Fragile Lives - RIP
Cerberus
world's fears, the whole worlds anxieties, the whole worlds gnawing
realisation that, no, WE NEVER LEARN.
There's always more horror to come, more terror, more chilling evidence of
the apparently unlimited human capacity for evil.
I try to minimise the sense of doom by my use of that cheeky diminutive
"9/11", but whom am I trying to fool? Am I trying to convince myself that,
hey, it's just another date, just another milestone, just another entry in
history's bleak almanac?
It wasn't the Holocaust, after all, when six million Jews were
systematically slaughtered. It wasn't the Great War of 1914-1918, when at
least nine million combatants - to say nothing of civilians - paid the
ultimate price for their patriotic zeal(and, on both sides of the conflict,
for their logically absurd but deeply sustaining belief that God was their
ally).
And yet we like to claim the September 11 was a day that changed the
world. If we were making a cold-blooded calculation of the scale of the
tragedy in terms of casualties alone, the roughly 3000 who perished would
hardly justify that claim, even in the limited context of US history: 5000
soldiers died in one day at the Battle of Antietam on September 17, 1862.
And the real significance of the Battle of Antietam was that, as the
Southerners withdrew across the Potomac, Abraham Lincoln seized the moment
to issue an Emancipation Proclamation the ultimately secured the freedom of
all black slaves. Now THAT certainly changed the world.
BUT, we're not bound by some calculus of casualties: Septembers 11's
significance transcends it's death toll. It was a precisely targeted attack
on one of the icons of American capitalism, and a stark reminder that
sophisticated military machines can never protect us from the fanaticism of
the terrorist.
It was also a timely wake-up call to the architects of US foreign policy -
a brutal response to the perception of the US as a swaggering,
self-interested meddler in the politics of the Middle East.
Just in case any Americans had failed to grasp the depth of resentment
towards them in the Arab world, September 11 was the ultimate ascertation of
it.
From where I sat in my living room on the other side of the world, the
attacks looked stupefyingly improbable. I can remember calling out to my
family, "Hey come and Look at this, a plane has just flown into the side of
a World Trade Centre Tower. Can this be really happening?, Oh God there
goes another one".
The world began to morn the loss of the victims, sharing in the grief of
strangers who appeared on TV, bedraggled and bewildered, desperate to share
with anyone the precious recollections of their last contact with a spouse,
a lover, a parent, a son or daughter, a brother or sister, a friend.
I can remember searching desperately for the psychological defences, the
distractions, that might protect my mind from the awful possibility that
acts of terror might be visited on me, too. For a while, I avoided tall
buildings and stared nervously a low-flying aircraft. Some US researchers
(probably of the same mindset as Earle) reported a significant increase in
sexual activity: when the world turns as mad as this, the safest refuge of
all is to be found in the intimacy of our connections with those to whom we
can safely abandon ourselves.
The New York Times reported an upsurge in visits to New York art galleries
in the days immediately following the attacks. Was this because artists have
always been better than wordsmiths at explaining us to ourselves, preserving
our folk memory and signposting our futures? OTHERS went to church.
Where I live the most significant response to the events of September 11
was the declaration, heard repeatedly, that we should embrace those we love,
while we have them to embrace. The inherent fragility of life is well known
to me, but the news of any act of devastation - war. terrorist attack, plane
crash, natural disaster - punctures my complacency and introduces a piquancy
into the conduct of my daily affairs.
The real tragedy is that I needed such catalysts to rethink my priorities.
But perhaps today's anniversary will remind us of a universal message: we
need to live as if there's no tomorrow and, in particular, we need to
recognise that love's work - nurturing our relationships, making our peace -
is urgent work.
IMHO
WooF w00f WooF
-----------== 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 =-----
Richard J.
You asked me the other day when I was in the badlands. I replied
privately, but your e-mail address was no good. I will answer your
question privately if you wish to ask me via e-mail.
--
Teflon
John Rennie
"Cerberus" <Cerb...@riverstyx.net> wrote in message
news:3d7f0...@goliath.newsgroups.com...
Highlighting the above, here is a very critical yet deeply sympathetic
article
from a good if controversial young historian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,789958,00.html
A Planet Visitor
"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> wrote in message
news:slrnanu3j3.cfp.p...@lievre.voute.net...
> Le Wed, 11 Sep 2002 16:56:10 +0800, Cerberus <Cerb...@riverstyx.net> a écrit :
>
> > 'September 11' - two words now expected to bear the burden of the whole
> > world's fears, the whole worlds anxieties, the whole worlds gnawing
> > realisation that, no, WE NEVER LEARN.
>
>
> A question which I've asked myself over the past twelve months is, if
> the Eiffel Tower had been hit, would everyone think that the 'world
> had changed' ? If Canary Wharf had been hit, would everyone think that
> the 'world had changed' ?
