am I responsible for setting in action a chain of events for which I could not reasonable predict the outcome? The alternative is a true democracy, which does not scale and is prone to corruption. In *either* case, you do not have a unanimous agreement on anything. There are always dissenting voters. That is why attacking civilians is morally bankrupt, because you cannot pretend to know that they would oppress your cause given the opportunity. All you can make is an assumption, painting an entire population with the broad brush of the majority. >You could argue the same against the more or less automatic >acceptance of 'collateral damage' caused by american attacks on [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >in fact are 'innocent civilians'. Does that make the us soldiers >terrorists? One could argue that the answer is affirmative. Are the US soldiers targeting civilians? If so, they are guilty of murder just as the soldiers who killed Vietnamese civilians out of cruelty were guilty of murder. Collateral damage is a grey area. What do you do when a person is holding a gun and you can't tell a civilian apart from a military? Compound that with the lack of military uniforms; by not identifying military apart from citizens, every citizen becomes a de facto human shield. Note that I do not agree with the continued presence in Iraq, nor that we ever became involved in the first place. >One should be very careful in separating propaganda and the accompanying >definitions and use of words from factual representations. >The us, and in their tail the isrealians, are very good in propaganda. They are not alone. Did you watch the Iraqi news as the US invaded? A stronger statement would be that "national governments are very good in propaganda". >Remember that not one day after the collapse of the WTC Sharon immediately >hyjacked the term 'terrorists' for the first time to apply the definition >onto the Palestinian freedom fighters (the term I prefer to use), claiming >the right to treat them from them on the same as the us was going to treat >the Al-Qaida members: as lawless elements, not deserving a fair treat. Are the PLO attacking military, or are they attacking civilians? Labels are meaningless. Their actions hold the meaning. >After losing, he only had Kuwait to 'save his face' in the Arab world, and >when he brought up the subject and asked his 'american friends' what >they would do in case Iraq would occupy Kuwait, the us ambassador told him >that that would not be of any interest to the americans. So, he invaded >Iraq, only to find out he was fooled again by his 'american friends'. This is hearsay, of course. Who can corroborate that? And if he wanted a guarantee, he should have signed a treaty. Standard politics in the real world. >Of course this does not make him innocent, but it demonstrates that if one >looks at conflicts, the real responsible people are often the countries [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >rest of the world, through propagande, in order to get approval and >support for their actions. If people do not care enough to see through the propaganda, they have sealed their own fate. The price of freedom, as well as an accountable government, is eternal vigilance. And vigilance is especially required during times of armed conflict. We have our televisions and other distractions though, so there is no pressing need for the average person to think or worry about such things. They cannot see past their own desires and their own short life to the broader picture of things. One source of that attitude is spending money on stupid wars instead of history and critical thinking education. >Maybe there were 'potential terrorists' in [Iraq], but they were tightly >kept in control by Saddam Hussein. Once this man was removed, the us came >in, failed to control the borders (as well as the looting and cultural >inheritance and the civilian infrastructure), and attracted, of course, a >lot of foreign 'insurgents'. It's true, Al-qaeda is now rampant in Iraq. But in any nation with a significant Islamic presence, even a secular nation such as Iraq, there may be reason to believe terrorist cells may be operating (see below). Islam has carved out this reputation for itself. Note that "reason to believe terrorist cells may be operating" is not "reason to carpet bomb the country". >I still fail to see how you can claim that, if terrorist activity is >'almost limited to Muslim radicals', this would imply that the presence of >Muslims makes the existence of terrorists very probable. I would agree if >you stated that Muslim religion is a requirement for the presence of >terrorists. But stating that Muslim population implies the presence of >terrorists is not ok to me. I see this point (and my earlier paragraph depends on this assumption). A common assumption was that the distribution of radicals within Islam is close to uniform. If 5% of Islams are radicals, then choosing 20 Islams at random will net you one radical. Of course there is no evidence either for or