REPOST: Alleged pusallanimity of Baha'i administration
Pat Kohli
It's been a Gregorian month and apparently this bit of opportunistic
condemnation has been completely forgotten. Know who will condemn you
over a fabrication. Know who is a credible expert and whose academic
objectivity is completely compromised by their personal vendetta. Know
who _never_ sought to apologize or even try to explain their mischief at
a time of grave national crisis and mourning.
Nima, I'm not talking about you. You had no idea that he was so full of
such rotten sh*t.
Fred, why don't you add this bit of blatant disinformation to your
regular schedule? After, all, Juan did write it, right?
Blessings!
- Pat
ko...@ameritel.net
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 09:53:39 +1000
Organization: Customer of Connect.com.au Pty. Ltd.
Lines: 67
Message-ID: <9qt2to$1uh$1...@gnamma.connect.com.au>
NNTP-Posting-Host: acc8-ppp250.gco.dialup.connect.net.au
X-Trace: gnamma.connect.com.au 1003622136 2001 210.10.235.250 (20 Oct
2001 23:55:36 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@connect.com.au
NNTP-Posting-Date: 20 Oct 2001 23:55:36 GMT
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
fyi
From: Juan Cole jrcole@u....
Date: Sun Oct 21, 2001 4:28 am
Subject: pusallanimity of Baha'i administration
I have seen a directive from the US NSA instructing Baha'is not to say
the
"prayer for America" publicly in response to the horrid assault on our
country of September 11. Apparently this instruction derives from a
fear
that Baha'is will be seen as pro-American, which in turn might endanger
Baha'is living in Muslim countries.
I will try to restrain myself from a Dennis Miller rant on this subject,
but this message is the height of yellow-bellied cowardice, rank
ingratitude, and unpatriotic near-treason. The prayer for America was
revealed to celebrate its commitment to human liberty, that same liberty
that was the target of the terrorists on Black Tuesday. It was revealed
to
be read *precisely* in such moments as these.
The United States Congress and State Department have been
*indefatigable*,
moreover, in defending the Baha'is of Iran when they were attacked by
the
Ayatollahs. Please note that they did not quake in their booties that
maybe taking up such unpopular causes as the Baha'is might endanger the
lives of Americans in the Middle East (though, that was obviously a
possibility). Americans put themselves on the line for the Baha'is.
But
now that we Americans need all the allies we can get, what is the
response
of the Baha'i administration? "Sorry, folks, you're on your own. We
won't
risk anything for you, the way you risked for us."
Moreover, this pretext of the poor Baha'is in Muslim countries that
keeps
being trotted out to justify whatever weird policies get into Ali
Nakhjavani's head is rather thin. Uh, get a clue guys. Baha'is are not
welcome in Muslim countries *already*. You might have noticed that 200
were killed in Iran in the past 20 years and they have been banned in
Egypt, Libya, Indonesia, etc., etc. They are viewed as dangerous
heretics
attempting to undermine the Muslim religion. So, that they object to
6000
innocent civilians being butchered and vaporized is a little unlikely to
matter much one way or another to their Muslim critics! But if they
*don't* object to it, and publicly, then they have acquiesced in
barbarism. Yet, when *they* were being killed in Iran, they ran around
insisting that the European Union and the US Congress and everyone else
under the sun stridently denounce the ayatollahs!
I am sickened by this level of hypocrisy and selfishness on the part of
the
more cult-like elements in our religion, which have so inexplicably
grabbed
the reins of power. And, I have an even more unsettling suspicion that
some of the more extreme cultists among them, the Ian Semples, Farzam
Arbabs, Peter Khans, Doug Martins--are secretly joyous that the United
States, bastion of evil Western liberal values such as freedom of speech
and "immature" separation of religion and state, has been humiliated and
weakened. That is, I suspect that in the Baha'i Far Right the response
to
all this has been somewhat similar to that of the Taliban themselves.
