Surrealistas: Iraq
messenger
newsgroup, the planned Iraq war is frequently discussed here.
Unfortunately, many of the posters are fascist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
War Metamorphosis: Friendly Spooks Into Invaluable Monsters
"Can we be asked to toss onto the dunghill this unlimited capacity to
say NO which is the entire secret of human progress in order to watch
and wonder at what is going on without us at the other end of the
world?" – André Breton, Preface to "The Political Position of
Surrealism"
War is not "inevitable." Surrealism has always known that the worst is
NEVER inevitable. Liberated imagination, unbound by profit and power,
can reintegrate a world divided by cynical conspiracies. Does the
parade of rotting suits in the White House REALLY know something we
don't, besides how to make crime pay? When America's friends – Israel,
Indonesia, Turkey, and the rest of the pack – invade neighbors or feed
their own people to the mangle, the U.S. cries "encore," and showers
the stage with gifts of money and guns. Thus with Iraq when Saddam
Hussein was America's Friendly Spook. But time made the lovers
restless, and now Iraq is a blood-clotted doormat on the path to
future conquests. Some 200,000 killed in the orgy of Desert Storm,
perhaps a million and a half more (mostly children under the age of 5;
but we LOVE the children!) felled by genocidal sanctions, and yet more
by persistent air strikes that form the decade's wallpaper: What is
the U.S. without its objects of corrupt desire?
And being pals with the U.S. is as slippery a proposition as being a
Mafia stoolie. Since Hussein passed from being a Friendly Spook to
being an Invaluable Monster his days have been numbered, and now his
number is up. The U.S. smokes all proposals for a non-violent
resolution (as it had barricaded all routes to a peaceful settlement
in 1990.) Even as we write, another Iraqi proposal for the
unconditional return of weapons inspectors is angrily denounced as a
"stalling" tactic before it is even considered. It will quickly be
forgotten amid the banquet of oily sensationalism scented with
patriotic spices, that the White House feeds its media teat-suckers to
regurgitate, lap up, and regurgitate again. Imagine trying to stall
the war! Brazen! Incomprehensible!
SO WE WILL NOT BUY THE INEVITABLE!
Remember: The U.S. is NOT some "new kid on the block" who must
over-compensate for his anonymity by pissing bullets at each social
"slight," but THE practitioner of concentrated power, the Big Boy.
Expedient "provocations" are exploited at regular intervals as a
diversion for a bored audience.. Here and there, dreams have been
flattened to a desert where peace cannot exist even as a mirage, where
decency "digs in" underground and predators nourish themselves on what
is most abandoned. We know (without any "experts") that a politician's
mouth is a spigot of lies; AND we do not wish to drown! It will take
many hands DREAMING IN UNION to turn off that filthy fountain. AND it
is not too early to begin.
WE DEMAND A CHANGE IN TARGETS!
We know the U.S. indulges periodically in scratching its itches, not
bothered by where the infection actually lies. Iraq constitutes a
threat to imperial complacency: the West dreams it is on the right
side, demanding a revolving collection of those on the wrong side. Yet
WHO passes out weapons like flowers? WHO mugs world labor? WHO houses
the most corporate thieves and killers? WHO is afraid to see itself as
it passes a shop window? WHO holds the deepest and most dangerous
myths about itself and kills religiously for those delusions? The
answer is clear: if the U.S. is to bomb nations based upon their
potential for damage, then it should begin at home, as an act of
charity to the world about which it pretends to care.
But what hands feed this beast? You already know the answer, though
you are moving into denial: the oil companies, the military/industrial
complex and the rest of the usual suspects that bankroll the White
House joined in this murderous game of red light/green light by an
anaesthetized servant class of pundits and intellectuals, whom we
single out for blame because of the betrayal of a particular trust.
InfoContainment has become the greatest tool for the maintenance of
power, and those Ministries of Truth, which were historically
dedicated to countering government and business malfeasance, now dine
with the Swine and lick up slop fallen from their lips. THAT (only
slightly digested) becomes our breakfast news. But we demand full
disclosure, by force if necessary, and (as always) array ourselves
against the forces of miserablism and the trivialization of desire.
So, we are suspended in permanent crisis by our Invaluable Monsters.
It is past time to return to our senses and reason our way our of this
mess.
SO WE HAVE SOME GENTLE PROPOSITIONS FOR THE PIMP AND ITS TARTS!
BEING THAT…
…Complacency and obedience are untenable positions when war is
prospected;
…War on Iraq is not inevitable unless the U.S. demands it be; The U.S.
is contemptuous of any peace which threatens profit and power;
…The U.S. breathes war, being the largest arms dealer in the world,
being the world's strongest military force, being an economy that
relies on military spending for the development of its technology
sector, and being the club-happy cop that readily employs violence to
expand the economic prospects for itself and its partners-in-crime;
…The U.S. has a bloodlust for Iraq, having made it the first
spectacular casualty of the New World Order, crushing it underfoot for
a decade, and mechanically plotting to rain yet more horror on its
people;
…The U.S. is deceitful, having opportunistically presented Saddam
Hussein as a friend and then again as a monster, having exploited and
brutally dashed the hopes of Iraq's Shi'ites and Kurds, having
sabotaged the UNSCOM weapons inspection team by loading it with spies,
and having supplied disinformation to its own media for the sole
purpose of advancing war;
…The U.S. has perversely accomplished all this while claiming to
command a moral high ground;
…America's sidekick Britain is just as reprehensible;
…Australia or any other country which fails to oppose the war does so
to their escalating disgrace;
…Bush and Blair pretend to hold the positions of ultimate
responsibility and so should be held responsible even though they are
puppets of their respective political machines;
WE DECLARE
that it is no longer enough to denounce the murderous policies of Bush
and Blair. We demand these men be bodily dragged from their seats of
power, weighed down with a red stone for every lost life that can be
laid at their feet, and thrown into the most unforgiving depths of the
sea.
And then the free radicals of imagination shall refresh that sea.
---------------------------------------------------------
September 2002
And collectively supported by….
John Quincy Adams
Hannah Cadaver
Thomas Clarkson
Barrett John Erickson
Brandon Freels
Parry Harnden
Dale Houstman
Stuart Inman
Rob Marsden
Vernon Masterson
Evi Möchel
Pierre Petiot
Ribitch
M.K. Shibek
Andrew Torch
Jay Woolrich
Xtian
---------------------------------------------------------
If you would like to add your endorsement of this text, or view the
complete list of its supporters, please refer to
http://www.zazie.at/Iraq/00_WebPages/Signature.html
---------------------------------------------------------
Bob Champ
from--a world of symbols and distortions, of dreams and
discontinuities.