>
Your implication being it should be ignored as having no significance?
But things most certainly have changed since that date. However,
unlike you, I would find it a great tragedy were something on that
order to happen. I can only presume from the sense of your posts
today that you would rather welcome it. You seem to find a great
deal of sexual gratification in describing tragedies of all sort.
> No, of course not, because the world hasn't changed. What has changed
> in the minds of many Americans is that they now realise that if they
> base their foreign policy on squashing the little man, the poor, the
> dispossessed, then one day, the little man will turn around and bite.
> This is what happened a year ago, and regrettably, the people who run
> the United States, don't seem to have got the message. They are the
> logical successors to the victims who screamed, 'Why do they hate us ?'
> The next time there is an attack (and rest assured that there will be
> more), they will again scream, 'Why do they hate us ?' They have
> learned nothing.
>
Anger??? My word... it seems that you're a bit 'angry' here. Rather
obvious where that hate is directed. Certainly not toward those who
murdered those innocents in the WTC. I suppose those victims would simply
be 'collateral damage' to you.
> I was against military action in Afghanistan, and indeed all that seems
> to have been achieved is to have swapped one lawless régime for another,
> albeit one more sympathetic to the United States.
I would believe that those in Afghanistan would disagree with you.
Not all, of course. The country still is a war-lord type country.
Which is what you would seem to prefer it to be. But, most especially
the female gender. Would you rather have the whole world practice
democracy, or have the whole world practice Islam as the Taliban
practiced it? This is not a 'crusade' type argument. Simply a
question which relates to what WAS in Afghanistan and what is
hoped to be in Afghanistan. Previously, it was a 'country' WITHOUT
hope. Now, however dim you might perceive that hope to be, it is
certainly better than before. So...if you believe that all women
should gain no education, be unable to read or write, by unable to
work in any capacity, be unable to travel alone, be whipped in public
by teams of males traveling the streets for only that purpose, be
unable to show any part of their body in public, be discarded at the
whim of the male, be subject to stoning for adultery and only act
as servants to their male counterparts, then perhaps you believe the
Taliban should still rule the greater portion of Afghanistan, as the
greater of other war-lords. And of course, you could have no music.
Nor any other of the joys of 'civilization.' A life consumed in 'prayer'
to a God in which you do not believe. Personally, I would rather
have a 'choice' in the matter, rather than a war-lord who would
demand what I may think or do. But perhaps your wife would
rather enjoy not being able to 'think' for herself. And in any case,
the safe-haven of Al Qaeda has been severly fractured. Which, in
the end might actually save the Eifel tower or the Canary Wharf.
Since I am reminded of the words of Martin Niemoller--- "They first
came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't
a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up
because I wasn't a Jew... Then they came for the Catholics. I didn't
speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and
there was no one left to speak up."
> What would have happened if nothing had been done ? Would
> John's theory (quite probably _the_ most original thought that I
> have read on this group in the past two years at least),
Yes, John Rennie's posting of the Blair speech was certainly that.
One of the finer speeches posted here.
> have been
> shown to be correct, that the forces behind Bush, would not have
> waited for an election, to replace him ?
> We shall never know.
I don't know how you arrived at that conclusion from any of John's
post. It was an impossibility for 'nothing to be done.' Not just
replaced, but ANYONE in power suggesting that would have been
DISGRACED. There was not one single voice that said 'DO
NOTHING.' Nor would there be such a voice in France if the Louvre,
the Arc de Triomphe, and the Palais de l'Elysée were all struck by
passenger aircraft within a hour of each other. Other than your voice,
presumably. Further, today Chirac gave a speech both commemorating
this terrible event and remembering what France owes to America.
See
http://www.elysee.fr/actus/mag_.htm
Ending with "I wish to convey to each and every one of you, and through
you, to all your compatriots, the friendship, loyalty and solidarity that is
felt in France. And also our determination to fight against global terrorism
and to relentlessly combat barbarism and the forces of hatred.
Today, France remembers. France knows what she owes to America.
Today, the French people affirms its kinship with the American people."
> Today, I shall not pray for the three thousand dead, for they are
> out of harm's way. My thoughts are with those left behind. _They_
> are the real victims. If the United States does not change its foreign
> policy, then the little man will very soon create some more victims, to
> keep them company.
Stop being a hypocrite. You care nothing for those gone, nor those
left behind. You care only for the murderer and the terrorist. Be
careful what you wish for.
PV
>
> { snip }
>
> --
> Desmond Coughlan |EVEN SATAN KNOWS
|AND LIFTS HIS BROW IN WONDER AT
|THE EVIL DESI SHOWS
yours_most_truly
> 'September 11' - two words now expected to bear the burden of the whole
> world's fears, the whole worlds anxieties, the whole worlds gnawing
> realisation that, no, WE NEVER LEARN.
