Alternative voices on the tragedy - from ZNet
Natalie Davis
NBC News reports that 92 percent of those considered Americans supports war.
If you speak out for peace, expect to be vilified and worse. But remaining
silent, even if someone would murder you for having the audacity to buck
the majority, would be cowardly. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said
that those unwilling to die for their beliefs isn't fit to live. As we all
know, he lived and died speaking out for justice and peace and nonviolence.
If you believe in peace and despise war--whatever the costs, no matter what
people say to or about you, no matter if people threaten you with violence,
even if those you love desert you and insist you hide--you MUST speak out.
To borrow and slightly alter a phrase from AIDS activists, silence equals
death and complicity. We have consciences for a reason. And remember, being
in the majority is proof of neither justice nor rightness.
Here's a sample of what the other eight percent [the "small minority"
Shrub's father said was not worth listening to in his address to the US
regarding the Gulf War a decade ago, in violation of democratic principles]
believes:
ZNet is a community of activists on the internet that includes regular
commentaries from some of the most respected thinkers on the left,
including Chomsky and Tim Wise. ZNet's site is down for some unknown
reason. Here are messages and commentaries that have been posted but aren't
viewable. Please spread far and wide
----- Forwarded by Kris Roehling/AIUSA/Amnesty International on 09/12/01
10:59 AM
09/12/01 08:39 AM
For reasons I can't identify our servers in Washington State were
inaccessible to us nearly all day yesterday, and after brief access this
morning, are inaccessible again. We were able to place various essays
online, early AM today, but I fear the site may not be accessible for
people to access them. So, I am sending a series of materials bearing on
yesterday's events...by a route that I can access, possibly... Included are:
a note from Noam Chomsky replying to an email query
an Interview with Phyllis Bennis of the IPS
an op. ed. From ZNet Columnist Robert Jensen
an essay from British Journalist Robert Fisk
I am sorry we have been and may even still be offline...in these difficult
moments.
Michael Albert
Z Magazine / ZNet
sy...@zmag.org
www.zmag.org
-----
Chomsky note...
Just got your message. Quick reaction.
Today's attacks were major atrocities. In terms of number of victims
they do not reach the level of many others, for example, Clinton's
bombing of the Sudan with no credible pretext, destroying half its
pharmaceutical supplies and probably killing tens of thousands of
people (no one knows, because the US blocked an inquiry at the UN and no
one cares to pursue it). Not to speak of much worse cases, which easily
come to mind. But that this was a horrendous crime is not in doubt. The
primary victims, as usual, were working people: janitors, secretaries,
firemen, etc. It is likely to prove to be a crushing blow to Palestinians
and other poor and oppressed people. It is also likely to lead to harsh
security controls, with many possible ramifications for undermining civil
liberties and internal freedom.
The events reveal, dramatically, the foolishness of ideas about "missile
defense." As has been obvious all along, and pointed out repeatedly by
strategic analysts, if anyone wants to cause immense damage in the US,
including weapons of mass destruction, they are highly unlikely to launch a
missile attack, thus guaranteeing their immediate destruction. There are
innumerable easier ways that are basically unstoppable. But today's events
will, nonetheless, be used to increase the pressure to develop these
systems and put them into place. "Defense" is a thin cover for plans for
militarization of space, and with good PR, even the flimsiest arguments
will carry some weight among a frightened public. In short, the crime is a
gift to the hard jingoist right, those who hope to use force to control
their domains. That is even putting aside the likely US actions, and
what they will trigger -- possibly more attacks like this one, or worse.
The prospects ahead are even more ominous than they appeared to be
before the latest atrocities.
Noam Chomsky
-----
Bernie Ward Interview Phyllis Bennis
Bennis: . . . crisis when we escalate the patterns of more and more and
more violence.
Ward: At this point in time most Americans would say how could they
escalate it, I mean, if you didn't respond militarily, wouldn't that be
worse than in fact responding?
Bennis: Well, I think the very worst thing would be responding
militarily to the wrong country, as the U.S. has been known to do, not too
long ago, in fact, when it knocked out a vaccine company in the Sudan
claiming that it was tied to Bin Laden and only six months later saying,
whoops, I guess we got the wrong place. And in fact, settled with the
owner of that factory for having destroyed it, not to mention destroyed
the one factory in central Africa that was producing crucial vaccines for
children in that impoverished part of the world. So we have to be very
careful. And yes, I think it would be worse to respond militarily than to
be cautious and to say let's use this to do what is so difficult at a
moment like this, when we're horrified by the human toll, the human
tragedy, to say let's stop for a moment and think about why is it that
people around the world, so many people, are starting to hate symbols
of the U.S. as symbols of oppression.