against this. I have a suspicion that it is wrong because Islamic radicals tend to be generated from particular areas under particular religious leadership, like anthills. For example, it would be difficult to find such leadership within the borders of the US, even though the US has a significant Muslim minority. >Their was no cause for terrorism in Iraq, apart from 'terrorism' against >Saddam Hussein. But to be honest I don't think you would apply the term >'terrorist' rather than 'freedom fighter' to that situation. I would agree. Saddam Hussein is a valid target for aggression, as well as the rest of his comical government and military. Civilians still remain off limits, unless you want to be referred to as a terrorist. >And now the Taliban regime left the country, Bush has to extend his 'war >on drugs' to Afghanistan again. Well, I think this is stupid. Seize the drugs at the borders, or embargo all other Afghan economic activity (if any) until the Afghan government takes care of the problem by themselves. Opium and/or cannabis are not harming anyone, people who use drugs only harm themselves, so there is no moral license for killing people to prevent drug trading. The problem we want to solve is to prevent our money from leaving the country for foreign drugs which the use of then increase costs of healthcare/treatment/etc at home. I am certain there is a better way to solve this problem than to simply kill everyone involved. Especially when this course of action is shown to be completely useless for decades in South America attempting to destroy coca trade. What's another way to prevent money from leaving the country for drugs? De-prohibit and regulate drugs here, and sell them for less money than they can be imported for. It may offend some people, but the alternative solutions are expensive and unjust. >>Well, if your country would have been colonised, imperialised and ruled by >>some foreign country, would you perceive that as 'legal'? > > Yes, as long as the amount of freedom I enjoy is equal to or greater than the > amount of freedom I enjoyed before. I think that did not apply to the Palestinians wiped away by force and put in 'refugee camps'. So I take it you'd not perceive it as 'legal' :) >>So, if such country leave your country, but not before giving 50% of your >>country's area away to another ethnic group, would you perceive that as [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to get along with those surrounding me instead of alienating and condemning > them based on trifling differences. Mostly that would be a dream. If another ethnic group takes over, they mostly start immediately in putting 'their own members' in important positions, and give them a preferred treatment. >>Declaration of war against a country that, in your perception, then is >>illegally occupying your territory, seems a logic thing to do then for me. > > Palestine never declared war on Israel. As a nation, they are too weak to wage > war. Anyway, they attack, so the message is clear > The conflict is waged by civilian militants who are killing other > civilians who have not harmed them. This is inexcusable. I'm sorry but I still do not agree with that, even after your comments below. I can feel some understanding for the desperate Palestinians and frustration which gives them the idea suicide bombing is the only means left apart from apathy and acceptance of their fate. > Note that I do not > support US intervention for any other reason than to preserve life and liberty. Ok, note taken > If we send standing forces to Israel, we should also send them to Palestine, > because life and liberty should be preserved in both places. > > Unfortunately, Palestine would never permit this because they have this "with > us or against us" mentality like all simple minded and backward folk. I remember as if it were yesterday Bush' speech after WTC: "Who is not with us is against us." > Waging a > purely symbolic battle is clearly more important to them than making peace. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Pulling out entirely would allow innocent Israeli citizens to die at the hands > of PLO types, so we do not do so. I am sure that if all the land that has been stolen from the Palestinians would be returned, they wouldn't see a reason for more agression. > But aiding the Israeli military in their own > aggression would be a mistake, because then we have intertwined our interests. > As far as I know, we avoid doing this. I think us is helping Israel and doing nothing to help the Palestinians. For instance, there are over 400 resolutions adopted by the UN against the Israeli occupation, but as long as the us is voting neutral, israel sees no reason whatsoever to obey. Note, that where the us supports Israel in ignoring over 400 UN resolutions, it attacks Iraq with the argument that they disobeyed the UN resolution. > All Palestine and Israeli citizens have to do is let their differences fall to > the side, and then they can live amongst one another, and the border conflict > becomes