And "messenger" has the guts to say that "many of the posters are
fascists." I wonder if "messenger" has ever met any real fascists. Or
if he or she realizes that by the activities outlined in the post, a
true fascist--Saddam Hussein--is being encouraged and abetted.
"messenger," you message is absurd--but then that has never troubled a
surrealist. Still--
Why don't you protest against the horrors in Iraq? Why don't you see
that leaving Saddam in power will only increase the chances that the
U.S., and other lands, will suffer the same kind of catastrophe that
happened on 9/11? Why don't you realize that appeasing this fascist in
2003 is no different from appeasing Hitler in the '30s. Why don't you
understand that not every supporter of this war is a fascist?
Get out of bed with Saddam Hussein and maybe your anti-fascism will
mean something.
Bob Champ
antif...@end-war.com (messenger) wrote in message news:<fd3ce986.0303...@posting.google.com>...
MadCow57
gasses, or infects invading coalition troops? That they didn't believe he had
the stuff, or wouldn't use it? Egg heading for faces, I predict.
The Kentucky Wizard
consultations with my Joint Chiefs of Staff, being briefed by members of my
Cabinet and telephone conversations with various world leaders, I have come
to the following conclusions:
You forgot Germany, their tail is tucked between their legs as well.
--
The Wiz ....
Echoes
>
> Why don't you protest against the horrors in Iraq?
Yes, this would be very good. If a lot of people wouldn't have sat on their
tushes making deals with Iraq (hello Russia, for one) and demanded concessions
for trade then we might not be here now.
> Why don't you see
> that leaving Saddam in power will only increase the chances that the
> U.S., and other lands, will suffer the same kind of catastrophe that
> happened on 9/11? ...
Show me the relationship between 9/11 and Iraq (I can only think of one: a
couple of the hijackers were from Saudia Arabia which is south of Iraq).
"Everybody knows" that Shrub and Co. were behind 9/11 too. Saddam's missiles
will never reach the continental U.S. (look over your shoulder - North Korea),
Israel maybe (did Israel become the 51st state while I was on vacation or
something?).
> Why don't you realize that appeasing this fascist in
> 2003 is no different from appeasing Hitler in the '30s.
This is a bad analogy; about as bad as saying Nazism is growing in the U.S.
because of the creation of the department of "Homeland Security". Saddam has
been blocked in Iraq for a decade now. The only "foray" he made was to Kuwait
prior to that (if he made others, I think most people didn't pay attention until
Kuwait). Germany had a much bigger foray from, oh say 1932-42 no? (Better
military/weaponry too.)
> Why don't you
> understand that not every supporter of this war is a fascist?
True.
> Get out of bed with Saddam Hussein and maybe your anti-fascism will
> mean something.
This is not black/white, cowboys/indians. This labelling nonsense has got to
stop. Facists? Anti-facists? Bah.
Echoes
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/10/ma_273_01.html
Yes, Saddam is scum. But he's one of many. They comes from all walks of life:
facists, communists, democrats, republicans, liberals, catholics, muslims,
Chinese, Russian, Americans, British, yadda, yadda, yadda. To hell with them
all.
You know, a strange thought came to mind the other day. If Lee Harvey Oswald
could pluck off a U.S. President, why is it taking 200,000+ men to pluck off
Saddam?
More recent: If two planes (commercial airliners) killed some 3,000 people in
NYC, will "3,000 precision-guided bombs and missiles in the first 48 hours of
war with Iraq" kill less?
Finally, no Bob, I don't think you're a facist. And no, I'm not bonking Saddam
on the side. And no, I'm not bonking Bush either. And no, I'm not bonking Bill
or Hillary or Chelsea or ... sigh.
James Hall
"Bob Champ" <robertc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9d079b90.03030...@posting.google.com...
> Ah yes, surrealism. That is where the anti-war proponents really come
> from--a world of symbols and distortions, of dreams and
> discontinuities.
Kinda like listening to C. Powell nowadays with a little misdirection
added for a more complete "surreal" world. And we all know what
kind of world that is eh b00by ?
One that is in flames OVER THERE.
>
> And "messenger" has the guts to say that "many of the posters are
> fascists." I wonder if "messenger" has ever met any real fascists. Or
> if he or she realizes that by the activities outlined in the post, a
> true fascist--Saddam Hussein--is being encouraged and abetted.
>
> "messenger," you message is absurd--but then that has never troubled a
> surrealist. Still--
>
> Why don't you protest against the horrors in Iraq? Why don't you see
> that leaving Saddam in power will only increase the chances that the
> U.S., and other lands, will suffer the same kind of catastrophe that
> happened on 9/11? Why don't you realize that appeasing this fascist in
> 2003 is no different from appeasing Hitler in the '30s. Why don't you
> understand that not every supporter of this war is a fascist?
b00by, b00by, b00by no one has stated that EVERY supporter of our
newest "forthcoming" war {however I do appreciate how you refer to an
"not happenin' war" in the present tense - do you "feel" this should be of
concern to you ?} is a fascist, however, EVERY supporter of "no war" is
thought of as unpatriotic {if one is an american} or totally anti-american
{rather than anti-war}.
The ends of a rainbow are not the best "gauge" when viewing society.
One of the reasons that so many people refer to the "bush-in-flames"
followers as being fascists may be due to how the burning bush "came"
to power. Then to make the scenario {the "move" from deMOCKracy
to a 1st level [the colour pink] fascism} more plausible this admin. has
usurped a number of civil liberties, added more layers & fat to an
already overweighted gov't {an action usually reserved for democrats},
added to an already, disgustingly bloated military budget {thru disguises,
false senses of security, colour-coded game playing, laws that limit a
citizen's civil rights by making said citizens answerable to "para-military"
forces, yaga}. And this admin. has no intention of slowing down.
To preview the unfolding of this scenario, for similarities mind you, not
exactness, please refer to HISTORY.
> Get out of bed with Saddam Hussein and maybe your anti-fascism will
> mean something.
It appears that you have just committed the very sin you accused
"messenger" of committing simply because all the people who do not wish war
may not be in bed with anyone, let alone olde S.H.