>
> There's always more horror to come, more terror, more chilling evidence of
> the apparently unlimited human capacity for evil.
> I try to minimise the sense of doom by my use of that cheeky diminutive
> "9/11", but whom am I trying to fool? Am I trying to convince myself that,
> hey, it's just another date, just another milestone, just another entry in
> history's bleak almanac?
>
> It wasn't the Holocaust, after all, when six million Jews were
> systematically slaughtered. It wasn't the Great War of 1914-1918, when at
> least nine million combatants - to say nothing of civilians - paid the
> ultimate price for their patriotic zeal (and, on both sides of the
conflict,
> for their logically absurd but deeply sustaining belief that God was their
> ally).
>
> And yet we like to claim the September 11 was a day that changed the
> world. If we were making a cold-blooded calculation of the scale of the
> tragedy in terms of casualties alone, the roughly 3000 who perished would
> hardly justify that claim, even in the limited context of US history: 5000
> soldiers died in one day at the Battle of Antietam on September 17, 1862.
>
> And the real significance of the Battle of Antietam was that, as the
> Southerners withdrew across the Potomac, Abraham Lincoln seized the moment
> to issue an Emancipation Proclamation the ultimately secured the freedom
of
> all black slaves. Now THAT certainly changed the world.
<snipped>
The Emancipation Proclamation (EP) was issued 3 1/2 months after the
Battle of
Antietam. By its terms, it freed *only* those slaves in those states
and
areas which were in rebellion against the federal government. There
were a
number of states which stayed loyal to the Union wherein slavery was
legal and remained so. To have freed *all* slaves in the U.S. by that
proclamation
would have excited more states to defect and throw in with the
Confederacy.
It would also have been unconstitutional. The EP as issued was well
within Lincoln's presidential powers as commander-in-chief of the U.S.
military. Depriving the enemy of the means and instrumentalities of
waging
war has been recognized for centuries as a legitimate military
objective.
Slavery in the Confederacy allowed it to field and maintain more
soldiery
than it would have been able to otherwise. However, the U.S.
Constitution's
acceptance of slavery (as it was then written) was intentional, and
that had
been explicitly reaffirmed years before in the infamous Dred Scott
decision.
Lincoln had no constitutional authority as commander-in-chief to
outlaw
slavery in any state or region which had remained loyal to the Union.
The EP doubtless played some part in the eventual Union victory in
the field, but whether it was critical in that respect is debatable.
Slaves in areas under confederate control remained slaves, just as
before. Those who managed to escape gained freedom, just as they had
from the outbreak of hostilities. The EP's real value (if any) was
its favorable impact on European public opinion, particularly Great
Britain's.
It would have been to Britain's advantage at the time if the nascent
U.S. had collapsed into two mutually hostile nations which Britain
could then play off each against the other. But the reality was that
long before its government had lost its ability to pursue its
imperialist tendencies where they flew in the teeth of strong popular
sentiment.
Shelby Foote, an acclaimed Civil War expert, has opined that the
U.S. was powerful enough to have taken on two confederacies at once
and still win, despite its demonstrable military incompetence in the
first years of the civil war. All it had to do was not give Britain
even a pretext for belligerence, though the U.S. had come within an
ace of even bungling that within six months after the civil war's
outbreak (i.e., the "Trent Affair"). The EP proved that the U.S. can
powerfully influence European opinion in its favor when it's both in
the right and bothers to make the effort. So to assert that the EP
had little if any direct impact on any American slave is not to assert
it played no part in eliminating slavery in the U.S. If it did, it
was to minimize the risk of foreign intervention on the side of the
Confederacy. But even then, whether it actually did so is again not
clear.
Britain prepared to go to war against the U.S. after the Trent
incident-- and even made overtures to France to join it-- before
deciding to stand down after heavy duty U.S. groveling and apologies.
I doubt any military historian believes the Royal Navy could not have
quickly ripped huge holes in the U.S.'s blockade of Confederate
coasts, or that British troops in Dixie would not have had local
support unheard of since the French and Indian wars of colonial times.
But the "Trent Affair" was over and done about a year before the EP
was issued. For these reasons, it is arguable that the U.S.'s EP
would have been issued much more quickly had Antietam ended in yet
another of what had been a long string of defeats.
What ultimately and clearly led to the abolition of slavery in the
U.S. was this: When the southern slave states opted for secession,
their representatives in the U.S. government resigned and went home,
leaving those from the loyal slave states a decided minority in
Congress. A proposed amendment to outlaw slavery thus easily passed.