And
that is the real reason they don't want Baha'is reading the prayer for
America. They despise America, unlike the Baha'i Holy Figures who
praised
it and held it up as an exemplar.
cheers Juan Cole
Freethought110
shamelessly toe its line are full of rotten gob shite. Here's a toast to
them burying themselves in mounds and mountains of their own -- soon.
Cheers!
--
Freethought110
"Pat Kohli" <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message
news:3BFC7A29...@ameritel.net...
Brian Walker
nope - 'fraid you are not right on this one ... the allegation was a
complete fraud, not any truth whatsoever. Also, no apology for the wrongful
allegation was made.
Sauce for the goose, obviously not also sauce for the gander.
Brian
Freethought110
--
Freethought110
"Brian Walker" <bfwa...@net-yan.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:9ti548$5j2$1...@hfc.pacific.net.hk...
Pat Kohli
Happy Turkey day to the readers in the states.
Well, Nima, my friend, I had thought that like me, you simply trusted that he
was an expert and knew what he was talking about. I really did expect that when
the feast letter finally came through, I would see, as Juan put it, "a directive
from the US NSA instructing Baha'is not to say the "prayer for America"
publicly". There was no such directive from the US NSA to the American Baha'i
community. Believe I am lying to you and all if you like, but I know there was
no directive from the US NSA to the American Baha'i community as Juan alleges.
I suspect that he was simply duped; I believe Abe Lincoln said that you can't
cheat an honest man. I think it wouldn't have been very hard to fool Juan on
this and I hope he learns something from this sad episode - though there is no
evidence at all that anything was learned by him, or even you - and that is
surprising. I've learned something though, and your rigidity reinforces it.
Apparently, like Juan, you will believe anything, w/o question, so long as it is
consistent with your opinions. I have no beef with that. Last year, though, a
certain professor assured me that his studies were not simply a personal
vendetta, but backed by his academic objectivity. And AFAIK, to date, he still
tries to legitimize his witch hunts under the guise of "academia".
Despite all your macho posturing, you know that you looked for that alleged
letter and all you found was a letter from the external affairs office to public
information representatives. That message read, "Any Bahá'í-connected message
to the public should try to elevate the response to the attacks to a higher,
more spiritual level that is above hatred and recrimination, above any mention
whatsoever of government actions, assignment of blame, and above the attempt to
use this tragedy as an opportunity to advance our own interests."
There was nothing in there directing American Baha'is not to recite any specific
prayer in public. Juan, and apparently you, as well, would have done well to
take the advice of the letter from the external affairs office, and not tried to
use the tragedy as an opportunity to advance your agenda.
I understand that you have legitimate grievances with the AO, and so long as you
are not claiming acadamic objectivity I have no beef with most of what you have
been doing. But I think it is very clear to many, at this point, that one
professor in the midwest does not have academic objectivity when it comes to
their criticisms of the AO. Furthermore, (are you reading this Susan?) it is
not necessary to go back to last year and some minor polishings of a web page
(arguably to protect the identity of his source) to show that.
Protocols of the Elders of Zion! Naked Baha'i Women! Let the absurd charges
continue, that legitimate grievances be completely forgotten! Be wrong and
stick to it! Fred Glaysher forever!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Khoda Negahdar!
- Pat
ko...@ameritel.net
Freethought110
--
Freethought110
"Pat Kohli" <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message
news:3BFD1B01...@ameritel.net...
Pat Kohli
Freethought110 wrote:
> Does this have anything to with Juan not paying any attention to you??
Hmmm. I had projected that JC would epiphanize, but there is no need to summon
him, just because I _expect_ him.
Obviously, I can only speculate why and where Juan originally posted his
message. I can guess that you asked his permission to post it here, or that he
asked you to post it here. I can guess that some request for corroboration was
anticipated, and that you expected to have the smoking gun. With these
expectations, I assumed that the allegation was accurate and that when I got my
feast leeter, I would read what Juan described. That was not the case, at all.