Ward: Well, now you know that you are in a huge minority tonight when
you suggest that one of the things we ought to take from this is to ask the
question of why committed terrorism against the United States to begin
with, and most Americans are simply going to say, "Who cares?" most
Americans are going to say, "It was whoever it was and we're going to go
get them," and most Americans at least in the polls already that have been
released, say that our support for Israel is very crucial and that, you
know, this is just going to solidify . . . you, you are in a huge minority
when you suggest that part of what happened today might be connected to
foreign policy decisions that we
have made in other parts of the world.
Bennis: But, you know what Bernie, you may be right that I am in a
minority, but I think these words have to be said. We've had too many
years of experience of answering these kinds of attacks with more
violence. And you know what? It hasn't worked. If we're serious about
ending attacks like this, we have to go to the root causes.
Ward: And what are the root causes?
Bennis: To me it's a question of the arrogance of the U.S., the policies
around the world, not only in the Middle East, although that's obviously a
big component, but our policies of abandoning international law, dissing
the United Nations, refusing to sign conventions and international treaties
that we demand everybody else in the world sign on to, whether it's the
prohibition against anti-personnel land mines, support for the
international criminal court, the convention on the rights of the child,
for God sakes that
should be a no-brainer, only the U.S. and Somalia have refused that one,
you know, when countries around the world and people around the world look
at this, not to mention the most recent stuff about abandoning the Kyoto
treaty, threatening to throw out the ABM Treaty, that's been the
cornerstone of arms control for, you know, twenty-five years, they say,
"Who is this country? Why do they think they're so much better than
everybody else in the world just
because! ! ! they have a bigger army?"
Ward: So do we deserve what happened to us today? Bennis: No, no one
deserves what happened. There's no justification. . .
Ward: Did we ask for it?
Bennis: The question is: How do we stop it? The question is how do we
stop it. And military strikes are not going to stop it. Ward: All right. So
the example of terrorism certainly is if we look at Israel, the example is
that when you respond with violence for violence it
does not stop the terrorism.
Bennis: Absolutely right.
Ward: And in fact we saw for the first time yesterday or the day before an
Arab Israeli citizen who committed a suicide bombing, meaning obviously
that even buffers between them and the West Bank aren't going to make any
difference one way or the other.
Bennis: Right. Ending occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and East
Jerusalem might make some difference. But certainly what isn't working is
responding with more violence.
Ward: But aren't the extremists, Osama Bin Laden has declared war on
this country, , there's an interesting article in Salon.com about how
this is a very different kind of terrorism than the terrorism of the
P.L.O. and Black September and others in the sixties and
the seventies and the eighties, that they see this as a war of attrition,
that if they can wear down the American people, if they can get them so
worried about this that
they'll be willing to make compromises. Is it a war? Is that an accurate
term today?
Bennis: I don't know if it's a very useful term. Again, we don't know
that this was Osama Bin Laden having anything to do with the events of
today. I think that we have to be a little bit cautious when we hear U.S.
officials and former U.S. officials, as we've been hearing all day tonight,
talking as if, number one, they knew it was Osama Bin Laden, number two,
that this is what Henry Kissinger and so many others today have said is
just like Pearl Harbor and the U.S. should respond . . .
Ward: Yeah. I don't like that analogy and I can't tell you why I
don't like it, but I don't like it.
Bennis: I'll tell you one reason why maybe you don't like it, and it's one
of the reasons I don't like it either. It's that one of the first things
the U.S. did after Pearl Harbor was to round up all the
Japanese-American citizens and put them in concentration camps - in this
country. Now I hope that that's not what anyone in the U.S. is thinking
about when they talk about responding the way we did to Pearl Harbor. But
it's a very dangerous precedent. We've already heard about death threats
against Arab Americans and Muslim organizations in the U.S. That kind of
hysteria is already on the rise. And we have to be very cautious and
conscious about the
dangers of that. We have to be very cautious when we hear someone like
James Baker, the former Secretary of State, claiming that he thinks there
would be ninety-nine to one hundred percent support across the U.S., that's
what he said today, for "taking out" a person who heads an organization
like Bin Laden's and getting rid
of the legal prohibitions against that.