The point most anti-war supporters have been attempting {and will continue
to do} to make is that while olde S.H. is not a "good" guy, the annihilation
of
a nation is NOT the path to glory.
> Bob Champ
>
> antif...@end-war.com (messenger) wrote in message
news:<fd3ce986.0303...@posting.google.com>...
> > Although the following text is technically off-topic for this
> > newsgroup, the planned Iraq war is frequently discussed here.
> > Unfortunately, many of the posters are fascist.
Fascist-like or very close-minded may be more plausible, eh b00by ?
JHall.
James Hall
"Echoes" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message news:3E66FAEF...@spam.com...
> Bob Champ wrote:
> >
> > Why don't you protest against the horrors in Iraq?
>
> Yes, this would be very good. If a lot of people wouldn't have sat on
their
> tushes making deals with Iraq (hello Russia, for one) and demanded
> concessions for trade then we might not be here now.
> ... Note: deletions.
Ah Ollie North what a man, eh ? And he certainly did not sit on his tush
when he was not flying somewhere important to pick-up/frop-off some
drugs, money, guns, lawyers and rock 'n roll. No need to mention sex.
JHall.
parismom
>
> Although the following text is technically off-topic for this
> newsgroup, the planned Iraq war is frequently discussed here.
> Unfortunately, many of the posters are fascist.
>
>
Echoes
It's a troll and we're sheep. Welcome to use(less)net.
messenger
text itself, I'll keep my remarks brief.
Echoes <n...@spam.com> wrote in message news:<3E66FAEF...@spam.com>...
> Bob Champ wrote:
> >
> > Why don't you protest against the horrors in Iraq?
>
> Yes, this would be very good. If a lot of people wouldn't have sat on their
> tushes making deals with Iraq (hello Russia, for one) and demanded concessions
> for trade then we might not be here now.
It's a foolish question and beside the point. 1) Yanks and Brits, for
instance, might reasonably expect to have more influence over their
own government than over that of some faraway dictatorship. The coming
atrocity of "Shock & Awe" will be committed in their name. 2) The U.S.
is the world's only superpower -- one which is extending its empire
into Central Asia -- and its actions affect everyone. Iraq's power and
influence is not remotely commensurate. (Of course Iraq has been
denounced by human rights organizations, regardless of the mass
media's disinterest in such watchdog groups, as well as subject to UN
monitoring and much else ignored by the myopic opinion that the regime
has operated without international protest.) 3) The U.S. has already
done more harm to Iraqis than has the Hussein regime, and is planning
still more. 4) The U.S. policy is murderous, and should be protested.
> > Why don't you realize that appeasing this fascist in
> > 2003 is no different from appeasing Hitler in the '30s.
>
> This is a bad analogy; about as bad as saying Nazism is growing in the U.S.
> because of the creation of the department of "Homeland Security". Saddam has
> been blocked in Iraq for a decade now. The only "foray" he made was to Kuwait
> prior to that (if he made others, I think most people didn't pay attention until
> Kuwait). Germany had a much bigger foray from, oh say 1932-42 no? (Better
> military/weaponry too.)
And a bad analogy because the U.S. is clearly the aggressor in this
case.
> > Why don't you
> > understand that not every supporter of this war is a fascist?
>
> True.
>
> > Get out of bed with Saddam Hussein and maybe your anti-fascism will
> > mean something.
>
> This is not black/white, cowboys/indians. This labelling nonsense has got to
> stop. Facists? Anti-facists? Bah.
Of course, it was not said that everyone who supports this war is
fascist. It was said that there are many fascists in *this* newsgroup
(and in alt.obituaries, to which the message was cross-posted). Of the
several newsgroups I've monitored, this one is especially rife with
xenophobia, mindless nationalism, pro-war zealotry, intolerance of
dissenting opinion, an irrational fear of "liberals," a bottomless
capacity to rationalize state violence, and the readiness to believe
everything your political leaders say. To characterize this brew as
fascism is to apply a "label" no more than it would be to call blood
"red." It appears to me the main difference between fascists in 1922
and now is that today they don't like to be called "fascists."
Recognize it for what it is.
-- Parry
messenger
text itself, I'll keep my remarks brief.
Echoes <n...@spam.com> wrote in message news:<3E66FAEF...@spam.com>...
> Bob Champ wrote:
> >
> > Why don't you protest against the horrors in Iraq?
>
> Yes, this would be very good. If a lot of people wouldn't have sat on their
> tushes making deals with Iraq (hello Russia, for one) and demanded concessions
> for trade then we might not be here now.
It's a foolish question and beside the point. 1) Yanks and Brits, for
instance, might reasonably expect to have more influence over their
own government than over that of some faraway dictatorship. The coming
atrocity of "Shock & Awe" will be committed in their name. 2) The U.S.
is the world's only superpower -- one which is extending its empire
into Central Asia -- and its actions affect everyone. Iraq's power and
influence is not remotely commensurate. (Of course Iraq has been
denounced by human rights organizations, regardless of the mass
media's disinterest in such watchdog groups, as well as subject to UN
monitoring and much else ignored by the myopic opinion that the regime
has operated without international protest.) 3) The U.S. has already
done more harm to Iraqis than has the Hussein regime, and is planning
still more. 4) The U.S. policy is murderous, and should be protested.
> > Why don't you realize that appeasing this fascist in
> > 2003 is no different from appeasing Hitler in the '30s.
>
> This is a bad analogy; about as bad as saying Nazism is growing in the U.S.
> because of the creation of the department of "Homeland Security". Saddam has
> been blocked in Iraq for a decade now. The only "foray" he made was to Kuwait
> prior to that (if he made others, I think most people didn't pay attention until
> Kuwait). Germany had a much bigger foray from, oh say 1932-42 no? (Better
> military/weaponry too.)
And a bad analogy because the U.S. is clearly the aggressor in this
case.
> > Why don't you
> > understand that not every supporter of this war is a fascist?
>
> True.
>
> > Get out of bed with Saddam Hussein and maybe your anti-fascism will
> > mean something.
>
> This is not black/white, cowboys/indians. This labelling nonsense has got to
> stop. Facists? Anti-facists? Bah.
Of course, it was not said that everyone who supports this war is
James Hall
Undoubtedly.
No questions need be asked.
My country right or wrong.
Up your nose with a rubber hose.
JHall.
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message news:ozK9a.188$qn.40652@localhost...