You and Juan do not have your stuff together. I don't know if 1) there simply
was no corroboration and he or you _assumed_ that he or you would be believed
without question, 2) corroboration was expected and has been "delayed" -
indefinitely - such that you persist in the allegation, 3) corroboration was
expected and turned out to be the external affairs letter - wrong message, wrong
source, and just one of two gizillion cautions that every organization in the
USA put out at that time - and neither you nor Juan feel any oblication to come
clean on the matter. Perhaps there are other possibilities, but your bluff was
called a month ago, and it seems that only you fail to realize that you came up
with nada.
If he has some explanation for this - perhaps that his efforts caused the US NSA
to rethink their direction and withdraw it before it was promulgated, sure, I am
interested - but I would suppose that you would be capable of forwarding such
explanations from Talisman. Am I mistaken to assume that Juan was asked for
corroboration on Talisman? Was the letter from external affairs advising the
American Baha'is not to try to take advantage of the situation, was this seen on
Talisman as evidence that American Baha'is were directed to not say the specific
prayer for America in public?
It was Juan's message and if the Talisman audience never asked for
corroboration, maybe you have nothing that you can copy over, and so, maybe you
do need Juan to explain here. At this point, though, I don't think I credit him
with any academaic objectivity in Baha'i matters, and I doubt that anyone active
in the American Baha'i community could presume such, after seeing this baseless
charge. We know there was no such direction to us from the US NSA. It seems
most likely to me that he has bought in to this story simply because it suits
his anti-AO predisposition.
My guess is that the message got a warmer reception here than in Talisman, such
that you did not see Juan's answers on Talism to the questions we asked here.
Most likely Juan is much better equipped to explain his message than you are, or
so I would expect. If you think he can salvage his reputation on these ngs, then
maybe you should invite him over. I'm ready.
KN!
- Pat
ko...@ameritel.net
Freethought110
"Pat Kohli" <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message
news:3BFD9689...@ameritel.net...
>If you think he can salvage his reputation on these ngs, then
> maybe you should invite him over. I'm ready.
LET'S GET READY TO RUUUUUUMMMMMMBBBBLE! The challenger, on my right,
fighting out of the red corner wearing pink poke-a-dot trunks, with a couple
of wins here, a couple of losses there, weighing in at 200 something lbs,
Pat "El Grande Waffler" Kohli. On my left, fighting out of the blue corner,
wearing white trunks, weighing in at 200 something lbs, with a 40-1-00-39
record, 3 time world champion, Sugar Ray Juan "El Campion Professore
Universidad Michiganejo" Cole. This fight is sanctioned by the TRB state
boxing athletic commision, the ARB boxing federation and the talisman9
boxing council. The Judges for this fight are Nima Hazini from QLD AU, Paul
Hammond UK and Karen Bacquet CA, USA. The referee in charge of the bout is
the Grim Reaper Dermod Ryder.
*Ding*
RD 1. In center ring Cole moves forward throws the first opening left jab
grazing Kohli's chin. Kohli switches style to southpaw and throws right jab,
left hook, right uppercut combo missing Cole who uses slippery footwork to
duck punches while throwing a succession of left jabs which connect on
target. Cole, showing superior class, moves backward to rightside ropes
followed by Kohli in hot pursuit. Kohli goes to the body with left
hook/right hook combination taken on the gloves and elbows of Cole. Cole
grabs Kohli on left shoulder. Kohli lands low blow with the left. Referee
separates fighters and warns Kohli of low blow. With 10 seconds remaining in
the round Cole throws sharp straight right cross to the face landing flush
on the chin of Kohli sending him reeling to the canvass. Referee sends Cole
to neutral corner ands begins count. Kohli up at 8 but clearly staggered
making this the first knockdown of the evening. Referee allows fight to
continue. Bell rings. End of Rd.1
RD 2. Clearly unnerved by the knockdown in Rd.1 but fully recovered Kohli
comes rushing at Cole, bobbing and weaving, throwing a succession of short
jab/cross/hook combos all which are ducked and parried by Cole. Kohli throws
hard left uppercut barely missing Cole, but grazing the chin of Cole.