moot. Instead, they choose to fight. Hmm, this sounds familiar to me, like: if you have any property, why not share it with the thief who enters your house to steal it? > In some ways, this is natural > selection at work. Right, survival of the fittest, the strongest and the meanest and the one with the best PR (not to mention support from US). > If people want to fight, you can't keep them from fighting. > All you can do is try to protect a victim if there is one, and that is what we > do by sending soldiers to Israel to protect the citizens. And one could look for the initiator, the 'original agressor' and punish that one. >>One of the main forces to push for this to happen in Palestina after >>WWII was the zionist representation group in the US, so already there [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > event or one group, but to a 100 year history of intervention all over > the East from all sides of federal policy. Yes, interventions from West all over the East. And no learning curve whatsoever here... >>Only to now keep their agenda focused on the interests of the jewish >>state of Israel exclusively, proclaiming they only want 'peace in the >>M.E.', but are not willing to force parties to a fair agreement. > > Perhaps if it weren't for this silly Iraq issue, we would have the > resources to carry out such a plan. The Palestinian issue existed a long time before the Iraqi one. >>Oh, and by the way: >>The top 'individual' who decides violence is the best way to carry out >>his agenda for me is still Mr. G.W.B. :) > > GWB is held accountable by his people should they choose to hold him > accountable. Terrorists are held accountable by nobody. They obviously seem not to hold GWB accountable at all. I mean, they even re-elected him. >>I still fail to see what was the 'rationale' for the allied forces to >>kill so many harmless civilians in WW II in Dresden, Berlin, Hiroshima, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > civilians. The Japanese strikes should have been on military and > industrial targets, not populated areas. Ok. >>I can think of one reason for the Palestinian suicide bombers to kill >>civilians. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > a military fashion, they could very well choose another obvious choice, > to set aside their religious and ethnic differences. The problem with this is that if the palestinians would choose to do as you advise, the israelians would see this as weakness and immediate confiscate the whole area. Declare a 'great israeli democratic state' and keep the original ethnic minority, i.e. the palestinians, poor and stupid. I really don't think your advise is working in real life. > Instead they kill > innocent people who have not harmed them. Your rationale here is > dangerous because it could be used in a similar fashion to justify the > 9/11 attacks. Well, isn't that the whole idea? The Al-Qaida people are so fed up with the constant interference of the ('christian') US in their islamic Arab region, that they are now exporting the violence back to the US. >>If you read my comment above you might realise that in fact I do not >>share your belief in 'innocent civilians'. It is exactly them that [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > intent. Am I responsible for setting in action a chain of events for > which I could not reasonable predict the outcome? At least a people could start an impeachment trial. And if the momentum would be large enough, that trial would succeed and the president ousted. No problem here. Not starting an impeachment procedure by a large enough amount of people means the majority is in favor of, or at least accepting the policy implemented by the current president. And yes, in my view that makes the 'innocent civilians' not so innocent. > The alternative is a true democracy, which does not scale and is prone > to corruption. In *either* case, you do not have a unanimous agreement [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > is an assumption, painting an entire population with the broad brush of > the majority. Yes, you've got a valid point there. >>You could argue the same against the more or less automatic acceptance >>of 'collateral damage' caused by american attacks on 'terrorists' in [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > continued presence in Iraq, nor that we ever became involved in the > first place. Right, so I still think that, by having invaded Iraq unlawfully, every civilian casualty is the direct responsibility of the US. Wether they think it was a terrorist, a freedom fighter, or a plain civilian holding a gun. >>One should be very careful in separating propaganda and the accompanying >>definitions and use of words from factual representations. The us, and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > stronger statement would be that "national governments are very good in > propaganda". Ok. >>Remember that not one day after the collapse of the WTC Sharon >>immediately hyjacked the term 'terrorists' for the first time to apply [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Are the PLO attacking military, or are they attacking civilians? Labels > are meaningless. Their actions hold the meaning. Right, so, by choosing Sharon, with the knowledge of what happened in Sabra and Chatilla, to their president, the Israelian voters are responsible for the oppression and killing of palestinian civilians and for the destruction of their homes and economic means of survival and for the stealing of their land. Me, if I were a palestinian, I wouldn't need much more motives for fierce military opposition, freedom fighting and (counter) attacks. >>After losing, he only had Kuwait to 'save his face' in the Arab world, >>and when he brought up the subject and asked his 'american friends' what [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > This is hearsay, of course. Who can corroborate that? It has been broadcasted various times here in the European news. > And if he wanted > a guarantee, he should have signed a treaty. Standard politics in the > real world. True, there's only guarantee on vacuum cleaners :) >>Of course this does not make him innocent, but it demonstrates that if >>one looks at conflicts, the real responsible people are often the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > source of that attitude is spending money on stupid wars instead of > history and critical thinking education. Right, and I'd take it one step further: Ignorance is no excuse. So, failing to be vigilant in what a people's government is doing, makes them responsible for their actions. Away innocence. >>Maybe there were 'potential terrorists' in [Iraq], but they were tightly >>kept in control by Saddam Hussein. Once this man was removed, the us [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > believe terrorist cells may be operating" is not "reason to carpet bomb > the country". Ok. >>I still fail to see how you can claim that, if terrorist activity is >>'almost limited to Muslim radicals', this would imply that the presence [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > example, it would be difficult to find such leadership within the > borders of the US, even though the US has a significant Muslim minority. Ok, I can understand that, but note that you changed from 'terrorist' to 'radical'. >>Their was no cause for terrorism in Iraq, apart from 'terrorism' against >>Saddam Hussein. But to be honest I don't think you would apply the term [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > as the rest of his comical government and military. Civilians still > remain off limits, unless you want to be referred to as a terrorist. Fine, only in the military they don't consider civilians as 'off limits', but as 'acceptable collateral damage'. >>And now the Taliban regime left the country, Bush has to extend his 'war >>on drugs' to Afghanistan again. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > they can be imported for. It may offend some people, but the > alternative solutions are expensive and unjust. Ok, I see there's room for another thread :") My main point is: if you don't mess with the Arabs, maybe they won't mess with you. Most of the crises in the internation politics the us went through, they have caused themselves. I really would like to see someone calculate the 'net positive effect' of for instance the CIA and Armed Interventions on the us safety and economic situation. I take it as negative. shakiro >>>Well, if your country would have been colonised, imperialised and ruled by >>>some foreign country, would you perceive that as 'legal'? >> >> Yes, as long as the amount of freedom I enjoy is equal to or greater than the >> amount of freedom I enjoyed before. >I think that did not apply to the Palestinians wiped away by force and put >in 'refugee camps'. So I take it you'd not perceive it as 'legal' :) Certainly not, if that is indeed the case and these civilians had done no harm. >Mostly that would be a dream. If another ethnic group takes over, they >mostly start immediately in putting 'their own members' in important >positions, and give them a preferred treatment. That is subjective. Freedom can be quantified. 'Preferred treatment' cannot. If the 'preferred treatment' includes more freedoms that you can demonstrate, well then there you go, that is discrimination and should be dealt with. But people who are simply whining about others having 'preferred treatment' do not necessarily deserve anything. >> Palestine never declared war on Israel. As a nation, they are too weak to wage >> war. >Anyway, they attack, so the message is clear They attack civilians because they are too weak to attack the military. My problem with this is that attacking civilians is not justified. Are you deliberately reading around my statements? >I'm sorry but I still do not agree with that, even after your comments >below. I can feel some understanding for the desperate Palestinians and >frustration which gives them the idea suicide bombing is the only means >left apart from apathy and acceptance of their