> messenger (antif...@end-war.com) wrote, in part:
>
> : Unfortunately, many of the posters are fascist.
>
> and quoted, in part:
>
> : When America's friends - Israel,
> : Indonesia, Turkey, and the rest of the pack - invade neighbors or feed
> : their own people to the mangle, the U.S. cries "encore," and showers
> : the stage with gifts of money and guns.
>
> Funny, I thought when Iraq invaded Kuwait, that was a blatant case of a
> country invading its neighbor for purely selfish reasons.
>
> The United States and Israel, on the other hand, are countries content to
> leave their neighbors in peace, as long as they, themselves, are left in
> peace.
>
> John Savard
James Hall
always and will continue to shoot the "messangers".
However, in the end, at the end of 24/7, the song remains, sorry I'm
doin' Led Zep., the messages remains.
JHall.
P.S. Thank you.
"messenger" <antif...@end-war.com> wrote in message
news:fd3ce986.03030...@posting.google.com...
PirateJohn
>mean something.
>
>Bob Champ
Funny. I've always thought that Bob Champ would, indeed, make a great fascist.
Or a Nazi. Good to see that others recognize the same qualities in ol' Bobby.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pirat...@aol.com
Keeper of the Humour List at http://members.aol.com/PirateJohn/pirate1.html
"Mother, mother ocean... I have heard your call" - Jimmy Buffett, A Pirate
Looks At Forty.
The Kentucky Wizard
consultations with my Joint Chiefs of Staff, being briefed by members of my
Cabinet and telephone conversations with various world leaders, I have come
to the following conclusions:
> Of course, it was not said that everyone who supports this war is
> fascist. It was said that there are many fascists in *this* newsgroup
> (and in alt.obituaries, to which the message was cross-posted). Of the
> several newsgroups I've monitored, this one is especially rife with
> xenophobia, mindless nationalism, pro-war zealotry, intolerance of
> dissenting opinion, an irrational fear of "liberals," a bottomless
> capacity to rationalize state violence, and the readiness to believe
> everything your political leaders say. To characterize this brew as
> fascism is to apply a "label" no more than it would be to call blood
> "red." It appears to me the main difference between fascists in 1922
> and now is that today they don't like to be called "fascists."
> Recognize it for what it is.
>
> -- Parry
It's times like this, that I "almost wish" Europe still had the old Soviet
Union living next door.
Ingrates.
--
The Wiz ....
Cpl. O'Reilly
> You know, a strange thought came to mind the other day. If Lee Harvey Oswald
> could pluck off a U.S. President, why is it taking 200,000+ men to pluck off
> Saddam?
Everybody knows how you handle this. You send in the Impossible
Missions Force, convince Saddam that he's been in a coma and the war's
already over and that he won it, and meanwhile you plant evidence that
Saddam has been eating pork chops all during Ramadan. The local
colonels show up to arrest Saddam just as the IMF leaves the building
and gets into a black car. Just as they're about to leave, there's the
SOUND OF A SHOT. Phelps gives a small, grim smile as the car begins to
pull away
and we FREEZE FRAME and
SMASH CUT TO CREDITS.
The Kentucky Wizard
remarks below, and after consultations with my Joint Chiefs of Staff, being
briefed by members of my Cabinet and telephone conversations with various
world leaders, I have come to the following conclusions:
> On 5 Mar 2003 14:50:06 -0800, antif...@end-war.com (messenger)
> wrote:
>
>> Although the following text is technically off-topic for this
>> newsgroup, the planned Iraq war is frequently discussed here.
>> Unfortunately, many of the posters are fascist.
>>
>
> This opening paragraph, alone, almost made me spew my evening meal
> through my nose and onto my keyboard.
>
> What a rube.
>
> -- Geno
Hope you weren't eating cotton candy. Talk about "picking your nose".......
--
The Wiz ....
Kara
>>>fascist.
>>>When America's friends – Israel,
>>>own people to the mangle, the U.S.
>>>cries "encore," and showers the stage
>>>with gifts of money and guns.
>>Funny, I thought when Iraq invaded
>>Kuwait, that was a blatant case of a
>>country invading its neighbor for purely
>>selfish reasons.
>The United States and Israel, on the
>other hand, are countries content to
>leave their neighbors in peace, as long
>as they, themselves, are left in peace.
So glad you agree with me where the US is concerned.
Here's the story, in brief: Mr. Smith left his dog crap on my lawn just
before he left on holiday.
Now Mr. Jones is in a snit because I smashed his windows Hey, it ain't
my fault if Mr. Smith isn't there, is it?
- Kara -
The Kentucky Wizard
consultations with my Joint Chiefs of Staff, being briefed by members of my
Cabinet and telephone conversations with various world leaders, I have come
to the following conclusions:
Sure it is. If you're going to go to all the trouble smashing his windows,
then he should have had the option to hear the glass break or not. Now, tell
me, just what the hell are we talking about?
Time for bed methinks.......
--
The Wiz ....
Scott Kuli
weapons system that was given to him? Of course not. The media myth that
"America built Saddams' army" is just that; a media myth. I CAN name a
weapons related technology that the US shared with Iraq; it's called an
"impeller". An impeller is a device that fits into an artillery shells'
nose area, and which can detect the change in air pressure when on its'
way down, it encounters thicker air near the ground. Thus, it is possible
to shell an enemy with rounds that burst in the air, rather than having
to hit the ground in order to detonate. Obviously, this is quite a bit
more effective than the traditional round. What's also obvious to the
people who DO know a bit of the history of the US' help to Iraq in the
1980s is that it was a perfect weapon to share with Iraq at the time,
since Iran was correctly deemed more of a threat to US interests in the
region, and the Iranians had overwhelming numerical superiority in terms
of soldiers. It's simply a case of the "enemy of my enemy" being my
"friend", as far as the US was concerned. The impeller was to give Iraq a
chance to beat back Iranian mass troop charges. The primary form of US
aid to Iraq in the '80s however, was in the form of satellite imagery.
Husseins' army could not compete with Iran in numbers, and satellite
imagery provided by the US made sure it didn't have to. If you know where
your enemy is moving to, you can be there with enough when he is, and
Husseins' army couldn't have done this otherwise. Some funding also was
given to Iraq to buy weapons systems, although not a lot of money went to
Iraq from the US. I'm getting so sick of typing this letter and
variations of it over and over again, just because a few bumbling fools
from Americas' fourth estate are hard at work creating fabrications like
this. It sounds great as a story; "America goes to fight in the
Gulf...against an army America built", but the facts are not there to
support it. Where were the Iraqi air forces' American fighter aircraft?