Ducking, Cole throws a fast double left jab to the chin of Kohli which
connects and begins moving Kohli from center ring to leftside ropes. Kohli
throws a right uppercut that briefly staggers Cole and then throws a
succession of haymakers which miss. Kohli has Cole on the ropes once again
going to the body. From the ropes Cole comes with a lightning hard and fast
right/left combo connecting flush on the head and chin of Kohli sending
Kohli once again falling head first into the canvass. Referee begins count.
Kohli starts getting up at 5 but his legs are gone and he begins doing a
chicken-dance and falls flat on his face. The crowd is going crazy and the
referee waves the fight away at 1:48 of Rd.2.
Cole KO2
--
Freethought110
Brian Walker
news:9tija8$b1e$1...@gnamma.connect.com.au:
Hi Nima,
if it means anything at all to you, I do stand up for truth and justice,
and do not have blinkered vision (well, not beyond the usual) ... so I call
things the way I see them, in open honesty. If I thought there was truth in
some thing, I would call it too. In this case, there was none. Well
documented too.
All the best,
Brian
Freethought110
> and do not have blinkered vision
Sure you do.
--
Freethought110
Pat Kohli
Freethought110 wrote:
> LET'S GET READY TO RUUUUUUMMMMMMBBBBLE! The challenger, on my right,
> (snip)
Well, it was entertaining because it was different. Thanks. Let me know when
he is up for a rematch.
In the mean time, should I try to find all the feast letters since now and then,
or is this supposed to be in a special letter?
Blessings!
- Pat
ko...@ameritel.net
Susan Maneck
>In the mean time, should I try to find all the feast letters since now and
>then,
>or is this supposed to be in a special letter?
Dear Pat,
I expect that what Juan had in mind was a garbled version of letters from the
External Affairs Committee, none of which said anything about the prayer to
America.
warmest,
Susan Maneck
Associate Professor of History
Jackson State University
"And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time
left to start again . . "
Don McLean's American Pie
http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
Susan Maneck
Dear Pat,
I believe I have found the truth behind Juan's distortion. He had written:
>
>I have seen a directive from the US NSA instructing Baha'is not to say
>the
>"prayer for America" publicly in response to the horrid assault on our
>country of September 11. Apparently this instruction derives from a
>fear
>that Baha'is will be seen as pro-American, which in turn might endanger
>Baha'is living in Muslim countries.
Note that Juan claims to have seen this directive. Now let's look at the
directive itself and see whether or not he gave us a fair representation of it.
First off, the directive came not from the NSA as Juan alledged, but from the
External Affairs Committee:
Submitting Prayers to the Local Newspapers
…While it is appropriate to submit a Bahá'í prayer to the newspaper, to
attribute it to the Bahá'í sacred writings, and to sign it from your local
Spiritual Assembly, attaching any additional message such as the 1-800-22-UNITE
number may not be appropriate and could create the impression that Bahá'ís
were exploiting this terrible tragedy as an opportunity to promote our own
interests or to proselytize. Our genuine expressions, in word and deed, of
shared grief, sympathy, and prayers for healing, unity, and love are perhaps
the best that we or anyone else can offer at this time…
Note that is not saying don't say the prayer for America in public, it is not
even saying don't publish it. It is saying don't *use* such prayers for
proselytizing purposes.
This is a far cry from the motivation which Juan ascribes to the BNC namely,
"this instruction derives from a fear that Baha'is will be seen as
pro-American."