To ensure that it was ratified by the 2/3rds of the state
legislatures to take effect (Art. 5, U.S. Constitution), the
abolitionist majority in Congress shrewdly required that to become
U.S. states again, the defeated confederate states had to first ratify
what would become the 13th Amendment. *That* was what eradicated
slavery in the U.S. , *not* the Emancipation Proclamation in any other
than a conjectural if not purely mythical way.
As for the Battle of Antietam itself, a compelling argument can be
made
that its only result was to needlessly compound the war's death and
suffering. Union general McClellan's army at 60,000 was about twice
the size of the
Confederate Lee's, but each took approximately half of the total
22,000 dead
and wounded from the battle. That left Lee with less than 20,000
troops,
and McClellan with about 50,000. The Union's numerical advantage
immediately before Lee began his retreat had thus increased to 2 1/2
to 1. Had McClellan pursued Lee (as Lincoln had urged) and caught him
before he made the river crossing back to Virginia (as would have been
almost certain), Lee's surrender would have happened within weeks
rather than years. Instead McClellan did nothing, Lee was allowed to
escape, and then resupply and rebuild his forces. It would seem in
this respect that Antietam is more comparable to Tora Bora, as both
seem to be hollow victories pregnant with missed opportunities.
I too have struggled without success to find a workable analogy to
9-11-01. After all, even the black plague left some enduring good in
its wake, even if it took centuries to discover. What enduring good
might bubble up in the wake of the 9-11 atrocity is not at all
apparent on its one year anniversary, and may not be clear for
centuries. What worries me is that the response so far seems limited
to proverbially addressing the symptoms rather than the disease. If
so, no matter how determined and dedicated the effort, it is doomed to
fail. Does anyone seriously believe that if every active terrorist
today was either killed or captured within the next 24 hours, the "War
on Terrorism" would be won?
John Rennie
"yours_most_truly" <asc...@zdnetonebox.com> wrote in message
news:d9253152.02091...@posting.google.com...
> "Cerberus" <Cerb...@riverstyx.net> wrote:
>
snip
> I too have struggled without success to find a workable analogy to
> 9-11-01. After all, even the black plague left some enduring good in
> its wake, even if it took centuries to discover. What enduring good
> might bubble up in the wake of the 9-11 atrocity is not at all
> apparent on its one year anniversary, and may not be clear for
> centuries.
IMHO I think the tragic events of the 11th September have already
had a limited beneficial effect although that effect is, temporarily,
drowned by the bad ones. On that day the USA joined the rest
of us, the rest of the nations in the world who have been terronised
in one way or another since the end of the second World War.
Terrorists cum freedom fighters lost their glamour to many an
American on that day. Funds supplied by Americans of Irish
descent to Noraid the charity supposedly aimed at providing
welfare to 'victims' of British brutality in Northern Ireland but
in reality a source of funds for the provision of arms, dried up.
Hopefully that 'charity' will never recover. A longer term
'benefit' if it can be called a benefit is the realisation that America
cannot interfere in another country's internal politics without
some comeback. Previously she felt invulnerable, she could
so interfere knowing full well that no country would dare to go
war against here. Maybe it was a good thing that feeling of
invulnerability, maybe it wasn't?
What worries me is that the response so far seems limited
> to proverbially addressing the symptoms rather than the disease. If
> so, no matter how determined and dedicated the effort, it is doomed to
> fail. Does anyone seriously believe that if every active terrorist
> today was either killed or captured within the next 24 hours, the "War
> on Terrorism" would be won?
No. It is the causes of terrorism that have to be fought and,
in particular, America's slavish support of Israel. Even then
a generation or two will have to pass before any such fake
war can be won.
John Rennie
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
news:Z9Pf9.12412$R7.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>
snip
>
> Yes, John Rennie's posting of the Blair speech was certainly that.
> One of the finer speeches posted here.
If you liked that see how you will get on with this one.
Mo Mowlan was very highly regarded in America
when she was Northern Ireland's Minister.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,786180,00.html
GeneralZod
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
news:Z9Pf9.12412$R7.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> news:slrnanu3j3.cfp.p...@lievre.voute.net...
> > Le Wed, 11 Sep 2002 16:56:10 +0800, Cerberus <Cerb...@riverstyx.net> a
écrit :
> >
> > > 'September 11' - two words now expected to bear the burden of the
whole
> > > world's fears, the whole worlds anxieties, the whole worlds gnawing
> > > realisation that, no, WE NEVER LEARN.
> >
> > { snip }
> >
> > A question which I've asked myself over the past twelve months is, if
> > the Eiffel Tower had been hit, would everyone think that the 'world
> > had changed' ? If Canary Wharf had been hit, would everyone think that
> > the 'world had changed' ?
> >
> Your implication being it should be ignored as having no significance?
> But things most certainly have changed since that date. However,
> unlike you, I would find it a great tragedy were something on that
> order to happen. I can only presume from the sense of your posts
> today that you would rather welcome it. You seem to find a great
> deal of sexual gratification in describing tragedies of all sort.