Nowhere, because they didn't have any. The main fighter of the Iraqi air
force in 1991 was the already mostly obsolete MiG-21 Fishbed fighter.
Their newest aircraft were MiG-29s, and Su-27 Flanker aircraft; yep, all
from the USSR. The only aircraft I know of that they did not buy from the
USSR was the Mirage fighter bomber, which they got from France. Their
armor was almost all Soviet, with just a very few British Centurion main
battle tanks. Even the missiles they threatened Israel with were Soviet
made, and modified to have greater range with the help of German and
French technicians. Where were the American weapons? Nowhere, because
they only had very few American weapons, and an awful lot of Soviet and
European ones. You can stop this right now, or you can be embarrassed by
the truth whenever a post with this kind of garbage in it is spotted.
Here's to accuracy in reporting; a toast! (Don't anyone get upset, since
after all it's not like I just toasted any of the US networks, now is
it?)
In article <fd3ce986.0303...@posting.google.com>,
antif...@end-war.com says...
James Hall
otherwise, has no clever retort and graves attention.
Well I am always pleased to help.
How about that T I E, Mr. Wilde, about that T I E ?
To much.
JHall.
"The Kentucky Wizard"
> > jsa...@ecn.ab.ca ()) said:
> >>> messenger (antif...@end-war.com)
> >>> wrote, in part:
> >>>> Unfortunately, many of the posters are
> >>>> fascist.
> >>>> and quoted, in part:
> >>>> When America's friends - Israel,
> >>>> Indonesia, Turkey, and the rest of the
> >>>> pack - invade neighbors or feed their
Brigid Nelson
> Ah yes, surrealism. That is where the anti-war proponents really come
> from--a world of symbols and distortions, of dreams and
> discontinuities.
The post would make more sense if the original writer hadn't left out
the importance of DadA in the formation of the Surrealist movement. The
former art movement was a direct response to the horrors of the first
large scale "modern" war, WWI, and since the surrealists sprung
(vt?[sprang]) directly from the DadA well they could be said to be
"anti-war".
Andre Breton,a member of the original dada group organized the
surrealist movement in 1924. The surrealists attacked cultural rules
and values (you know, like nationalism)as an act of faith in the power
of imagination to free the human spirit (you know, from like opression).
I knew art history would come in handy one day.
brigid
Big J
@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net:
Interesting info. Thanks.
Unfortunately, neither art nor history are much use to those currently
clamoring to go to war, IMO.
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
Bob Champ
I will begin with some definitions of fascism, taken from two
reputable sources. I will then list some attributes of the fascist
leader and his party, taken from the Remember website, which is
devoted to the Holocaust. Finally, I will use extracts from various
sources to show why Saddam Hussein is a fascist. This is more than
just labeling; it is a horrifying reality.
This is the man you are supporting, whether you intend to or not. A
U. S. attack will rid the world of him.
Bob Champ
from Microsoft Bookshelf
Fascism. a. A system of government marked by centralization of
authority under a dictator, stringent socio-economic controls,
suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and
typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
from Columbia Encyclopedia
Characteristics of Fascist Philosophy
Fascism, especially in its early stages, is obliged to be
antitheoretical and frankly opportunistic in order to appeal to many
diverse groups. Nevertheless, a few key concepts are basic to it.
First and most important is the glorification of the state and the
total subordination of the individual to it. The state is defined as
an organic whole into which individuals must be absorbed for their own
and the state's benefit. This "total state" is absolute in its methods
and unlimited by law in its control and direction of its citizens.
My first example of Saddam as fascist appears at this site, devoted
to the Haulocaust:
http://www.remember.org/index.html#History
Fascism and Nazism as ideologies involve, to varying degrees, some of
the following hallmarks:
*** Nationalism and super-patriotism with a sense of historic mission.
Saddam Hussein as dictator saw Iraq both as a great country and as an
extension of himself. He was very conscious that the Tigris and
Euphrates valleys were the cradle of civilization, and he saw himself
as the successor to Nebuchadnezzar, the Sargons, of Gilgamesh. "Our
nation has a message," he once proclaimed. "That is why it can never
be an average nation. Throughout history our nation has either soared
to the heights or fallen into the abyss through the envy, conspiracy
and enmity of others." There was no room in such a view for reasons
to be found in envy, machinations, or ineptitude of Iraqi leaders.
(Source: review of David Brooks' _Saddam's Brain_ in the Innocents
Abroad blog)
*** Aggressive militarism even to the extent of glorifying war as good
for the national or individual spirit.
Mr. Hussein strides straight out of the 1930s, an old-fashioned
dictator with old-fashioned instincts. He wields absolute personal
power over a country of 17 million people. His formidable war machine,
one million strong, has 6,000 tanks--more than twice as many as
Britain and France put together--along with hundreds of modern
aircraft and advanced chemical weapons. What he has, he uses. During
the Gulf war he pounded Teheran... with ballistic missiles. He dropped
cyanide gas on Iranian soldiers and also, at Halabja, on his own
Kurdish dissidents. At home he murders political opponents, including
over-successful generals. To break the spirit of Iraq's 3.7 million
Kurds he has systematically demolished thousands of villages and
exiled their inhabitants to remote desert camps.
(Source: _The Economist_)
Such of Iraq's oil money that didn't flow into his pockets allowed
Saddam to assemble the largest and best-equipped military machine in
the Arab world. Much of its equipment and training was Soviet, some
was French, some from other countries. A lot of it was first-rate. In
1990 the Iraqi regime had an annual military budget of $12.9 billion,
an average of $721 per Iraqi citizen- in a country where the average
annual income is $1,950.
(Source: review of David Brooks' _Saddam's Brain_ in the Innocents
Abroad blog)
*** Authoritarian reliance on a leader or elite not constitutionally
responsible to an electorate.
(Note: the Ba'athist party is Suddam Hussein's political organization,
his party)
Ba'athism is rather worse than the corporate states of Italy and
post-Civil War Spain, perhaps not quite so horrible as Naziism itself.
In common with all of these, it emphasizes a Leader who embodies the
mystical spirit of the Nation, (in this case the Arab nation), a
combination of race and culture. The Leader's legitimacy was not
dependent on any sort of popular vote or consent of the governed, but
on "the forces of history." Elections - if any - are held not to
choose, but to confirm.