fate. I don't sympathize with people who target civilians. Period. >> Unfortunately, Palestine would never permit this because they have this "with >> us or against us" mentality like all simple minded and backward folk. >I remember as if it were yesterday Bush' speech after WTC: "Who is not >with us is against us." Like I said, all simple minded and backward folk. >I am sure that if all the land that has been stolen from the Palestinians >would be returned, they wouldn't see a reason for more agression. It is only 'stolen' from their perspective. They are free to perceive it as 'no longer theirs' and go live on it peacefully. Now if the Israelis are using their military to kill even illegal immigrants, then they are in the wrong. >I think us is helping Israel and doing nothing to help the Palestinians. >For instance, there are over 400 resolutions adopted by the UN against the >Israeli occupation, but as long as the us is voting neutral, israel sees >no reason whatsoever to obey. So why doesn't someone else jump in? Does any non-Islam nation seriously sympathize with Palestinian militants? I don't see anyone else jumping to the aid of Palestine. Is everyone really THAT scared of the US? We're practically bankrupt, been exporting our economy for the last 30-40 years, what could we possibly do? >> All Palestine and Israeli citizens have to do is let their differences fall to >> the side, and then they can live amongst one another, and the border conflict >> becomes moot. Instead, they choose to fight. >Hmm, this sounds familiar to me, like: if you have any property, why not >share it with the thief who enters your house to steal it? Possession does not equal ownership. Perhaps that 'thief' was coming to reclaim what he felt to be his property, even though you feel you obtained it legitimately. How would you feel then? >> In some ways, this is natural >> selection at work. >Right, survival of the fittest, the strongest and the meanest and the one >with the best PR (not to mention support from US). No, it is people who are selecting themselves out of existence because all they will do is fight and refuse to cooperate or budge one inch. It has nothing to do with survival of the fittest. Palestinian militants CHOOSE to kill themselves and civilians instead of to accept their lot and seek influence some other way. Israel CHOOSES to kill and/or imprison Palestinian settlers instead of simply allowing them to stay, inviting more aggression. >> If people want to fight, you can't keep them from fighting. >> All you can do is try to protect a victim if there is one, and that is what we >> do by sending soldiers to Israel to protect the citizens. >And one could look for the initiator, the 'original agressor' and punish >that one. Who is 'right' comes from their religion, not from any legal claim. One believes that the holy land belongs to them and the other feels the same way. >Yes, interventions from West all over the East. And no learning curve >whatsoever here... Well, apparently there's a big learning curve, because we simply haven't learned yet. >> Perhaps if it weren't for this silly Iraq issue, we would have the >> resources to carry out such a plan. >The Palestinian issue existed a long time before the Iraqi one. Bygones are bygones. We learn from the past and plan for the future. We don't try to build time machines. >> GWB is held accountable by his people should they choose to hold him >> accountable. Terrorists are held accountable by nobody. >They obviously seem not to hold GWB accountable at all. I mean, they even >re-elected him. You might note that nearly 50% of the country voted against him. And at any time he could be impeached for war crimes. >The problem with this is that if the palestinians would choose to do as >you advise, the israelians would see this as weakness and immediate >confiscate the whole area. Declare a 'great israeli democratic state' and >keep the original ethnic minority, i.e. the palestinians, poor and stupid. >I really don't think your advise is working in real life. Doomsday prophetics are usually those who fear peace because they think they have something to lose. Palestinians could be integrated into Israeli society in the same way African Americans have been integrated as the most significant minority presence in the US. Of course, they would have to choose to do so. Something makes me think they like the current situation just fine, if for no other reason than the amount of sympathy that is poured on them for their plight. >> Instead they kill >> innocent people who have not harmed them. Your rationale here is >> dangerous because it could be used in a similar fashion to justify the >> 9/11 attacks. >Well, isn't that the whole idea? The Al-Qaida people are so fed up with >the constant interference of the ('christian') US in their islamic Arab >region, that they are now exporting the violence back to the US. So attack military targets instead of civilians. I don't see why this is so hard to grasp. I have NO SYMPATHY for people who target civilians. They