Cowardly Attack?
Ron Hardin
despicable (Clinton(!))? The word doesn't fit. Perhaps its atmosphere
is supposed to hurt the feelings of the bad guys?
It's not only these two; it's a regular response to suicide attacks.
From the other side, holing a 21st century warship with a dinghy
is likely to look pretty neat, is it not?
Public discourse is ruined, not that it's not already ruined.
The whole affair is getting JFK Jr. or Princess Di treatment
on MSNBC, seeking out any bereft loved ones that might fall into
camera range, sort of like airplane disaster airport treatment
or relatives. Hey, they're in the armed forces. Clinton getting
all weepy is likely to be too much even for women viewers this time,
but I've underestimated it before. Who knows.
The correct response would be something like we will find out who
you are and take out you and your ilk, and more or less drop it
until you do.
--
Ron Hardin
rhha...@mindspring.com
On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.
Francis Muir
Jeff Inman wrote:
> Ron Hardin <rhha...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Indeed. And if one somehow found out about such a
> thing at the last minute and prophylactically
> vaporized the little boat with the chain guns, it
> would still look like a bullying move. So how do
> we win?
>
> > Public discourse is ruined, not that it's not already ruined.
> > The whole affair is getting JFK Jr. or Princess Di treatment
> > on MSNBC, seeking out any bereft loved ones that might fall into
> > camera range, sort of like airplane disaster airport treatment
> > or relatives. Hey, they're in the armed forces. Clinton getting
> > all weepy is likely to be too much even for women viewers this time,
> > but I've underestimated it before. Who knows.
> >
> > The correct response would be something like we will find out who
> > you are and take out you and your ilk, and more or less drop it
> > until you do.
>
> Agreed. But even that is tricky. By the time you
> find them, they are just some guys in an
> apartment, with wives and kids. What are you
> going to do, have a big ol' trial, with dramatic
> weeping in the balconies? That's not good enough,
> either. There are still doubts, and you end up
> having to let them speak. I suppose the best move
> is a flamboyant gangland "hit". The public misses
> the payback, but word gets out where it needs to
> go. Meanwhile, you have to play to the crowd.
First, they should have seen them coming, and then they should have
punctured the rubber craft in some low tech way and helped the failed
attackers out of the water and sent them on their way. Ridicule works wonders.
paschal
On Sat, 14 Oct 2000, Francis Muir wrote:
> First, they should have seen them coming, and then they should have
> punctured the rubber craft in some low tech way and helped the failed
> attackers out of the water and sent them on their way. Ridicule works wonders.
Amen.
I would only add that they *would* have seen them coming, if they'd
been ordered to follow sensible security procedures, and if those
procedures - and the resources necessary to them - had been in place.
-P.
paschal
On Sat, 14 Oct 2000, Ron Hardin wrote:
> Why do suicide attacks get called cowardly (GWBush) or cowardly and
> despicable (Clinton(!))? The word doesn't fit. Perhaps its atmosphere
> is supposed to hurt the feelings of the bad guys?
It's cowardly, because there's no earthly accountability, in the end.
They think they're going to heaven - going to heaven after doing
violence and killing people! - but at least they know they won't die
before a firing squad (something that requires bravery, if not
courage) and they know that at least some of their own small circle of
deranged people will call them "martyrs". Everyone has to die, sometime;
maybe these cowards feel safest picking their own way to die, instead
of leaving it to fate, and God. And, maybe it just makes them feel
important.
> It's not only these two; it's a regular response to suicide attacks.
>
> From the other side, holing a 21st century warship with a dinghy
> is likely to look pretty neat, is it not?
>
> Public discourse is ruined, not that it's not already ruined.
> The whole affair is getting JFK Jr. or Princess Di treatment
> on MSNBC, seeking out any bereft loved ones that might fall into
> camera range, sort of like airplane disaster airport treatment
> or relatives. Hey, they're in the armed forces. Clinton getting
> all weepy is likely to be too much even for women viewers this time,
> but I've underestimated it before. Who knows.
>
> The correct response would be something like we will find out who
> you are and take out you and your ilk, and more or less drop it
> until you do.
I just want to know who's going to be at Dover, when the poor
sailors "come home" - since FearlessLeader seems to be off doing the
work of (some of) the American People.