(Source: the Rantburg blog)
*** Cult of personality around a charismatic leader.
Saddam worked assiduously to build a cult of personality around
himself. His picture and his statue are to be found everywhere in
Iraq. His name is associated with hundreds of public works projects.
There are Saddam housing complexes, for example, and eventually there
was the "Saddam Line." When he took Kuwait, he named a part of it
after himself. People clap, cheer, and kiss his hand or shoulders when
he appears in public. They pour out their adulation in printed matter.
Not to show enthusiasm or love for the Great Leader is to take one's
life into one's own hands. Those disagreeable or disloyal could,
depending on their station in life, die of poison, in helicopter
crashes, or simply be arrested and tortured to death, their bodies
returned to their families in sealed coffins. Helping in the process
was the secret police, and propping up the Leader was the Republican
Guard.
(Source: review of David Brooks' _Saddam's Brain_ in the Innocents
Abroad blog)
*** Exhortations for the homogeneous masses of common folk (Volkish in
German, Populist in the U.S.) to join voluntarily in a heroic
mission_often metaphysical and romanticized in character.
The Ba'ath have been described as similar to the Nazis, but lacking
their warmth and human compassion. Their ideology is a form of
fascism, born in the 1930s as an amalgam of ideas--some Nietzschean
nihilism, a dash of the racism of H.S. Chamberlain and Alfred
Rosenberg, a bit of Soviet-style statism, and a healthy dose of rabid
nationalism. Ba'athism's emphasis is not on the man but on the masses.
In truly Orwellian style, its terminology is convoluted and in some
cases semantically meaningless. Its Newspeak presents oppression as
justice, tyranny as freedom, and death as the most valid expression of
life. The ideal of "justice" is that of justice for the "Arab nation"
over its "oppressors," not for the individual inhabitants of its
monolithic state; "freedom" translates into freedom of action for the
state, not for the individual. Death itself becomes martyrdom in the
cause of the advancement of Arab power, with the individual reduced to
the status of a member of a faceless herd, the sacrifice of life a
duty imposed.
(Source: the Rantburg blog)
*** Abandonment of any consistent ideology in a drive for state power.
Brooks quotes Saddam expressing disdain for communism as a Western
idea which has no place in the Islamic world. But Brooks
unhesitatingly draws parallels between the Baath party to both the
communist party and especially the Nazi party. Brooks also brilliantly
quotes Saddam sounding like a postmodernist professor at a Western
university, declaring that: all principles are relative, truth is
determined by the revolution's immediate needs, real Baathists need to
look to the future even if it means compromising their founding
principles, and that ascension to a higher, purer state, regardless of
previous principles, distinguishes Baathism. Take away the political
references, and you have a fancy lecture on post-structuralism that
could easily have been delivered by Edward Said instead of Saddam
Hussein.
(Source: Review of David Brooks' _Saddam's Brain_ in the Innocents
Abroad blog.)
Echoes <n...@spam.com> wrote in message news:<3E66FAEF...@spam.com>...
Echoes
>
> Protestors against the coming war with Iraq,
>
> I will begin with some definitions of fascism, taken from two
> reputable sources. I will then list some attributes of the fascist
> leader and his party, taken from the Remember website, which is
> devoted to the Holocaust. Finally, I will use extracts from various
> sources to show why Saddam Hussein is a fascist. This is more than
> just labeling; it is a horrifying reality.
>
I have not and do not support Saddam and strongly resent your insinuation.
Don't give me this "whether you intend to or not" rhetoric shit, go paint your
own god damn corner and sit in it. You lost me from this point on.
I don't think in white hat good guy and black hat black guy terms. That world
ended long ago. It is color and lots of it.
Begin all you like. You're just as bad the joker who started this thread by
calling everyone fascists.
Echoes
> ...
> I don't think in white hat good guy and black hat black guy terms ...
Obviously that should read "black hat bad guy".
The Kentucky Wizard
consultations with my Joint Chiefs of Staff, being briefed by members of my
Cabinet and telephone conversations with various world leaders, I have come
to the following conclusions:
Oh I dunno, I kinda enjoyed the "black hat black guy" term more.
--
The Wiz ....
I suffer from deja vu and amnesia at the same
time. I think I have forgotten this before.
Echoes
>
> Upon receiving news that Echoes had made the remarks below, and after
> consultations with my Joint Chiefs of Staff, being briefed by members of my
> Cabinet and telephone conversations with various world leaders, I have come
> to the following conclusions:
>
> > Echoes wrote:
> >> ...
> >> I don't think in white hat good guy and black hat black guy terms ...
> >
> > Obviously that should read "black hat bad guy".
>
> Oh I dunno, I kinda enjoyed the "black hat black guy" term more.
LOL! You're okay Wiz ;-)
> --
> The Wiz ....
>
> I suffer from deja vu and amnesia at the same
> time. I think I have forgotten this before.
Sheesh, I suppose you don't remember the twenty you owe me either do ya!
Damn, where's my blow torch ... you haven't been flamed for awhile ..
The Kentucky Wizard
consultations with my Joint Chiefs of Staff, being briefed by members of my
Cabinet and telephone conversations with various world leaders, I have come
to the following conclusions:
> The Kentucky Wizard wrote:
>>
>> Upon receiving news that Echoes had made the remarks below, and after
>> consultations with my Joint Chiefs of Staff, being briefed by
>> members of my Cabinet and telephone conversations with various world
>> leaders, I have come to the following conclusions:
>>
>>> Echoes wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> I don't think in white hat good guy and black hat black guy terms
>>>> ...
>>>
>>> Obviously that should read "black hat bad guy".
>>
>> Oh I dunno, I kinda enjoyed the "black hat black guy" term more.
>
> LOL! You're okay Wiz ;-)
>
>> --
>> The Wiz ....
>>
>> I suffer from deja vu and amnesia at the same
>> time. I think I have forgotten this before.
>
> Sheesh, I suppose you don't remember the twenty you owe me either do
> ya!
I remembered it, I just forgot who I owed it to. ;-)~
> Damn, where's my blow torch ... you haven't been flamed for awhile ..
I've been a good little poster, haven't bothered a soul. Of course, there
have been some that I bothered that didn't have a soul, so this is still a
correct statement. ;-)~ I guess I could use a good flame. It'll give me a
chance to try out my new "handy-dandy-flame-retardent-thing-ama-jiggy".