deserve to be destroyed. >At least a people could start an impeachment trial. And if the momentum >would be large enough, that trial would succeed and the president ousted. >No problem here. Not starting an impeachment procedure by a large enough >amount of people means the majority is in favor of, or at least accepting >the policy implemented by the current president. And yes, in my view that >makes the 'innocent civilians' not so innocent. The PEOPLE do not initiate an impeachment trial. The LEGISLATURE does. We have NO CONTROL over the legislature except through our vote and through referenda. >Right, so I still think that, by having invaded Iraq unlawfully, every >civilian casualty is the direct responsibility of the US. Wether they >think it was a terrorist, a freedom fighter, or a plain civilian holding a >gun. OK, but it still doesn't excuse murders and human shields where a civilian was knowingly implicated. Collateral damage I'm more than happy to assign responsibility to the US. >> Are the PLO attacking military, or are they attacking civilians? Labels >> are meaningless. Their actions hold the meaning. >Right, so, by choosing Sharon, with the knowledge of what happened in >Sabra and Chatilla, to their president, the Israelian voters are [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >much more motives for fierce military opposition, freedom fighting and >(counter) attacks. Do Palestinians ask civilians who they voted for before blowing them up? NO. And that is what is WRONG. If I were a Palestianian, I would leave that morass of a country instead of bombing civilians in some archaic power struggle. In fact, I know several who did just that and are fine upstanding citizens here, rejecting such approaches as their countrymen undertake. >>>After losing, he only had Kuwait to 'save his face' in the Arab world, >>>and when he brought up the subject and asked his 'american friends' what [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >> This is hearsay, of course. Who can corroborate that? >It has been broadcasted various times here in the European news. That does not answer my question. Where is this documented? >Right, and I'd take it one step further: Ignorance is no excuse. >So, failing to be vigilant in what a people's government is doing, makes >them responsible for their actions. Away innocence. That does not excuse random civilian killings! I honestly cannot believe you are trying to make this point. >Ok, I can understand that, but note that you changed from 'terrorist' to >'radical'. radical/militant/terrorist I tend to use interchangeably. The different is that a terrorist has already committed terrorism whereas the others are simply a high risk group. >Fine, only in the military they don't consider civilians as 'off limits', >but as 'acceptable collateral damage'. Are they collateral or are they targets? Those are two different things. If the civilians are targets, the soldiers have committed murder and should be tried for it. >My main point is: if you don't mess with the Arabs, maybe they won't mess >with you. Most of the crises in the internation politics the us went >through, they have caused themselves. I really would like to see someone >calculate the 'net positive effect' of for instance the CIA and Armed >Interventions on the us safety and economic situation. I take it as >negative. I absolutely agree, but I absolutely disagree that civilians are valid targets for militant aggression, for the reasons I have repeatedly outlined. Unless 100% of civilians voted for an aggressive leader knowing he would be aggressive, I do not see any implied license to kill civilians. More likely, 50% voted for him, and 10-20% of those recanted their votes after he was sworn in and started pursuing insane policies. Do civilians still deserve to die by suicide bombs? I think not. [snip> >>I think that did not apply to the Palestinians wiped away by force and put >>in 'refugee camps'. So I take it you'd not perceive it as 'legal' :) > > Certainly not, if that is indeed the case and these civilians had done no harm. Well, what can I say, that's what happened... >>Mostly that would be a dream. If another ethnic group takes over, they >>mostly start immediately in putting 'their own members' in important [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > people who are simply whining about others having 'preferred treatment' do not > necessarily deserve anything. Somewhere below you talk about 'learning from the past'. That includes having seen what I described here. Two ethnic groups in one country means rivalry. This rivalry means that if one group has absolute majority and police and armed forces' power over the other, the minority group will suffer treatments like underpresentation in the administration and government positions, public service etc. etc. After that, the whining starts. But no need to wait for that, I'm absolutely sure this will be the 'procedure'. >>> Palestine never declared war on Israel. As a nation, they are too weak to wage >>> war. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > problem with this is that attacking civilians is not justified. Are you > deliberately reading around my statements? No, I try not to. Let me also make it clear here that your position is absolutely clear to me. In your opinion the civilians should not be attacked because they (or at least the 'against-voters' among them) are inncocent because they don't (apparently) have had the majority in voting and there's nothing they can do to stop the legislature and executing forces in their country doing their evil deeds. And although I share your vision that the no-voters are absolutely innocent indeed in that respect, I think 'the people' as a whole are still responsible for the government they chose, and can be held accountable for its actions. 'No-voters' don't have to stick to voting alone. There's also 'people power', the possibility to demonstrate, write thousands of letters to congress men, president etc. Causing uproar because they are so fiercely against what their government does, that they just can't stand it and have to express their protests against it. Of this all I've seen very little. During the Vietnam war the protesters sounded a loud voice, but during the US support for the Israelies in their oppression of the Palestinians, or in their presence in Iraq we see very little of that kind. So, while I agree with you that non-voters are in essence innocent, there's more they can do. And for me it indeed is a problem to attack those innocents. But on the other hand, if there's no other means one has to defend oneself, I wouldn't really know what on should do. I feel understanding for the people that see no other possibility than to blow themselves up, if not in a military presence, then be it civil, but preferably among 'yes-voters'. And the more cruel the atrocities, the more probable I'd agree with it. So, there you have my position :) >>I'm sorry but I still do not agree with that, even after your comments >>below. I can feel some understanding for the desperate Palestinians and >>frustration which gives them the idea suicide bombing is the only means >>left apart from apathy and acceptance of their fate. > > I don't sympathize with people who target civilians. Period. Yes, I got that. >>> Unfortunately, Palestine would never permit this because they have this "with >>> us or against us" mentality like all simple minded and backward folk. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Like I said, all simple minded and backward folk. Yes. >>I am sure that if all the land that has been stolen from the Palestinians >>would be returned, they wouldn't see a reason for more agression. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > sympathize with Palestinian militants? I don't see anyone else jumping to the > aid of Palestine. Is everyone really THAT scared of the US? Well, I really am afraid that is the case. > We're practically > bankrupt, been exporting our economy for the last 30-40 years, what could we > possibly do? I agree with you that GWB might not carry out the best possible economic policy, but still the US economy is the largest active on the globe, and also the largest exporter of goods, with Germany second, and China soon being the biggest. So there's a lot the US can do against 'rogue' states opposing their policy. But I also think there's not only fear for what the US could do, I think there's also hipocricy and opportunism involved. >>> All Palestine and Israeli citizens have to do is let their differences fall to >>> the side, and then they can live amongst one another, and the border conflict [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > reclaim what he felt to be his property, even though you feel you obtained it > legitimately. How would you feel then? Yes, that would require a _impartial_ third party as a mediator to help them solve their quarrel. At this moment, there's none available. >>> In some ways, this is natural >>> selection at work. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > will do is fight and refuse to cooperate or budge one inch. It has nothing to > do with survival of the fittest. Palestinian militants CHOOSE to kill I think it is 'defend' instead of 'kill'. Even groups of apes do it: they commit genocide to wipe out other groups. There's no way one can 'cooperate' with such an attacker. There's only defence possible. > themselves and civilians instead of to accept their lot and seek influence some > other way. Israel CHOOSES to kill and/or imprison Palestinian settlers instead > of simply allowing them to stay, inviting more aggression. >>> If people want to fight, you can't keep them from fighting. >>> All you can do is try to protect a victim if there is one, and that is what we [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Who is 'right' comes from their religion, not from any legal claim. One > believes that the holy land belongs to them and the other feels the same way. When did the Israelies leave |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message