Ward: Well, I think that's going to go, to be quite honest with you,
I think there's going to be legislation maybe even as early as tomorrow to
eliminate that or get rid of that prohibition against assassinations.
Bennis: You may be right. But I think that we can guarantee it's not
going to work. It's not going to stop events like this.
Ward: Let me put you into a bigger minority.
Bennis: O.K.
Ward: Make the case for why the U.S. would be so hated in the Middle East.
Bennis: I think it's hated in the Middle East because, number one, its
uncritical support to the tune of between three and five billion dollars a
year in unconditional support to Israeli occupation, including providing
the helicopter gunships, the F-16s, the missiles that are fired from the
gunships, that are used to enforce that occupation. It's hated, number two,
because it has armed these, these, repressive Arab regimes throughout the
region, in Saudi Arabia, In Egypt, in Jordan, throughout the region, that
have suppressed their own people, that have taken either oil money or arms
to build absolute monarchies in which citizens have no rights and where the
U.S. claims to support democratization of every government in the world,
don't seem to apply when the U.S. seems to think it's fine when one
absolute monarch dies and passes on the baton to his son, you see every
U.S. official and all of their
European and other Western allies flocking to the funeral to say "The King
is dead, long live the new King." We see it in Saudi Arabia, we see it in
Morocco, in Jordan, throughout the region. And there's enormous resentment
of that kind of support. So those two sectors alone, support for the
Israeli occupation and the arming of these repressive Arab regimes is
enough. Now that doesn't even get to the question of the impact of U.S.
imposed sanctions on the civilian population of Iraq, the bombing of Iraq,
that's been going on for ten years now, all of these are things that have
dropped off the radar screen of the media coverage in the U.S. but are very
much front and center in Arab consciousness in the region.
Ward: Would you be surprised if I told you a poll has come out in which a
very large majority of Americans [NOTE: NBC News reports 96 percent in
favor of GIVING UP FREEDOM to make war] say they're willing to give up
civil liberties in order to "fight terrorism," and that there may be
legislation introduced in Congress tomorrow to in some cases suspend habeas
corpus and other things in the cause of fighting terrorism?
Bennis: Would I be surprised? No. Because I think too many people in this
country have been misled by politicians and by the media to think that
somehow that's going to work. That if you have more profiling based on race
and ethnicity, if you identify Arabs and don't let them on planes, if you
do what the multi-agency task force in 1987 and 1988 tried to do, which
was to actually round up citizens of seven Arab countries plus Iran on a
preventive basis and put them in a concentration camp in Oakdale,
Louisiana. It would not be surprising that that's something very much on
the minds of policy-makers. It would be, I hope you're wrong to say that it
would be supported by most people in this country, but unfortunately I
could understand why it might be because of that
misleading, what I would call propaganda, that has led people to think that
somehow that would work, that that would make people safer, that if you
didn't allow Arabs on the airplanes, somehow it would be safe to fly. You
know, this is the kind of illusion that is bred by racism. And it's a very
dangerous tendency in this country. And I do hope that we don't have our
political leadership in Washington tomorrow or next week moving towards
this kind of an approach ostensibly as a way of providing safety for
American citizens.
Ward: Phyllis Bennis, I really appreciate this. I hope we can keep in touch
and maybe invite you back on again.
Bennis: I look forward to it.
--------
Sept 11
by Robert Jensen
September 11 was a day of sadness, anger and fear. Like everyone in the
United States and around the world, I shared the deep sadness at the deaths
of thousands.
But as I listened to people around me talk, I realized the anger and fear
I felt were very different, for my primary anger is directed at the leaders
of this country and my fear is not only for the safety of Americans but
for innocents civilians in other countries.
It should need not be said, but I will say it: The acts of terrorism that
killed civilians in New York and Washington were reprehensible and
indefensible; to try to defend them would be to abandon one's humanity. No
matter what the motivation of the attackers, the method is beyond discussion.
But this act was no more despicable as the massive acts of terrorism -- the
deliberate killing of civilians for political purposes -- that the U.S.
government has committed during my lifetime. For more than five decades
throughout the Third World, the United States has deliberately targeted
civilians or engaged in violence so indiscriminate that there is no other
way to understand it except as terrorism. And it has supported similar acts
of terrorism by client states.