And this surprises you? As I said last year, the guy has probably
created loops of that awful film footage for the purposes of sexual
stimulation. There has never been any question Desi hates this country, and
its people, solely because of the death penalty.
If given the opportunity, do you think he would have been one of the
hijackers on that day? I do not see any reason to believe he would not have.
A Planet Visitor
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:cF0g9.251$uf4.50968@newsfep2-gui...
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/page/0,11538,680849,00.html
And highly regarded as WHAT? She hardly holds any credentials
outside of her political views in Northern Ireland, from what I can
gather. Whether THOSE views coincide with any political views in
the U.S. is hardly relevant. Nor do I believe they have any sort of a
consensus which would make them, as you say -- 'highly regarded.'
Anyone who believes that the contemplated invasion of Iraq is to seize
control of Saudi oil, has a screw loose. Here is the full text of the Bush
speech to the General Assembly today. See --
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1064156,00.html
It uses the word 'oil' a grand total of FOUR times.
1) "Iraq was allowed to use oil revenues to buy food"
2) "even as he uses his oil wealth to build lavish palaces for himself"
3) "We've tried the carrot of oil for food"
4) "If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit
trade outside the oil-for-food program"
There is a clear bias attached to anyone who would suggest that attacking
Iraq (a bad idea at this moment, IMHO) is ABOUT OIL. It is about weapons
of mass destruction. Were Saddam to agree immediately to unlimited
inspections, without conditions, the immediate 'crisis' would immediately end
(although I presume it would still persist into the future).
What is bewildering is that the European mentality is CONSUMED with
oil. Believing that EVERY move in the Middle East is about that product.
Strangely enough, were the oil flow from the Middle East to cease to flow
tomorrow, the U.S. would be less impacted than any nation on the
European continent. See Figure 52, in
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/petroleum_issues_trends_1996/CHAPTER4.PDF
The U.S. has a great demand, but the gap between demand and
supply in North American is hardly a dribble compared to the
huge gap that exists between demand and supply in Europe.
PV
A Planet Visitor
"GeneralZod" <z...@pokolistan.com> wrote in message news:uxag9.1446$913.49...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
an angry American in a bar one night, and after picking himself up off
the ground, and visiting the local hospital, formed a lasting dislike for
all Americans. I think more that he 'uses' the DP to provide a forum
for his hate. Notice that only a small number of his posts even
address the DP. 34 posts in the thread 'WAR,' and not ONE in
respect to the DP. He just tries to 'rally the boys' around him, so they
can all sing out anti-US slogans. There is something pathological
with that guy. Everybody has, at one time or another, recognized it.
Even abolitionists. Now he's decided to post a few references to his
'perhaps' returning to his PhD pursuits. In every case, he tries to
preen himself in front of his 'audience' here. While he copies text
from books and claims it as his own. That pathology runs much
deeper than the simple DP.
> If given the opportunity, do you think he would have been one of the
> hijackers on that day? I do not see any reason to believe he would not have.
I understand that he has an outstanding application for admission already
submitted.
PV
>
>
>
>
>
A Planet Visitor
> Le Fri, 13 Sep 2002 01:56:31 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,786180,00.html
>
> > Every time someone mentions The Guardian I begin to laugh.
>
> lecture on nuclear physics. The only question is : does he laugh
> because he is embarrassed at his own profound ignorance ? Or does
> he laugh as a 'defense [sic] mechanism', much like you do when you
> point at the 'silver bird', and gape toothlessly at the 'magic' of
> its staying up in the air ?
>
Chuckle... 'nuclear physics'???? Yesterday you couldn't spell
it... now you propose to use it in a sentence. I can guarantee
you needed a spell-checker with that one. Don't tell me --
you're trying to be 'pseudo-intellectual.' Probably a part of
your PhD charade.
If one wave happens every 40 cm, how many waves happen in
300,000 km, sport? Just arithmetic, but it appears you're still
struggling over that one. My advice, stick to 13th Century
French Feminist writers. You can probably become a world
expert on all two of them.
'Nuclear physics' --- I'm about to bust a gut laughing.
PV
>
> --
> Desmond Coughlan |DP SUPPORTER #1
Incubus
> Le Wed, 11 Sep 2002 16:56:10 +0800, Cerberus <Cerb...@riverstyx.net> a
écrit :
>
> > world's fears, the whole worlds anxieties, the whole worlds gnawing
> > realisation that, no, WE NEVER LEARN.
>
>
> A question which I've asked myself over the past twelve months is, if
> the Eiffel Tower had been hit, would everyone think that the 'world
> had changed' ? If Canary Wharf had been hit, would everyone think that
> the 'world had changed' ?