-P.
ted samsel
>
>
>
> On Sat, 14 Oct 2000, Ron Hardin wrote:
>
> > Why do suicide attacks get called cowardly (GWBush) or cowardly and
> > despicable (Clinton(!))? The word doesn't fit. Perhaps its atmosphere
> > is supposed to hurt the feelings of the bad guys?
>
> It's cowardly, because there's no earthly accountability, in the end.
> They think they're going to heaven - going to heaven after doing
> violence and killing people! -
It's as logical a reason for going to heaven as any. Then there are the
houris to ponder.
--
TBSa...@infi.net
http://home.infi.net/~tbsamsel/
'Do the boogie woogie in the South American way'
Hank Snow (1914-1999)
THE RHUMBA BOOGIE
Jeff Inman
> Why do suicide attacks get called cowardly (GWBush) or cowardly and
> despicable (Clinton(!))? The word doesn't fit. Perhaps its
atmosphere
> is supposed to hurt the feelings of the bad guys?
It must be. I gather that it must somehow be
inevitable that possessors of an awesome military
machine expect that they will be engaged only by
another military machine that might lay claim to
similar awesomeness, and so they at least do each
other honor by engaging. And yet it is proven
over and over again that awesome military machines
are most naturally engaged by guerilla tactics.
The NVA sniper, Kentucky minuteman, and middle
eastern suicide bomber all share a common insight.
Seems to me that the ideal military machine has
awesome firepower at its disposal (such as we do),
has awesome political/economic intrusion (such as
we do) and also has a deep grasp of the fact that
the opposition will tend to use guerilla tactics
and will need to be countered with awesomely well-
coordinated intelligence, communication, mobility,
and special weapons and tactics, including small,
well-trained, covert teams.
> It's not only these two; it's a regular response to suicide attacks.
>
> From the other side, holing a 21st century warship with a dinghy
> is likely to look pretty neat, is it not?
Indeed. And if one somehow found out about such a
thing at the last minute and prophylactically
vaporized the little boat with the chain guns, it
would still look like a bullying move. So how do
we win?
> Public discourse is ruined, not that it's not already ruined.
> The whole affair is getting JFK Jr. or Princess Di treatment
> on MSNBC, seeking out any bereft loved ones that might fall into
> camera range, sort of like airplane disaster airport treatment
> or relatives. Hey, they're in the armed forces. Clinton getting
> all weepy is likely to be too much even for women viewers this time,
> but I've underestimated it before. Who knows.
>
> The correct response would be something like we will find out who
> you are and take out you and your ilk, and more or less drop it
> until you do.
Agreed. But even that is tricky. By the time you
find them, they are just some guys in an
apartment, with wives and kids. What are you
going to do, have a big ol' trial, with dramatic
weeping in the balconies? That's not good enough,
either. There are still doubts, and you end up
having to let them speak. I suppose the best move
is a flamboyant gangland "hit". The public misses
the payback, but word gets out where it needs to
go. Meanwhile, you have to play to the crowd.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Arthur Nelson
that killed the Israeli athletes at the olympics? I believe Israel
eliminated them all except the leader. I may be wrong, but that seems like
the way to take care of business. How much you want to bet that the
Israeli Mossad is looking at the pictures taken during the killing of the
two soldiers this week. One by one they'll be identified and taken out.
Art
"Jeff Inman" <j...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8sat4q$dur$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
paschal
On Sat, 14 Oct 2000, ted samsel wrote:
> paschal wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 14 Oct 2000, Ron Hardin wrote:
> >
> > > Why do suicide attacks get called cowardly (GWBush) or cowardly and
> > > despicable (Clinton(!))? The word doesn't fit. Perhaps its atmosphere
> > > is supposed to hurt the feelings of the bad guys?
> >
> > It's cowardly, because there's no earthly accountability, in the end.
> > They think they're going to heaven - going to heaven after doing
> > violence and killing people! -
>
> It's as logical a reason for going to heaven as any. Then there are the
> houris to ponder.
I don't think there are "houris" in heaven.
(It's s'posed to be a spiritual place, dontcha know...)
But: Dream On, Ted; it's always a "happy" thing, to die with a pretty
dream - even if it's far better to die with an honorable record.
:-)
-P.
*****************************************************************
"Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you..."
- Somebody (I could remember who, if I hadn't had
so much "tequilla".)