If that statement seems outrageous, ask the people of Vietnam. Or Cambodia
and Laos. Or Indonesia and East Timor. Or Chile. Or Central America. Or
Iraq, or Palestine. The list of countries and peoples who have felt the
violence of this country is long. Vietnamese civilians bombed by the United
States. Timorese civilians killed by a U.S. ally with U.S.-supplied
weapons. Nicaraguan civilians killed by a U.S. proxy army of terrorists.
Iraqi civilians killed by the deliberate bombing of an entire country's
infrastructure.
So, my anger on this day is directed not only at individuals who engineered
the Sept. 11 tragedy but at those who have held power in the United States
and have engineered attacks on civilians every bit as tragic. That anger is
compounded by hypocritical U.S. officials' talk of their commitment to
higher ideals, as President Bush proclaimed "our resolve for justice and
peace."
To the president, I can only say: The stilled voices of the millions killed
in Southeast Asia, in Central America, in the Middle East as a direct
result of U.S. policy are the evidence of our resolve for justice and peace.
Though that anger stayed with me off and on all day, it quickly gave way to
fear, but not the fear of "where will the terrorists strike next," which I
heard voiced all around me. Instead, I almost immediately had to face the
qestion: "When will the United States, without regard for civilian
casualties, retaliate?" I wish the question were, "Will the United States
retaliate?" But if history is a guide, it is a question only of when and
where.
So, the question is which civilians will be unlucky enough to be in the way
of the U.S. bombs and missiles that might be unleashed. The last time the
U.S. responded to terrorism, the attack on its embassies in Kenya and
Tanzania in 1998, it was innocents in the Sudan and Afghanistan who were in
the way. We were told that time around they hit only military targets,
though the target in the Sudan turned out to be a pharmaceutical factory.
As I monitored television during the day, the talk of retaliation was in
the air; in the voices of some of the national-security "experts" there was
a hunger for retaliation. Even the journalists couldn't resist; speculating
on a military strike that might come, Peter Jennings of ABC News said that
"the response is going to have to be massive" if it is to be effective.
Let us not forget that a "massive response" will kill people, and if the
pattern of past U.S. actions holds, it will kill innocents. Innocent
people, just like the ones in the towers in New York and the ones on the
airplanes that were hijacked. To borrow from President Bush, "mother and
fathers, friends and neighbors" will surely die in a massive response.
If we are truly going to claim to be decent people, our tears must flow not
only for those of our own country. People are people, and grief that is
limited to those within a specific political boundary denies the humanity
of others.
And if we are to be decent people, we all must demand of our government --
the government that a great man of peace, Martin Luther King Jr., once
described as "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world" -- that the
insanity stop here.
------------------------- Robert Jensen School of Journalism University of
Texas Austin, TX 78712 rje...@uts.cc.utexas.edu office: (512)
471-1990 fax: (512) 471-7979 http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen/home.htm
------
Atrocities may be designed to provoke America into costly military adventure
By Robert Fisk
12 September 2001
I can imagine how Osama bin Laden received the news of the atrocities in
the United States. In all, I must have spent five hours listening to him in
Sudan and then in the vastness of the Afghan mountains, as he described the
inevitable collapse of the United States, just as he and his comrades in
the Afghan war helped to destroy the power of the Red Army.
He will have watched satellite television, he will have sat in the corner
of his room, brushing his teeth as he always did, with a mishwak stick,
thinking for up to a minute before speaking; he is one of the few Arabs who
doesn't feel embarrassed to think before he speaks. He once told me with
pride how his own men had attacked the Americans in Somalia. He
acknowledged that he knew personally two of the Saudis executed for bombing
an American military base in Riyadh. Could he have been behind yesterday's
mass slaughter in America?
Of course, we need a health warning here. If Mr bin Laden was really guilty
of all the things he has been blamed for, he would need an army of 10,000.
And there is something deeply disturbing about the world's habit of turning
to the latest hate figure whenever blood is shed. But when events of this
momentous scale take place, there is a new legitimacy in casting one's eyes
at those who have constantly threatened America.
Mr bin Laden had a kind of religious experience during the Afghan war. A
Russian shell had fallen at his feet and, in the seconds as he waited for
it to explode, he said he had a sudden, religious feeling of calmness. The
shell and Americans may come to wish the opposite happened never exploded.