Indeed, elsewhere the External Affairs Committee makes it even more explicit
what their motivations are on this matter:
"Bahá'ís should be extremely cautious in their teaching activities not to
exploit this or any other tragic situation as an opportunity to promote the
Faith. If we were not sincere in our efforts when rendering service to others
in our communities, it would not only be counterproductive, but could actually
be damaging to the Faith."
But somehow, even though Juan claims to have seen this directive, he represents
it as an unpatriotic attempt not to appear too pro-American. Makes you wonder
about his ability to read a text, doesn't it?
Freethought110
--
Freethought110
"Pat Kohli" <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message
news:3BFDF583...@ameritel.net...
Pat Kohli
Freethought110 wrote:
> They don't give rematches when someone's been KTFO-ed.
True. To date, Juan is a no show, ergo, he hasn't KTFO-ed anyone.
When he arrives, I will ask him to corroroborate his allegation. In this case,
since he alleges that a directive was given by the US NSA, to the American
Baha'i community, there should be no need whatsover, to rely on his word which
he is ethically bound to offer in leiu of his confidential sources. Rather, in
this case, he should be able to refer me to a letter, from my NSA to the
American Baha'i community - something I should have had in my hand by now.
Maybe if he could provide a date, I could request a copy for my community, from
the NSA - since ours seemed to have dropped through the cracks!
I am beginning to wonder if he will show up at all. Isn't this rich, "this
message is the height of yellow-bellied cowardice"?
Blessings!
- Pat
ko...@ameritel.net
Freethought110
"Pat Kohli" opined:
> True. To date, Juan is a no show, ergo, he hasn't KTFO-ed anyone.
Seems he's had your beloved AOssholes on the ropes for quite awhile now. I
keep telling him to throw that devasting uppercut but he's too nice to
ya'll.
> When he arrives, I will ask him to corroroborate his allegation. In this
case,
> since he alleges that a directive was given by the US NSA, to the American
> Baha'i community, there should be no need whatsover, to rely on his word
which
> he is ethically bound to offer in leiu of his confidential sources.
Rather, in
> this case, he should be able to refer me to a letter, from my NSA to the
> American Baha'i community - something I should have had in my hand by now.
> Maybe if he could provide a date, I could request a copy for my community,
from
> the NSA - since ours seemed to have dropped through the cracks!
So how much is Bob Henderson paying for this little hissy-fit stint, hmmm???
> I am beginning to wonder if he will show up at all. Isn't this rich,
"this
> message is the height of yellow-bellied cowardice"?
Believe me, Pat, in the scheme of things you cultists are not that
important. You're not even a blip on the map.
Polly wanna cracker??
--
Freethought110
Pat Kohli
My guess is that the external affairs letter was simply a place holder. Only an
illiterate could overlook that it is neither from the US NSA, nor does it provide
direction (it is a reminder of existing policy), nor does it even mention a
specific prayer, nor does it pertain to public meetings where such a prayer might
be recited. As far as Juan's charges go, that external affairs letter is
irrelevant, at best, at worst, it points out good advice that some have obviously
not taken.
It seems to me that there was no truth behind Juan's allegation. At this point, I
suspect _all_ know that - even though Nima is still hoping there is some truth to
yet materialize. Apparently certain folks post stuff from Talisman to trb, but 1)
either the word does not get back to Talisman, or 2) Juan is out of town on
vacation and will answer the criticisms on his return, or 3) Juan simply will not
acknowledge the mistake and has chosen to shun trb, rather than come clean or face
the music - he knows that if he shows up here, I will post the _real_ letter from
the US NSA on the 11 September attacks, and disprove his fundamental premise.
Nima, if Juan steps into the ring, and if he swings, he'll get clobbered by the
evidence. Bre'r Fox beats boxing because the tar baby sticks more with more
struggling.
Susan Maneck wrote:
> > After, all, Juan did write it, right?