*****************************************************************
ted samsel
>
>
>
> On Sat, 14 Oct 2000, ted samsel wrote:
>
> > paschal wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, 14 Oct 2000, Ron Hardin wrote:
> > >
> > > > Why do suicide attacks get called cowardly (GWBush) or cowardly and
> > > > despicable (Clinton(!))? The word doesn't fit. Perhaps its atmosphere
> > > > is supposed to hurt the feelings of the bad guys?
> > >
> > > It's cowardly, because there's no earthly accountability, in the end.
> > > They think they're going to heaven - going to heaven after doing
> > > violence and killing people! -
> >
> > It's as logical a reason for going to heaven as any. Then there are the
> > houris to ponder.
>
> I don't think there are "houris" in heaven.
>
> (It's s'posed to be a spiritual place, dontcha know...)
>
> But: Dream On, Ted; it's always a "happy" thing, to die with a pretty
> dream - even if it's far better to die with an honorable record.
Dream on.
Arthur Nelson
"Fearless Leaders" Dubya--8 months AWOL from the reserves during the
Vietnam War (which Daddy got him out of.) Or how about "our hero" Cheney
when asked about his 5 deferments during the war answered "I had better
things to do with my time." Quale was also a weekend warrior ( his daddy
got him out also.) Buchanan was kept out because he had a trick knee and the
list goes on. There's an old saying, "there are no atheists in a foxhole."
Let me tell you, there were also very few republicans there.
"paschal" <pas...@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.21.00101...@rac5.wam.umd.edu...
>
>
> On Sat, 14 Oct 2000, Ron Hardin wrote:
>
> > Why do suicide attacks get called cowardly (GWBush) or cowardly and
> > despicable (Clinton(!))? The word doesn't fit. Perhaps its atmosphere
> > is supposed to hurt the feelings of the bad guys?
>
> It's cowardly, because there's no earthly accountability, in the end.
> They think they're going to heaven - going to heaven after doing
> before a firing squad (something that requires bravery, if not
> courage) and they know that at least some of their own small circle of
> deranged people will call them "martyrs". Everyone has to die, sometime;
> maybe these cowards feel safest picking their own way to die, instead
> of leaving it to fate, and God. And, maybe it just makes them feel
> important.
>
> >
> > From the other side, holing a 21st century warship with a dinghy
> > is likely to look pretty neat, is it not?
> >
> > The whole affair is getting JFK Jr. or Princess Di treatment
> > on MSNBC, seeking out any bereft loved ones that might fall into
> > camera range, sort of like airplane disaster airport treatment
> > or relatives. Hey, they're in the armed forces. Clinton getting
> > all weepy is likely to be too much even for women viewers this time,
> > but I've underestimated it before. Who knows.
> >
> > The correct response would be something like we will find out who
> > you are and take out you and your ilk, and more or less drop it
> > until you do.
>
paschal
On Sun, 15 Oct 2000, ted samsel wrote:
> Dream on.
OK!
-P.
paschal
On Sun, 15 Oct 2000, Arthur Nelson wrote:
> It figures paschal would come up with garbage as usual. She's right about
> "Fearless Leaders" Dubya--8 months AWOL from the reserves during the
> Vietnam War (which Daddy got him out of.) Or how about "our hero" Cheney
> when asked about his 5 deferments during the war answered "I had better
> things to do with my time." Quale was also a weekend warrior ( his daddy
> got him out also.) Buchanan was kept out because he had a trick knee and the
> list goes on. There's an old saying, "there are no atheists in a foxhole."
> Let me tell you, there were also very few republicans there.
Bzzzt! NO Fair!
You still didn't answer the question:
WHO is going to be at Dover, when our dead sailors come home???
Isn't that one of the top jobs of a so-called Commander In Chief???
(I guess I'm living in a far more glorious past...)
Thank You, and G'nite!
-P.
Ed Howdershelt
> Indeed. And if one somehow found out about such a
> thing at the last minute and prophylactically
> vaporized the little boat with the chain guns, it
> would still look like a bullying move. So how do
> we win?
We can't win, given those conditions. The only thing to do is declare a
fire zone around all ships and atomize anyone stupid enough to think we
were kidding about not coming close.
If they're properly warned, they can be properly destroyed without too
much media fuss.