>
> in the minds of many Americans is that they now realise that if they
> base their foreign policy on squashing the little man, the poor, the
> dispossessed, then one day, the little man will turn around and bite.
> This is what happened a year ago, and regrettably, the people who run
> the United States, don't seem to have got the message. They are the
> logical successors to the victims who screamed, 'Why do they hate us ?'
> The next time there is an attack (and rest assured that there will be
> more), they will again scream, 'Why do they hate us ?' They have
> learned nothing.
>
> to have been achieved is to have swapped one lawless régime for another,
> happened if nothing had been done ? Would John's theory (quite probably
> _the_ most original thought that I have read on this group in the past
> behind Bush, would not have waited for an election, to replace him ?
> We shall never know.
>
> out of harm's way. My thoughts are with those left behind. _They_
> are the real victims. If the United States does not change its foreign
> policy, then the little man will very soon create some more victims, to
> keep them company.
>
Oh Desi. Stop picking on the American's they populace don't know why they
are bing attacked simply because their government, like ours operates on a
need to know basis and they beleive that thier populace need to know
nothing. Have you ever seen "yes minister"? an incredible comedy that takes
the mickey out of the way our governments never tell us anything. The
Americans are in the same boat
John Rennie
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>
> "John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:cF0g9.251$uf4.50968@newsfep2-gui...
> >
> > "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> > news:Z9Pf9.12412$R7.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> > >
> > snip
> > >
> > > Yes, John Rennie's posting of the Blair speech was certainly that.
> > > One of the finer speeches posted here.
> >
> > If you liked that see how you will get on with this one.
> > Mo Mowlan was very highly regarded in America
> > when she was Northern Ireland's Minister.
> >
> > http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,786180,00.html
> >
> Every time someone mentions The Guardian I begin to laugh.
OK then - let's have a piece from today's Daily Mail (what I fear would be
the paper of your choice if you were a UK resident.) This is an extract
from an article by Andrew Alexander - its political correspondent.
"Countries across the globe resent being lectured, cajoled and hectored by
the U.S. about how they should run their own affairs. Much of this
approach was summed up by President Bush in his June speech at West point -
and remember he is from the party that has always been less inclined than
the Democrats to push this 'ethical' foreign policy to its limits.
"Governments all round the World" he said, "need to change their ways to
become democratic, capitalist and 'free', religiously tolerant and include
respect for the rights of women." "This," he claimed, "was the only one
surviving model for human progress".
You and I may think that democracy, etc is the right model. But we have
little right to tell other countries how they should frame or reframe their
constitutions and laws. In any case, countries sense much hypocrisy in
this American attitude. They do not agree with the U.S.. definitions of
freedom and dislike capitalism. Nor can they overlook American readiness
to support tyrants where they could be seen as allies. We ourselves
certainly felt the hypocrisy of the U.S. in its interference to 'settle' the
affairs of Northern Ireland. No American 'war' against terrorism' there
or come to that, respect for majority rule.
Sadly, others including ourselves have come to accept the principle of the
right, even the duty, constantly to interfere in other states' internal
affairs. As a result the world has become a more dangerous place."
I don't agree with everything Alexander says e.g. his idea of the majority
rule differs from mine mainly because he restricts himself to Northern
Ireland whilst I include all Ireland. I have also been pleased to see
the US 'interfere' in Bosnia and other places but much of what he says
is spot on.
GeneralZod
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> >
> I have a feeling it goes deeper than that. He might have encountered
> an angry American in a bar one night, and after picking himself up off
> the ground, and visiting the local hospital, formed a lasting dislike for
> all Americans.
I cannot see that. If it is not the death penalty, it has to be
something else just as trivial. Perhaps he feels threatened by the freedoms
we enjoy, like OBL, e.g., is.
Whatever the case, a good old fashioned ass whoopin' cannot be the
cause. But it certainly would be the cure.
However, nobody I know would waste time, money and energy in going to
France and looking for Desi just so he can lay the Smackdown on him (unlike
the title characters in "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back"). And Desi is too
much of a class-A chicken shit to come here and spout his anti-American
venom in a public place.
So don't expect a change in attitude from Desi anytime soon.
Incubus
> Le Fri, 13 Sep 2002 17:06:35 +0100, Incubus <inc...@hellfire.com> a
écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> I was against military action in Afghanistan, and indeed all that seems
> >> to have been achieved is to have swapped one lawless régime for
another,
> >> albeit one more sympathetic to the United States. What would have
> >> happened if nothing had been done ? Would John's theory (quite
probably
> >> _the_ most original thought that I have read on this group in the past
> >> two years at least), have been shown to be correct, that the forces
> >> behind Bush, would not have waited for an election, to replace him ?
> >> We shall never know.