>
> Dear Pat,
>
> I believe I have found the truth behind Juan's distortion. He had written:
>
> >
> >I have seen a directive from the US NSA instructing Baha'is not to say
> >the
> >"prayer for America" publicly in response to the horrid assault on our
> >country of September 11. Apparently this instruction derives from a
> >fear
> >that Baha'is will be seen as pro-American, which in turn might endanger
> >Baha'is living in Muslim countries.
>
> Note that Juan claims to have seen this directive. Now let's look at the
> directive itself and see whether or not he gave us a fair representation of it.
> First off, the directive came not from the NSA as Juan alledged, but from the
> External Affairs Committee:
>
Not a directive from the NSA and Juan would know that.
>
> Submitting Prayers to the Local Newspapers
>
> …While it is appropriate to submit a Bahá'í prayer to the newspaper, to
> attribute it to the Bahá'í sacred writings, and to sign it from your local
> Spiritual Assembly, attaching any additional message such as the 1-800-22-UNITE
> number may not be appropriate and could create the impression that Bahá'ís
> were exploiting this terrible tragedy as an opportunity to promote our own
> interests or to proselytize. Our genuine expressions, in word and deed, of
> shared grief, sympathy, and prayers for healing, unity, and love are perhaps
> the best that we or anyone else can offer at this time…
>
> Note that is not saying don't say the prayer for America in public, it is not
> even saying don't publish it. It is saying don't *use* such prayers for
> proselytizing purposes.
>
> This is a far cry from the motivation which Juan ascribes to the BNC namely,
> "this instruction derives from a fear that Baha'is will be seen as
> pro-American."
>
Juan is totally out to lunch on that count.
>
> Indeed, elsewhere the External Affairs Committee makes it even more explicit
> what their motivations are on this matter:
>
> "Bahá'ís should be extremely cautious in their teaching activities not to
> exploit this or any other tragic situation as an opportunity to promote the
> Faith. If we were not sincere in our efforts when rendering service to others
> in our communities, it would not only be counterproductive, but could actually
> be damaging to the Faith."
>
It was good advice wasted on the likes of Fred Glaysher, or Juan Cole.
>
> But somehow, even though Juan claims to have seen this directive, he represents
> it as an unpatriotic attempt not to appear too pro-American. Makes you wonder
> about his ability to read a text, doesn't it?
I don't think he was referring to the external affairs letter. It is just too far
removed from what Juan was talking about.
Blessings!
- Pat
ko...@ameritel.net
Karen Bacquet
or 2) Juan is out of town on
> vacation and will answer the criticisms on his return,>>
Pat,
I haven't seen Juan in cyberspace for at least the last week. Indeed, his
appearances have been rather sporadic for the last couple of months. I can't
even remember the last time he was on usenet, which I gather is rather
low-priority for him. It seems that these days he is busy elsewhere.
Love, Karen
> > â?¦While it is appropriate to submit a Bahá'í prayer to the newspaper,
to
> > attribute it to the Bahá'í sacred writings, and to sign it from your
local
> > Spiritual Assembly, attaching any additional message such as the
1-800-22-UNITE
> > number may not be appropriate and could create the impression that
Bahá'ís
> > were exploiting this terrible tragedy as an opportunity to promote our
own
> > interests or to proselytize. Our genuine expressions, in word and deed,
of
> > shared grief, sympathy, and prayers for healing, unity, and love are
perhaps
> > the best that we or anyone else can offer at this timeâ?¦
Pat Kohli
Freethought110 wrote:
>
(snip)
>
>
> Believe me,
I don't anymore, on this; you stick with bad sources.
> Pat, in the scheme of things you cultists are not that
> important. You're not even a blip on the map.
>
Then, by all means, put me in the filter. That is where you will be for the
next two weeks.
>
> Polly wanna cracker??
> --
You've been energetically giving me the "GO" sign on this for about two days. I
want evidence; I've exceeded my monthly allowance of horse apples. You don't
claim to have spies in place in Haif or Wilmette. You don't claim to have the
direct access. You come in here with bullshit stories that apparently Juan has
the sense not to put his name to, to explain the bullshit story that he did put
his name to. You posted that External Affairs letter as some sort of smoke
screen - whether you knew it at the time or not, you know it now, and you want
to offer me a cracker?