On another level, to hell with the media fuss.
When the VC sent children with grenades at us in Saigon, a number of us
went through hell for shooting at them.
"Baby killers", we were called, even though the grenades killed more
civilians than GI's when they were successful.
We told the journalists to ride with us for a week or shut up, and a few
of us offered to introduce them to fragging as an art form.
After that, only the ones who never stepped outside their air
conditioned hotels barked about our shooting people with grenades.
> > Hey, they're in the armed forces.
Inman, I know the other guy wrote that line.
To him: Your lack of sympathy is duly noted.
You just implied that their deaths don't matter because they're in
service. I hope someone in service who knows you and has a very short
temper is reading this.
Ed.
ABINTRA PRESS! SF and Sensual Fiction
http://abintra.virtualave.net/
Ed Howdershelt
> First, they should have seen them coming, and then they should have
> punctured the rubber craft in some low tech way and helped the failed
> attackers out of the water and sent them on their way. Ridicule works wonders.
That was a rather fluffy post.
They saw them, according to the reports. They also were not allowed to
do anything overtly hostile in a "friendly" port.
Chances are there'd have been no time to think up any sort of "low tech
way", Francis.
Two non-uniform guys in a rubber raft, standing at attention?
Ever try standing at attention in a rubber raft? You can't do stuff like
that for long. I'd bet they stood up as a statement, then one of them
pressed a button.
al_bon...@my-deja.com
Ron Hardin <rhha...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Why do suicide attacks get called cowardly (GWBush) or cowardly and
> despicable (Clinton(!))? The word doesn't fit. Perhaps its
atmosphere
> is supposed to hurt the feelings of the bad guys?
> Public discourse is ruined, not that it's not already ruined.
> The whole affair is getting JFK Jr. or Princess Di treatment
> on MSNBC,
You're surprised by MSNBC's treatement of this? Hell, they define the
lowest common denominator. Aren't they the network that used to be
called "all Monica, all the time"?
paschal
Well, from what I've been reading today, they say that we can't do
much against "suicide" bombers. But I, Personally, Think, that there's
a *lot* that we can try to do.
We can have good rules, good training, good preparation, *absolute*
discipline.
And, bottom line, that calls for MONEY.
It also calls, in my opinion, for getting some of the "old" guys,
back into the mix. We've got to get men in on this, who still remember
what real defense entails.
Many of the young guys - and I don't mean the enlisted, I mean the
*elites* - just don't seem to understand, anymore, what it's really
all about - or they're not being permitted to understand.
If they did, 17 or so of our precious young people might not be coming
home in coffins, right now.
(I notice that one of the "missing" is a woman, by the way...)
-P.
Ed Howdershelt
> After that, only the ones who never stepped outside their air
> conditioned hotels barked about our shooting people with grenades.
The line above should should read:
"...shooting people who tried to kill us with grenades."
Just thought I'd correct that line before some twit deliberately
misunderstood and posted about it in attempted wit.
(Or before some other twit genuinely misunderstood and posted about it.)
Ed Howdershelt
> How much you want to bet that the
> Israeli Mossad is looking at the pictures taken during the killing of the
> two soldiers this week. One by one they'll be identified and taken out.
> Art
Probably so. Hope so. Wish our gov't had spine enough to hunt them down
like that.
paschal
Hey! I watch MSNBC all the time - whenever I'm not watching C-Span!
I think it was MSNBC who provided me with the most generous and impartial
reporting that I saw, during the "Elian" episode.
I really don't pay much attention to all of this - I trust my own sense,
not the stations I'm watching - but I don't think you should condemn MSNBC
so thoroughly. They've done a lot of good work.
I just wish I could get Fox, here...
-P.
Ed Howdershelt
> We can have good rules, good training, good preparation, *absolute*
> discipline.
> And, bottom line, that calls for MONEY.
We have all those things and they are expensive.
> It also calls, in my opinion, for getting some of the "old" guys,
> back into the mix. We've got to get men in on this, who still remember
> what real defense entails.
> Many of the young guys - and I don't mean the enlisted, I mean the
> *elites* - just don't seem to understand, anymore, what it's really
> all about - or they're not being permitted to understand.
It isn't a matter of age. Those guys ARE following orders, but the
orders tie their hands in the same way that orders in 1967 tied ours.