Echoes
> ... I guess I could use a good flame. It'll give me a
> chance to try out my new "handy-dandy-flame-retardent-thing-ama-jiggy".
Stop playing with it you fool! You'll go blind damnit.
Hmmm, slightly better than a Bic lighter. Must go take crabby pills ...
Shirley
Echoes wrote:
Is that where the word "Flamboyant" came from? .... ;o}
PirateJohn
test of being fascist:
>*** Nationalism and super-patriotism with a sense of historic mission.
Example: The USA, right or wrong, as the only survivng superpower. Or, as the
reichwing Christians like to point out, it's (their) god's will.
>*** Aggressive militarism even to the extent of glorifying war as good
>for the national or individual spirit.
>
The USA rushing headlong into a war that is unnecessary, and which the
overwhelming rest of the World doesn't want.
>*** Authoritarian reliance on a leader or elite not constitutionally
>responsible to an electorate.
The USA has a pseudo-president who was elected by less than the majority of the
popular vote. His own brother was involved in a series of questionable tactics
that essentially gave him the victory, helped largely by a Supreme Court
predominantly appointed by members of his own political party.
>*** Cult of personality around a charismatic leader.
Witness Ronald Raygun, a former actor with a carefully crafted public image.
To a lessor extent Dubya Bush, who is now beginning to appear to be a Worldwide
idiot on a massive scale.
>*** Exhortations for the homogeneous masses of common folk (Volkish in
>German, Populist in the U.S.) to join voluntarily in a heroic
>mission_often metaphysical and romanticized in character.
This one goes without saying. The American: Love it or Leave it -- types are
rallying around Dubya and the Mideast Follies like maggots around dung.
>*** Abandonment of any consistent ideology in a drive for state power.
Bush is quietly encouraging Mexican immigration in an effort to build up his
voter base among Hispanic voters, yet striving to avoid publicizing that fact
amongst the rank-and-file bluecollar party members.
James Hall
"PirateJohn" wrote in message ...
> ...
> >*** Abandonment of any consistent ideology in a drive for state power.
> Bush is quietly encouraging Mexican immigration in an effort to build
> up his voter base among Hispanic voters, yet striving to avoid publicizing
> that fact amongst the rank-and-file bluecollar party members.
This one is particularly odious in that it is costing some real old-timers,
black in colour, working as part of the ""White House"" staff some
real concerns; and some others their jobs.
Yep, the special Mexican "branch of the CIA" is sending dickwad new
staff members faster than the twins are able to fire 'em; what with all that
practice while livin' in texas ya'all.
So with one hand clapping the Mexican/u.s. border has been "beefed"
up and with the other hand jerkin' the willy the CIA has been packin'
'em into americaaaaa faster than one is able to say "pass the ketckup"
which is as american as one would hope one's Mexicans are, eh ?
JHall.
Bob Champ
supporting a fascist, period. And sometimes the world is black and
white--good and evil are demarcated by lines clearly drawn. This is
such a case whether you admit or not.
Bob Champ
Echoes <n...@spam.com> wrote in message news:<3E692DC4...@spam.com>...
Harry Krause
> Sorry, Echoes, old chap, but if you are protesting this war you are
> supporting a fascist, period. And sometimes the world is black and
> white--good and evil are demarcated by lines clearly drawn. This is
> such a case whether you admit or not.
>
> Bob Champ
>
Hmmm. Dubya and Saddam...fascists both.
Matthew Kruk
>
> Sorry, Echoes, old chap, but if you are protesting this war you are
> supporting a fascist, period. And sometimes the world is black and
> white--good and evil are demarcated by lines clearly drawn. This is
> such a case whether you admit or not.
Hmmm, good and evil clearly drawn lines. We're the white hat guys right and we
don't do evil things like those black hat guys in Iraq right?
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=384604
Can't wait until this war starts, surely nothing but good will come.
MadCow57
Here's what's puzzling me: If we attack Iraq, will Saddam use his WMDs against
us, thereby proving us right (that he had them all along)? Or, if he doesn't
use WMDs, will that prove us wrong?
Are our intelligence people Absolutely Certain that Saddam still has WMDs
stashed around the country?
How does Iraq plan to face the UN and the world if they use WMDs right after
telling the Security Council they don't have any?
Somebody is making a big mistake here, and I hope it's not us.
Scary.
Echoes
Depending on what you read (sources) depends on what you get. In other words,
it is a mixed bag and, IMHO, warrants extra time. There are odd things that do
not make sense (U.S. "tips" on where to find weapons provided to UN inspectors
have led to dead-ends, i.e. useless) and others that fall into place so well
that it becomes too good to be true.
Destroying Iraq will not get rid of terrorism nor remove their training ground
(as purported by the U.S.). It will just move it somewhere else (the
training). Considering how much the U.S. is ticking everybody else off right
now, it may well have started opening up new avenues.
In my mind, it is going to be expensive, sink the (already faltering) economy
and cause needless excessive deaths. Wrongly or rightly, it will
accelerate/create the next generation of hatred, fuel the current one and Time
will publish more issues with titles along the line of "Why do they hate us?".
But that's a worse case scenario. I never thought I'd live to see the Berlin
Wall come down either.
And for goodness sake, stay away from CNN. With a parent company that lost
billions last year, they really need the war (advertising dollars) more than
anybody. ;-)
James Hall
"Echoes" wrote ...
> MadCow57 wrote:
> >
> > >>Can't wait until this war starts, surely nothing but good will come.<<
MadCow57 did not NetspeaK the above line - so much for clear, concise
threads.
Ahh the fine art of deleting. Well, not so fine, eh ?
> > Here's what's puzzling me: If we attack Iraq, will Saddam use his
> > WMDs against us, thereby proving us right (that he had them all
> > along)?
Of course he has them as we have been told he has them. He also has
the receipts bearing the signatures of at least 4 u.s. pressies and more
"directors" of this and that than there are farts in a tin of beans.
He also has "black lists", lots of guns, a bunch of money {some care of
enron [ah just think of all those brokers working so diligently for so
many "numbered" clients]}, a whole gang of followers, any number of
Monica's, an army, an air force, more guns, lots more money parked
all over the globe, spies in all the wrong {or is that right in his eyes}
places, at least 2 dozen duplicious "aides du camp", any number of
directors, a few self-interest groups, a "constitution" he is able to
"feely" usurp, not as many hungry & homeless as some "freer" nations
(but only 'cause he has a better "removal" system), even more guns,
not as many lawyers (but only 'cause he ahs a better "removal" system),
some more money just OVER THERE, and the list goes on and on and
on ...