"V"!
Freethought110
"Pat Kohli" <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message
news:3BFF1D3F...@ameritel.net...
> I don't anymore, on this; you stick with bad sources.
More like sources that make you look bad.
> > Pat, in the scheme of things you cultists are not that
> > important. You're not even a blip on the map.
> >
>
> Then, by all means, put me in the filter. That is where you will be for
the
> next two weeks.
As they say in LA, Fucken A!
> >
> > Polly wanna cracker??
> > --
>
> You've been energetically giving me the "GO" sign on this for about two
days. I
> want evidence; I've exceeded my monthly allowance of horse apples. You
don't
> claim to have spies in place in Haif or Wilmette.
I neither denied nor conceded the existence of spies in Haifa and Wilmette.
>You don't claim to have the
> direct access.
I neither concede nor deny.
> You come in here with bullshit stories that apparently Juan has
> the sense not to put his name to, to explain the bullshit story that he
did put
> his name to.
Bullshit stories are *everything* that emanate from your beloved AOssholes.
>You posted that External Affairs letter as some sort of smoke
> screen - whether you knew it at the time or not, you know it now, and you
want
> to offer me a cracker?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
--
Freethought110
Susan Maneck
>illiterate could overlook that it is neither from the US NSA, nor does it
>provide
>direction
Dear Pat,
If we are talking now about the Oct. 4 letter, the way it was posted on the
administrative website was a little confusing because there was something that
indicated it was guidance from the NSA.There were actually three communications
en toto on this subject, plus the FAQ sheet I quoted from yesterday. I don't
think all three of them are still up on the website but none of them said
anything about not saying the Prayer for America in public.
>I don't think he was referring to the external affairs letter. It is just
>too far
>removed from what Juan was talking about.
I think what likely happened is that Juan was given a garbled account of a
couple of these letters and then exaggerated it himself even further. And he
simply lied when he said he had seen the directive himself.
BIGS - Bahai in *Perfectly* Good Standing
news:20011124034517...@mb-fc.aol.com...
>>
> I think what likely happened is that Juan was given a garbled account of a
> couple of these letters and then exaggerated it himself even further. And
he
> simply lied when he said he had seen the directive himself.
http://members.fortunecity.com/bahaicensorship/Maneck1.htm
See her slandering other views as garbage:
http://members.fortunecity.com/bahaicensorship/Maneck3.htm
See her slandering other views as litter:
http://members.fortunecity.com/bahaicensorship/Maneck7.htm
See also messages related to her abuse of her AOL "position":
http://members.fortunecity.com/bahaicensorship/AOL.htm
http://members.fortunecity.com/bahaicensorship/AOLcensorship.htm
--
Frederick Glaysher
The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
http://members.fortunecity.com/bahaicensorship
Pat Kohli
Karen Bacquet wrote:
> or 2) Juan is out of town on
> > vacation and will answer the criticisms on his return,>>
>
> Pat,
>
> I haven't seen Juan in cyberspace for at least the last week. Indeed, his
> appearances have been rather sporadic for the last couple of months. I can't
> even remember the last time he was on usenet, which I gather is rather
> low-priority for him. It seems that these days he is busy elsewhere.
I seldom see him in person on usenet, more often he has taken to posting by
proxy. I am assuming that the articles from his keyboard find his way here
after posting on Talisman and after a Talsimanian gets his permission to post
them here. I think that if someone posts something which is controversial and
if they want to persuade anyone of the accuracy of their story, they should
stand by to answer reasonable questions. The request for the letter from the US
NSA directing American Baha'is not to say the prayer for America, was, IMHO, a
reasonable request given that Juan claimed to have seen it himself.