"At the first sign of attack, you will immediately proceed to the arms
room and draw your rifle or other weapon."
Guess what? It takes time to issue each weapon to each GI according to
name and number. (Mine was 1130715.) I was probably 27th in line. An
officer appeared and shot the locks off the rifle racks and put five of
us to work handing out rifles and ammo.
Other example: "You will not initiate an engagement. If fired upon, you
may fire back only with proper authorization."
Try to raise HQ on the radio while you're standing in a valley.
Leadership is at fault if our ships are vulnerable in port.
Civilian leadership, not military leadership, is at fault. Those port
rules have been in effect for about fifty years, and our gov't hasn't
seen fit to modify them, even though terrorist attacks have become
common.
Ron Hardin
> > > Hey, they're in the armed forces.
>
> Inman, I know the other guy wrote that line.
> To him: Your lack of sympathy is duly noted.
> You just implied that their deaths don't matter because they're in
> service. I hope someone in service who knows you and has a very short
> temper is reading this.
First, 100,000 people die every day. Do you go around feeling sad
for all of them? I doubt it.
These deaths matter via affecting foreign policy but not as affecting
the mood of 300 million complete strangers, like any other deaths.
As for being in the military, they bought into that risk. I do them
the courtesy of assuming they're not inclined to whine about it like
everybody else.
Ron Hardin
> I think it was MSNBC who provided me with the most generous and impartial
> reporting that I saw, during the "Elian" episode.
Imus's coverage of MSNBC coverage of Elian
http://home.att.net/~rhhardin4/imuscut.breaking.ra (46k)
http://home.att.net/~rhhardin5/imuscut.breaking2.ra (69k)
http://home.att.net/~rhhardin5/imuscut.breaking3.ra (59k)
http://home.att.net/~rhhardin5/imuscut.breaking4.ra (57k)
http://home.att.net/~rhhardin2/imuscut.breaking5.ra (208k)
http://home.att.net/~rhhardin1/imuscut.breaking6.ra (153k)
Francis Muir
Ed Howdershelt wrote:
>
> Arthur Nelson wrote:
> > How much you want to bet that the
> > Israeli Mossad is looking at the pictures taken during the killing of the
> > two soldiers this week. One by one they'll be identified and taken out.
> > Art
>
> Probably so. Hope so. Wish our gov't had spine enough to hunt them down
> like that.
Fair's fair. Let's let the Palestinians hunt down the Israeli killers of
the 95 Palestinians. Oh shit, i forgot, Palestinians aren't real people
like the Israelis.
Marcy Thompson
>It also calls, in my opinion, for getting some of the "old" guys,
>back into the mix. We've got to get men in on this, who still remember
>what real defense entails.
>
>Many of the young guys - and I don't mean the enlisted, I mean the
>*elites* - just don't seem to understand, anymore, what it's really
>all about - or they're not being permitted to understand.
Well, then, should we not all vote for the only candidate who
served as an enlisted man in Vietnam?
ObBook: Catch-22
Marcy
--
Marcy Thompson
ma...@squirrel.com
Brian Lewis
Francis Muir wrote:
> Ed Howdershelt wrote:
> >
> > Arthur Nelson wrote:
> > > How much you want to bet that the
> > > Israeli Mossad is looking at the pictures taken during the killing of the
> > > two soldiers this week. One by one they'll be identified and taken out.
> > > Art
> >
> > Probably so. Hope so. Wish our gov't had spine enough to hunt them down
> > like that.
>
> Fair's fair. Let's let the Palestinians hunt down the Israeli killers of
> the 95 Palestinians.
I thought that was well underway?
> Oh shit, i forgot, Palestinians aren't real people
> like the Israelis.
Uh-huh. Whereas all Jews are replaceable to the point that it doesn't much matter
which ones get killed in retribution, eh?
smw
Francis Muir
Brian Lewis -- who appears to be smw in disguise -- wrote:
>
> Francis Muir wrote:
>
> > Ed Howdershelt wrote:
> > >
> > > Arthur Nelson wrote:
> > > > How much you want to bet that the
> > > > Israeli Mossad is looking at the pictures taken during the killing of the
> > > > two soldiers this week. One by one they'll be identified and taken out.
> > > > Art
> > >
> > > Probably so. Hope so. Wish our gov't had spine enough to hunt them down
> > > like that.