The United States must leave the Gulf, he would say every 10 minutes.
America must stop all sanctions against the Iraqi people. America must stop
using Israel to oppress Palestini ans. It was his constant theme, untouched
by doubt or the real complexities of the Middle East. He was not fighting
an anti-colonial war, but a religious one. In the Arabia that he would
govern, there would be more, not less, head chopping, more severe
punishments, no Western-style democracy.
His supporters Algerians, Kuwaitis, Egyptians and Gulf Arabs would gather
round him in his tent with the awe of men listening to a messiah. I watched
them one night in Afghanistan in a mountain camp so cold that I woke to
find ice in my hair. They were obedient to him, not the kind of obedience
of schoolchildren but the sort of adherence you find among people whose
minds are made up. And the words they listened to were fearful in their
implications. American civilians would no more be spared than military
targets. This was not a man who would hesitate to carry out his promises if
he could. He was a man who would have appreciated the appalling irony of
creating a missile defence shield against "rogue states'' but unable to
prevent men crashing domestic airliners into the centre of America's
financial and military power.
Yet I also remember one night when Mr bin Laden saw a pile of newspapers in
my bag and seized upon them. By a sputtering oil lamp, he read them page by
page in the corner of his tent, clearly unaware of the world around him,
reading aloud of an Iranian Foreign Minister's visit to Saudi Arabia. Was
this really a man who could damage America, who would have laughed when he
heard that the United States had placed a $5m (£3.3m) reward on his head?
Was it not America, I wondered then, which was turning Mr bin Laden into
the face of "world terror?'' Was he really so powerful and so deadly?
If and we must keep repeating this word if the shadow of the Middle East
falls over yesterday's destruction, then who else in the region could
produce such meticulously timed assaults on the world's only superpower?
The rag-tag and corrupt Palestinian nationalist groups that used to favour
hijacking are unlikely to be able to produce a single suicide bomber. Hamas
and Islamic Jihad have neither the capability nor the money that this
assault needed. Perhaps the old satellite groups that moved close to the
Lebanese Hezbollah in the 1980s, before the organisation became a solely
resistance movement, could plan something like this. The bombing of the US
Marines in 1983 needed precision, timing and infinite planning. But Iran,
which supported these groups, has changed out of recognition since then,
now more involved in its internal struggles than in the long-dead
aspiration to "export'' a religious revolution. Iraq lies broken, its
agents more intent on torturing their own people than striking at the
country that defeated it so suddenly in 1991.
So the mountains of Afghanistan will be photographed from satellite and
high-altitude aircraft in the coming days, Mr bin Laden's old
training camps and perhaps a few new ones highlighted on the
overhead projectors in the Pentagon. But to what end? When America last
tried to strike at Mr bin Laden, it destroyed an innocent pharmaceuticals
plant in Sudan and a few of Mr bin Laden's Muslim followers in
Afghanistan. For if this is a war between the Saudi millionaire and
President Bush's America, it cannot be fought like other wars. Indeed, can
it be fought at all without some costly military adventure overseas.
Or is that what Mr bin Laden seeks above all else?
"Cowardice asks the question, Is it safe? Expediency asks the question, Is
it politic? Vanity asks the question, Is it popular? But conscience asks
the question, Is it right? And there comes a time when [you] must take a
position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular ... because [your]
conscience tells [you] that it is right." - Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
--
This is message #659.
**********
To post, send mail to <gay...@groups.queernet.org>.
To unsubscribe, send mail to <gaynet-un...@groups.queernet.org>.
(This may fail if your address has changed since you signed
up; if so, or for other assistance, contact <gaynet...@groups.queernet.org>.)
For information about other lists, or to create and manage a list on
a topic that interests you, see <http://www.queernet.org> for details.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
Check out our new Unlimited Server. No Download or Time Limits!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! ==-----
Marc Stauffer
Dear Natalie:
I sit here with the smell of burnt flesh embedded in my nostrils and my
clothes. I close my eyes and see the blood, body parts and bodies hanging
from the demolished part of the Pentagon. I relive it. My lover saw 120
people killed in front of his eyes at one time. I see my immediate
neighbors whose husbands or wives were killed yesterday. I can also close
my eyes and see the blood - head to toe on the EMTs and police who tried to
rescue the dying at the Pentagon. I'm living a nightmare - and I AM angry
enough to righteously advocate war.