At the time he made this charge, I gave him some credibility. Our feast letters
were delayed by the awful postal anthrax debacle, so I didn't know what the
letter said. When a letter was posted, it was plainly not the one which Juan
claimed to have seen and I grew suspicious. Nima tried to reinterpret the
External Affairs letter to meet Juan's description, but it seemed obvious to all
but him that there was not a match. At some point I did get my feast letters
and there was nothing resembling Juan's description of a directive not to say
the prayer for America. Then I checked the BNC web site and found the real
letter on the September 11 attack. It was quite the opposite of the
anti-American bias which Juan alleges.
I felt betrayed. Juan's fake letter rang of the fear which touched our country
at that time. The real letter is inspirational and patriotic. Though clearly
hasty, and poorly referenced, the real letter transcends the fear which swept
our nation at that time. I was favorably touched by the real letter and I am
disappointed that someone would try to recast it as the dark, cowardly thing
that Juan described, particularly disappointed that this was done by someone who
claims academic objectivity in his studies of the Baha'i Faith, Juan Cole, - or
so Nima's posting indicates. Juan's denunciation was not unbiased academia, it
was propaganda, at a time when our nation's communication infrastructure was
compromised. If he ever comes back to TRB, I'd like to discuss this with him.
In the mean time, anyone who wants to reference Juan as an objective academic
expert in the field will be asked how they can see him as some sort of expert
when he has been apparently passing off some story as a directive from the US
NSA, particularly at such a sensitive time.
Here are some excerpts from the real letter, so you can see for yourself that it
is inspirational, patriotic, and transcending the fear:
"As you know, the Bahá’í Scriptures proclaim that God has given the United
States a spiritual mission to help reshape the world. ... The Bahá’í Writings
promise that this "signally blest" nation will never be defeated and will
triumphantly fulfill its God-ordained mission. ... At this moment of
unprecedented disaster, we call on all of the followers of Bahá’u’lláh in the
United States to come to the aid of your nation in the name of your Faith."
- NSA of the Baha'is of the United States, 12 September 2001
Blessings!
- Pat
ko...@ameritel.net
Karen Bacquet
--
http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/bigquestions/Bacquet.html
Pat Kohli <ko...@ameritel.net> wrote in message
news:3BFFCFBA...@ameritel.net...
> Allahu Abha!
Dear Pat and everybody,
I'm going to be cutting back on my Internet activities, including
unsubscribing from trb for a while. The last time I ignored the warning
signals of getting over-stressed on the Internet, it ended up being
disastrous. So, I'm outta here. But I'll be back. When will just depend on
how I feel.
Love, Karen
Pat Kohli
Take care of yourself; no one else will. I hope things work out better real
soon.
Blessings!
- Pat
ko...@ameritel.net
Robert Little
I sincerely hope that Pat has erred, and that there are others who care for
you.
Robert A.Little
"Pat Kohli" <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message
news:3C001668...@ameritel.net...
BIGS - Bahai in *Perfectly* Good Standing
I understand but will miss you. I've always respected
your views and believe you've contributed a great deal
on talk.religion.bahai and elsewhere. Perhaps, after a
recuperation....
Best,
--
Frederick Glaysher
The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
http://members.fortunecity.com/bahaicensorship
"Karen Bacquet" <karenb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u0008ap...@corp.supernews.com...
Pat Kohli
I didn't mean it like that. In this world where some deserve the loyalty of
others, they often don't get it. I work hard for my company, but they won't pay
me what I'm worth, unless they are manuevered into a corner. That is the sort
of thing I meant - you can't rely on the kindness of strangers.
Randy Burns
with the Holidays and her family to take care of. Daily vigilance on TRB
can be very time consuming.
Come back soon, Karen!
Cheers, Randy
--
BIGS - Bahai in *Perfectly* Good Standing <patric...@liberty.com> wrote
in message news:9tr6qo$4anqc$1...@ID-75545.news.dfncis.de...