> >
> > Fair's fair. Let's let the Palestinians hunt down the Israeli killers of
> > the 95 Palestinians.
>
> I thought that was well underway?
>
> > Oh shit, i forgot, Palestinians aren't real people
> > like the Israelis.
>
> Uh-huh. Whereas all Jews are replaceable to the point that it doesn't much matter
> which ones get killed in retribution, eh?
The two Israeli Reserve soldiers who got themselves lynched by a
Palestinian mob in Ramullah were memorialized in CNN with their names
and likenesses. No Palestinian has ever been accorded that treatment --
nor ever will be. They are just "a Palestinian mob".
I have no idea what religious faith -- if any -- the two Israelis had,
and I do not appreciate your attempt to impune my motives by introducing
the J word. I would have thought that American Jews would be the first
to realize the horror of the ratio: 100 to 3 or 4.
Ron Hardin
> The whole thing makes me sick, and Hardin can make fun of it.
So far such press as has come my way (ie. not TV) hasn't staged it for the
women's audience, so my talents are not needed. The press appears to be hoping
for carnage and general video destruction, as I'm sure the audience is. After a
while everybody will get tired of it and it will stop again.
Friedman had a nice column
....................................... Imagine if when Mr.
Sharon visited the Temple Mount, Mr. Arafat had ordered his
people to welcome him with open arms and say, "When this
area is under Palestinian sovereignty, every Jew will be
welcome, even you, Mr. Sharon." Imagine the impact that would
have had on Israelis.
But that would have been an act of statesmanship and real
peaceful intentions, and Mr. Arafat, it's now clear, possesses
neither. He prefers to play the victim rather than the statesman.
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/13/opinion/13FRIE.html
My own sensitivities are always towards who's playing to the press, and suspect that
the more dead Palestinians, the better for the Palestinians, press-wise, at
the moment.
There was an AP photo of a youth aiming a slingshot, and down the page another
photo of a half dozen adults aiming a really big 10-foot slingshot, so that's
the press they want. You can tell from the hopelessness of their weapons the
justice of the attack. That's for the press, good visuals.
The press goes along with the best story audiencewise, always.
Paul Ilechko
> Friedman had a nice column
>
> ....................................... Imagine if when Mr.
> Sharon visited the Temple Mount, Mr. Arafat had ordered his
> people to welcome him with open arms and say, "When this
> area is under Palestinian sovereignty, every Jew will be
> welcome, even you, Mr. Sharon." Imagine the impact that would
> have had on Israelis.
responsible for the atrocities in the refugee camps a few years ago. And
when was the last time Arab Israelis were welcome in their own country ?
Paul Ilechko
paschal wrote:
> (I guess I'm living in a far more glorious past...)
I don't know about glorious, but you're definitely living in the past.
Although one of your own invention.
Ron Hardin
The fact is that if you don't start over at every instant with the score
keeping at zero, you will be damned. That's at least in Jewish and Christian
religions, I don't know about others, and is at the bottom of morality.
It is so imperfectly followed that examples are impressive.
Francis Muir
smw:
> I'm not impugning your motives, just the balance of your post.
> The "J-word" is very much in vogue amongst those who call
> for more killings. I hope you're not suggesting that Anti-Israelis
> is somehow free of Antisemitism.
Of course not, but I still do not like your confused and confusing
choice of words. The roots of Antisemitism were as much anti-Arab as
anti-Jew. You will remember the old definition of Arabs as "Jews on
horseback". The Palestinian reaction will involve both anti-Israeli and
anti-Jewish feelings, but hardly anti-Semitic.
> And I'm old-fashioned enough to make distinctions between
> the shootings and the lynchings.
Cold-blooded shooting is somehow on a different plane to mob lynching in
a moment of fury? I agree.
Ed Howdershelt
> Ed Howdershelt wrote:
> > Arthur Nelson wrote:
> > > How much you want to bet that the
> > > Israeli Mossad is looking at the pictures taken during the killing of the
> > > two soldiers this week. One by one they'll be identified and taken out.
> > > Art
> > Probably so. Hope so. Wish our gov't had spine enough to hunt them down
> > like that.
> Fair's fair. Let's let the Palestinians hunt down the Israeli killers of
> like the Israelis.