> >>
> >> Today, I shall not pray for the three thousand dead, for they are
> >> out of harm's way. My thoughts are with those left behind. _They_
> >> are the real victims. If the United States does not change its foreign
> >> policy, then the little man will very soon create some more victims, to
> >> keep them company.
>
they
> > are bing attacked simply because their government, like ours operates on
a
> > need to know basis and they beleive that thier populace need to know
> > nothing. Have you ever seen "yes minister"? an incredible comedy that
takes
> > the mickey out of the way our governments never tell us anything. The
> > Americans are in the same boat
>
> (Christ, at least give us your first name ... calling you 'incubus' is
> doing my nut in ...). It is stunning that with such free and open
> access to information, they can still scream, 'Why do they hate us ?!'
>
> No one else in the West had to ask the question, 'Why do they hate
> Americans ?' Everyone knows.
the Americans as a country are not open. They have more secrets than the
russians do :-)
is for my first name, it's .....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
incubus
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Fragile Lives - RIP
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 21:54:08 +0000
>
>Le Fri, 13 Sep 2002 06:14:08 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a
>écrit :
>
>{ snip 'love-in' }
>
>Oh look ... LDB and General Zob, are slagging me off. Excuse my whilst
>I go and weep. Erm ... not.
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!nntp1.roc.gblx.net!nntp.g
blx.net!nntp.gblx.net!newsxfer.visi.net!newspeer.monmouth.com!newsfeed.icl
.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!feed.news.nacamar.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e
117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!
>not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Fragile Lives - RIP
>Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 21:54:08 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 12
>Message-ID: <slrnao4nk0.n9p.p...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <3d7f0...@goliath.newsgroups.com>
><slrnanu3j3.cfp.p...@lievre.voute.net>
><Z9Pf9.12412$R7.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><uxag9.1446$913.49...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>
><Qmfg9.26196$R7.4...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
>Reply-To: pasdespa...@zeouane.org
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1031954122 1062257 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
>X-Orig-Path: lievre.voute.net!nobody
>X-No-Archive: true
>X-OS: BSD UNIX
>X-PGP: http://www.zeouane.org/pgp/pubring.pkr
>User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (FreeBSD)
>
Desi is afraid of his own words! He can be reached at des...@noos.fr or
des...@zeouane.org.
As everyone knows, only COWARDS forge posts yet don't allow their own to be
archived!
Now Desi, Tell us about the Baltimore County police.
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Fragile Lives - RIP
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 22:18:57 +0000
>
>Le Fri, 13 Sep 2002 06:44:10 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a
>écrit :
>
>>> >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,786180,00.html
>
>>> > Every time someone mentions The Guardian I begin to laugh.
>
>>> Undoubtedly. Much like the simpleton who laughs when he hears a
>>> lecture on nuclear physics. The only question is : does he laugh
>>> because he is embarrassed at his own profound ignorance ? Or does
>>> he laugh as a 'defense [sic] mechanism', much like you do when you
>>> point at the 'silver bird', and gape toothlessly at the 'magic' of
>>> its staying up in the air ?
>
>> Chuckle... 'nuclear physics'????
>
>Curious. Why are those question marks not _inside_ the quotation
>marks, LDB ? Because they are not part of the 'quote' (sic). Isn't
>it wonderful when a particularly slow student like your good self,
>finally places that index finger to his bottom lip, wipes away a
>pool of saliva, and utters, 'Duh ... you [was] right alright [sic],
>Des ... I'm a thick cunt who can't insure [sic] that I'll [sic]
>take your advise [sic] ...'
>
>{ snip }
>
>> 'Nuclear physics' --- I'm about to bust a gut laughing.
>
>No you're not, murderer lover, and no one believes that you are. *titter*,
>so easy ... my hand is aching with the horrendous spanking that I've
>been administering for nigh on a year now ... ROTFFLMAO !!!
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!newsstand.cit.cornell.edu
!news.stealth.net!news.stealth.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212
-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Fragile Lives - RIP
>Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 22:18:57 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 36
>Message-ID: <slrnao4p2f.n9p.p...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <3d7f0...@goliath.newsgroups.com>
><slrnanu3j3.cfp.p...@lievre.voute.net>
><Z9Pf9.12412$R7.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><cF0g9.251$uf4.50968@newsfep2-gui>
><jBbg9.23489$R7.4...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><slrnao2i63.jhd.p...@lievre.voute.net>
><_Ofg9.26221$R7.4...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
>Reply-To: pasdespa...@zeouane.org
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1031955607 961595 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Fragile Lives - RIP
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 19:31:21 +0000
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!fu-b
erlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Fragile Lives - RIP
>Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 19:31:21 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 39
>Message-ID: <slrnao4f89.mu0.p...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <3d7f0...@goliath.newsgroups.com>
><slrnanu3j3.cfp.p...@lievre.voute.net>
><n2og9.921$ut4....@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>
>Reply-To: pasdespa...@zeouane.org
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1031945633 1002204 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Fragile Lives - RIP
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 02:09:07 +0000
>
>Le Fri, 13 Sep 2002 01:56:31 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a
>écrit :
>
>{ snip }
>
>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,786180,00.html
>
>> Every time someone mentions The Guardian I begin to laugh.