What he does have that not to many others have is reserves, huge,
expansive reserves of a non-renewal resource and this being 2003
and not 1991, the times they have a-changed.
Many pundits have wondered what would the "major" oil corps. do
when they reserves reached "less than 20 years and counting". Welcome
to "that moment". If one is unable to buy 'em then one shouls be able to
beat 'em - into absolute submision. I know 'cause I saw the movie.
Oh He has not have as many guns, toxic weapons and the power to
annihilate our spaceship as well or as easily as the next guy.
Other than the above ever so slight differences he is we.
> > Or, if he doesn't
> > use WMDs, will that prove us wrong?
Hey madcow57 why don't we do it using the quadRANT approach:
1. he has 'em & uses 'em
2. he has 'em & doesn't use 'em
3. he doesn't have 'em & doesn't use 'em
4. he doesn't have 'em & he uses 'em
Thus:
1. he is bad person who lies
2. he is a bad person who is stupid {which flies in the face of one of
the more astute definitions of stupidity - NOT repeating a
previous action knowing that the results will NOT change}
3. he is still a bad person who is completely off-the-wall
4. he is really a bad person with at least one supporter who is as
evil as him.
Appears that olde SH is unable to shake that "bad" person rep. Not
like there are any such people OVER HERE.
> > Are our intelligence people Absolutely Certain that Saddam still has
> > WMDs stashed around the country?
Who cares ?
> > How does Iraq plan to face the UN and the world if they use
> > WMDs right after telling the Security Council they don't have any?
Who is the "lucky: survivor" that gets to say "we're so sorry we lied" ?
Or has one already been selected and is merely waiting for his/her
date with destiny ?
> > Somebody is making a big mistake here, and I hope it's not us.
What is one more mistake upon the world stage ?
Mistakes are correctable, bad decisions, however, are not; unless
the disney corp. is directing.
One may wag the tail by the dog or the dog by the tail with some similar
results. The dog will be a wee bit dizzy, some fleas, if present, will be
dislodged and the wagger will display a certain fatigue.
> Depending on what you read (sources) depends on what you get. In
> other words, it is a mixed bag and, IMHO, warrants extra time.
> There are odd things that do not make sense (U.S. "tips" on where to
> find weapons provided to UN inspectors have led to dead-ends, i.e.
> useless) and others that fall into place so well that it becomes too good
> to be true.
Ahhh cliches abound, especially in times of turmoil, did you NetspeaK
OIL ? Sorry. All that is necessary to remember is "the best story wins".
Always has, always will. Remember though Best Story - no holds barred;
especially anything that resembles anyone's concept/precept of truth.
> Destroying Iraq will not get rid of terrorism nor remove their training
> ground (as purported by the U.S.). It will just move it somewhere else
> (the training). Considering how much the U.S. is ticking everybody
> else off right now, it may well have started opening up new avenues.
Time for another cliche: is it not surprising that we have ??terrorists??,
however, it is surprising just how easily we are able to create
??terrorists??.
> In my mind, it is going to be expensive, sink the (already faltering)
> economy
Ahhh the measuring of expensive in the true blue americaaaan way.
> and cause needless excessive deaths. Wrongly or rightly, it will
> accelerate/create the next generation of hatred, fuel the current one and
> Time will publish more issues with titles along the line of "Why do they
> hate us?".
No one really "hates" you, however, the "feelings" of dislike, disdain,
disgust, disapproval, contempt and righteousness are indeed growing
among the unwashed masses. The same "traits" that are being
hammered into you, by the very very powerful select, are being fostered
by the unwashed masses. Appears that we may have a very tight circle
of self-destruction workin' its magic, eh ?
However there are solutions to this problem what with less human
beans and the massive rebuilding programs why there will be more
jobs with very fat paychecks; for the survivors, eh ?
Beat 'em or buy 'em - both work.
> But that's a worse case scenario. I never thought I'd live to see the
> Berlin Wall come down either.
I have always wondered if I would live to see such destrustion so easily
attained.
> And for goodness sake, stay away from CNN. With a parent company
> that lost billions last year, they really need the war (advertising
dollars)
> more than anybody. ;-)
Ahhh truth in humour, always so much easier to bear. I believe that the
time has come to alter the Woody Allen comedy equation where comedy equals
tragedy plus time. We should do away with the time aspect as it
only delays the eventual.
Stay as far away from any TV as possible for TV is the apostle of our
new god/dog technology, unless you are a very religious oriented person
and need something, anything to provide you with a reason for being;
other than simply being.
JHall.
JHall.
Harry Krause
>
> Thus:
> 1. he is bad person who lies
> 2. he is a bad person who is stupid {which flies in the face of one of
> the more astute definitions of stupidity - NOT repeating a
> previous action knowing that the results will NOT change}
> 3. he is still a bad person who is completely off-the-wall
> 4. he is really a bad person with at least one supporter who is as
> evil as him.
George W. Bush?
James Hall
"Harry Krause" wrote ...
Nope, too stupid.
JHall.
MadCow57
not make sense (U.S. "tips" on where to find weapons provided to UN inspectors
have led to dead-ends, i.e. useless) and others that fall into place so well
Yeah, exactly what's been bothering me.
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Terry del Fuego <t_del...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> 'They said they decided to wear the T-shirts over their turtlenecks,
> and headed to the food court to have dinner. Soon afterward, they
> said, security guards approached them while they were eating and
> requested that they take off the shirts.
>
> 'His son complied, but Mr. Downs did not. "I didn't think I had to,"
> Stephen Downs said. "It seemed to me my First Amendment rights
> permitted me to wear the T-shirt." He was arrested by the local
> police and charged with trespassing.'
There are no First Amendment rights on private property. If the mall
management wanted to order them to leave for eating their meal with
their forks in their left hands, they would have been well within
their rights to do so, and then to have the police arrest the left-
handers for trepassing, should they refuse to comply.
If I lived in Albany, I don't think I'd ever patronize this mall again
until the asshole responsible was fired (and I'd write a letter to
every store therein I had patronized in the past, pointing this out to
them), but that doesn't mean he violated the Constitution.
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone disagrees with any statement I make, I
_|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |am quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / bal...@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it. -T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------