There is a time for diplomacy and a time for war.
Read the British Ambassadors book titled "A Failed Mission". It out line
all the diplomacy and attempts to find piece between England, France and
Hitler.
IMHO - we're more than justified to declare a war on the terrorists and any
country to be found in the future to have been involved.
--
This is message #660.
Cheopys
IMHO - we're more than justified to declare a war on the terrorists and any
country to be found in the future to have been involved.
David Thompson
> I don't relish the idea of a war - but this is just too far. I hope it's possible
> to find out exactly who's responsible and take them out with a "surgical" strike.
> I certainly don't support escalation of violence to a population that already
> lives at a Stone Age level - so I hope that before military action is taken, the
> targets are carefully and thoughtfully selected.
Fortunately, this may not even be necessary. It is believed that the strikes were
either supported or fully directed by Osama bin Laden. Furthermore,
Afghanastan--where bin Laden is currently holed up--is considering extradition to
the U.S. if evidence indicates he had anything to do with the attacks.
A side story: When the Japanese Empire had completed the bombing attack against
Pearl Harbor in 1941, the Admiral aboard the Japanese aircraft carrier from which
the bombing started was talking to his Lieutenant. The 2d in command said "This is
a great day for the Empire!" The Admiral's response: "You fool!!! We have awaken
the sleeping giant."
Well, the giant has once again been awaken and there really isn't anyplace left for
others to hide.
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
--
This is message #669.
Troy Westerberg
my television was that I'm a pacifist. Or I was a pacifist. I had
fantasies of carpet bombing the Middle East with nuclear weapons (I'm
absolutely ashamed of myself for having those thoughts).
I don't relish the idea of a war - but this is just too far. I hope it's
possible to find out exactly who's responsible and take them out with a
"surgical" strike. I certainly don't support escalation of violence to a
population that already lives at a Stone Age level - so I hope that before
military action is taken, the targets are carefully and thoughtfully
selected.
But, if there's no other way, full scale war is not out of the question to
my mind.
On the other hand, I also feel that America is not perfect ideologically.
The United States does misuse it's wealth and influence to oppress people -
however indirectly. I understand that people who use terror do not deserve
diplomatic concessions. I'm not advocating that. But this could be an
opportunity for America to examine it's role in the world and in it's
problems and take some corrective action. But, I'm sure that at this point,
it's not going to happen.
I feel so lucky, in a way. All of my friends and family are safe. So many
are suffering in the U.S. right now. You're all in my thoughts and prayers.
I wish I wasn't so far away - being an expat has it's disadvantages.
Strength and peace (if not now, then in the days to come) are what I'll pray
for tonight.
Sterkte,
Troy Westerberg
Den Haag, Netherlands
--
This is message #663.
Marc Stauffer
Dear Butt Plug:
No doubt we both are suffering some Post Traumatic Stress - don't worry -
we've talked with our psychiatrists and the available counselors at work
both here at work and in our neighborhood. It is very hard to describe the
impact on emotions when one partner sees the people die as the plane hits
in addition to KNOWING they are going to die in the next 15 seconds - which
seemed like hours and then worry about your lover of 20+ years trying to
get home from one possible scene into and through another to get home.
My discription is a very accurate discription of what I saw at less then 50
yards.....like Viet Nam - forever indelibly imprinted - then spend a night
at home - our fortress of sanity and escape - lighted by rescue workers,
fire fighters kleig lights; military helicopters hoving over your home all
day, all night and into the next. Then the occasional fighter jets circling
over the city - and you wonder is it ours or is it another surprise.
Thanks for the suggestion - we've taken it - and are doing much better now
that things are settling down. I apologize if my discription was to graphic
for you - what you report what you see first hand.
marc
--
This is message #716.
Marc Stauffer
Cheopys
<cheopys@home. To: "Marc Stauffer" <stau...@washpost.com>, Natalie Davis
com> <nata...@well.com>
cc: armchair...@yahoogroups.com,
09/12/2001 gay...@groups.queernet.org
06:47 PM Subject: Re: [gaynet] Alternative voices on the tragedy -
from ZNet
Cheopys wrote: At 10:50 AM 9/12/2001, Marc Stauffer wrote:
IMHO - we're more than justified to declare a war on the terrorists
and any
country to be found in the future to have been involved.