>
>Undoubtedly. Much like the simpleton who laughs when he hears a
>lecture on nuclear physics. The only question is : does he laugh
>because he is embarrassed at his own profound ignorance ? Or does
>he laugh as a 'defense [sic] mechanism', much like you do when you
>point at the 'silver bird', and gape toothlessly at the 'magic' of
>its staying up in the air ?
>
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!news.cis.ohio-state.edu!n
ews.maxwell.syr.edu!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR
!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Fragile Lives - RIP
>Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 02:09:07 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 21
>Message-ID: <slrnao2i63.jhd.p...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <3d7f0...@goliath.newsgroups.com>
><slrnanu3j3.cfp.p...@lievre.voute.net>
><Z9Pf9.12412$R7.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><cF0g9.251$uf4.50968@newsfep2-gui>
><jBbg9.23489$R7.4...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
>Reply-To: pasdespa...@zeouane.org
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1031883019 515341 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
A Planet Visitor
> >> to have been achieved is to have swapped one lawless régime for another,
> >> albeit one more sympathetic to the United States. What would have
> >> happened if nothing had been done ? Would John's theory (quite probably
> >> _the_ most original thought that I have read on this group in the past
> >> two years at least), have been shown to be correct, that the forces
> >> behind Bush, would not have waited for an election, to replace him ?
> >> We shall never know.
> >>
> >> Today, I shall not pray for the three thousand dead, for they are
> >> out of harm's way. My thoughts are with those left behind. _They_
> >> are the real victims. If the United States does not change its foreign
> >> policy, then the little man will very soon create some more victims, to
> >> keep them company.
>
> > are bing attacked simply because their government, like ours operates on a
> > need to know basis and they beleive that thier populace need to know
> > nothing. Have you ever seen "yes minister"? an incredible comedy that takes
> > the mickey out of the way our governments never tell us anything. The
> > Americans are in the same boat
>
> (Christ, at least give us your first name ... calling you 'incubus' is
> doing my nut in ...). It is stunning that with such free and open
> access to information, they can still scream, 'Why do they hate us ?!'
>
> No one else in the West had to ask the question, 'Why do they hate
> Americans ?' Everyone knows.
>
A question you should ask about yourself.
A Planet Visitor
> Le Fri, 13 Sep 2002 06:44:10 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a écrit :
>
> >> >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,786180,00.html
>
> >> > Every time someone mentions The Guardian I begin to laugh.
>
> >> Undoubtedly. Much like the simpleton who laughs when he hears a
> >> lecture on nuclear physics. The only question is : does he laugh
> >> because he is embarrassed at his own profound ignorance ? Or does
> >> he laugh as a 'defense [sic] mechanism', much like you do when you
> >> point at the 'silver bird', and gape toothlessly at the 'magic' of
> >> its staying up in the air ?
>
> > Chuckle... 'nuclear physics'????
>
> marks, LDB ? Because they are not part of the 'quote' (sic). Isn't
> it wonderful when a particularly slow student like your good self,
> finally places that index finger to his bottom lip, wipes away a
> pool of saliva, and utters, 'Duh ... you [was] right alright [sic],
> Des ... I'm a thick cunt who can't insure [sic] that I'll [sic]
> take your advise [sic] ...'
>
> { snip }
>
>
> so easy ... my hand is aching with the horrendous spanking that I've
> been administering for nigh on a year now ... ROTFFLMAO !!!
>
some murderers escaped from a Texas prison you remarked "may
God guide them to the Mexican border." Unfortunately, they murdered
again, as they traveled. One can assume you loved that. And one can
assume you loved Theodore Frank enough to remark that you supported
setting him free unconditionally.
The truth is that I'm not a 'murderer lover.' But you are a drunk and a
wife beater. My spies have sent me the photos. They're disgusting. :-(((
John Rennie
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>
>
snip
> > >> >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,786180,00.html
> >
> > >> > Every time someone mentions The Guardian I begin to laugh.
Well now you can have another laugh and it is Mo Mowlan again
as well. But this time you will have to hold your mirth because
what she says you will very probably agree with. This is how
to wage the war on terror.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,794691,00.html
A Planet Visitor
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:i7oi9.28494$7x3.1...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
drugs have done to dirtdog...... I may need to change my views... :-)
PS-- Sarcasm... sarcasm. I am still strongly in favor of legalization
of drugs.
PV