Why is everyone assuming this was international? Last time we had a major
event it was domestic.
Cheopys: If you sit in the middle of the one of the most reputable papers
in the world and partly responsible for assesing the magnitude of a
disaster - you go to the Pre Press Meeting with news. You are told the
what, where and why we're printing certain stories and given an update on
the lastest intelligence available. My statement was more than an
assumption - ie Boston - entered from Canada at Jackman, ME - shuttle check
in at Bangor or Portland - stow luggage so you don't have to pass a
thorough inspection at Logan - you're name is Mohammad Akbar and there are
4 - 8 people on board with similar names - that's called an informed
reason.
I realize many people are isolated or are far more reliant upon TV than I
am. John Yang from ABC is a former Post Employee who knows my lover and I
personally, we have several active 1,2 and 3 star active generals/admirals
as neighbors - that's as close as most people can get to reality. Neighbors
chat, speak, share info to a greater extent here than almost any city in
the world. IMHO - you are sticking your head in the sand rather than
dealing with the facts as we know them. No one including myself has blamed
any individual country or even group at this time but are in a position to
make reasonable assesments from the existing evidence.
Marc
--
This is message #713.
Chief Thracian
<stau...@washpost.com> wrote:
>No doubt we both are suffering some Post Traumatic Stress - don't worry -
>we've talked with our psychiatrists and the available counselors at work
>both here at work and in our neighborhood.
My philosophy as expressed in essay "NeoChristianity", goes a long way
toward alleviating the worst of stress, and absorbtion of extreme
negativity into one's psyche. I really advise that folks take it
seriously, that they may have better mental and spiritual health
through these trying times...which are likely to get a lot worse.
---
Hail Athenia, brave new gay nation!
Zeke Krahlin, Chief Thracian
http://surf.to/gaybible
--
This is message #722.
Chief Thracian
wrote:
>If you speak out for peace, expect to be vilified and worse.
Excellent speech, Natalie. Proud voices like yours are what keep the
troops inspired. We must love each other like never before, for Our
Creator is calling all GLBT folks to war. But this is a war unlike no
other, for as we go beyond Day 2 of WWIII, many will discover that it
is our IDEAS that do damage or recovery, tragedy or comedy,
disillusionment or joy...far more than any explosion (nuclear or
otherwise), for this is great wisdom, still, in that hackneyed phrase:
"Sticks and stones...(etc.)".
May this Gift of the Spoken Word which honors my tongue like the most
fragrant honey from the cedars of Lebanon, touch the trembling lips of
all gays and pro-gays who read this message. And may your tongues
become the Sword of Truth as you captivate more and more souls with
your golden phrases of pure salvation...and once captivated, now
captured in The Net of Humanity. For all, somehow, some way, shall be
saved...by the blessed ministries of all true Queers across this
incredible planet we all take for granted way too often, far too long.
I am so very PROUD of the courage that arises from our hearts, to
unite into the essence of liberation: the Spirit of Gay Pride. Blessed
be!
---
"Allah is good; Allah is gay!"
-Zeke Krahlin, Chief Thracian
http://surf.to/gayislam
--
This is message #843.
Chief Thracian
<stau...@washpost.com> wrote:
>IMHO - we're more than justified to declare a
>war on the terrorists and any country to be found
>in the future to have been involved.
Hold on there, let's not jump the gun! Dealing effectively with a
terrorist attack is not a declaration of war. We are likely to get
embroiled in a war we start, against a presumed enemy which, in truth,
may be innocent.
Furthermore, once marshall law is declared across this unfair land,
homosexuals will be scapegoated and rounded up. Do we really want to
serve such a Queerless government...or do we want to take up the cause
for secession, in order to save as many of our brothers and sisters
from the coming global, anti-Queer holocaust?
At this point, I am not too eager to side with the nation of my birth
(nor, of course, with the real enemy, whoever that turns out to be). I
am not willing to defend a country that guarantees my continued
persecution after this war, for unforeseeable generations.
Once this nation starts crumbling from civil wars and rumors of civil
wars, it will be a relatively simple process to wrest N. Calif. from
the failing arms of Amerika. In fact, it's our destiny. Our victory is
already assured, as is the creation of the world's first Queer Nation.
Hail Athenia!
---
"Allah is good; Allah is gay!"
-Zeke Krahlin, Chief Thracian
http://surf.to/gayislam
--
This is message #853.