They scorn the elections, start riots, and like explosive short-cuts.
I'm sure that, just like the Vietnamese, not all of them are terrorists.
If so, let those who aren't terrorists stand up for a change.
Once they went outside peaceful convention, I lost all interest in their
"plight". Maybe you will, too, when they start bombing here.
If they'll hit a US vessel, there's no reason to believe they won't bomb
a shopping mall.
paschal
On Sun, 15 Oct 2000, Marcy Thompson wrote:
> paschal <pas...@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
>
> >It also calls, in my opinion, for getting some of the "old" guys,
> >back into the mix. We've got to get men in on this, who still remember
> >what real defense entails.
> >
> >Many of the young guys - and I don't mean the enlisted, I mean the
> >*elites* - just don't seem to understand, anymore, what it's really
> >all about - or they're not being permitted to understand.
>
> Well, then, should we not all vote for the only candidate who
> served as an enlisted man in Vietnam?
I'd feel safer if we voted for the man who has major connections with
those who have done *real* duty - whether it was on the ground, or
in govt. or diplomacy, during Viet Nam, and during WWII.
I've got my Rosie Riveter pic up on my computer.
-P.
paschal
Well, what the hell am I supposed to think, or do, Paul???
I've never seen a more intractable problem than the one in the Middle
East. I have great sympathies with the Israelis, even as I believe
that the Palestinians have never gotten a truly fair shake.
Being of neither faith or culture, it's incredibly difficult for little
*me* to sort all of this out. But I know this:
In the past that I can recall, things have never gotten as threateningly
bad as they seem to be now. And I think we need a new Administration,
one with older and wiser folks behind it, and a brand-new man in Front of
it, to play the part of "honest broker" - if that's what the world needs
and wants of us.
"They" have had their chance, and they've botched things up.
I think it's time for them to go.
G'Nite!
-P.
ted samsel
>
>
>
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2000, Marcy Thompson wrote:
>
> > paschal <pas...@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >It also calls, in my opinion, for getting some of the "old" guys,
> > >back into the mix. We've got to get men in on this, who still remember
> > >what real defense entails.
> > >
> > >Many of the young guys - and I don't mean the enlisted, I mean the
> > >*elites* - just don't seem to understand, anymore, what it's really
> > >all about - or they're not being permitted to understand.
> >
> > Well, then, should we not all vote for the only candidate who
> > served as an enlisted man in Vietnam?
>
> I'd feel safer if we voted for the man who has major connections
With Manuel Noriega, the Golden Triangle Opium Lords, Air South, etc.?
--
TBSa...@infi.net
http://home.infi.net/~tbsamsel/
'Do the boogie woogie in the South American way'
Hank Snow (1914-1999)
THE RHUMBA BOOGIE
Ed Howdershelt
> paschal <pas...@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
> >It also calls, in my opinion, for getting some of the "old" guys,
> >back into the mix. We've got to get men in on this, who still remember
> >what real defense entails.
> >Many of the young guys - and I don't mean the enlisted, I mean the
> >*elites* - just don't seem to understand, anymore, what it's really
> >all about - or they're not being permitted to understand.
> Well, then, should we not all vote for the only candidate who
> served as an enlisted man in Vietnam?
Probably wouldn't hurt. Maybe he'd remember enough to be careful how he
risked other peoples' lives.
Ed Howdershelt
> First, 100,000 people die every day. Do you go around feeling sad
> for all of them? I doubt it.
> These deaths matter via affecting foreign policy but not as affecting
> the mood of 300 million complete strangers, like any other deaths.
> As for being in the military, they bought into that risk. I do them
> the courtesy of assuming they're not inclined to whine about it like
> everybody else.
> -- Ron Hardin rhha...@mindspring.com
Spoken like a true political thinker. One or a thousand, it matters not
to you.
Sure, they were in the military and lots of people die in the world
every day from disease and accidents and war.
Does that somehow make what the Palestinians did any less reprehensible?
And please don't tell me we don't know who was behind the bombing in an
effort to start a debate.
Debates are for bullshitters.
paschal
On Sun, 15 Oct 2000, smw wrote:
>
>
> paschal wrote:...
>
> > In the past that I can recall, things have never gotten as threateningly
> > bad as they seem to be now.
>
> Give or take a few full-blown wars.
...in times when things were not nearly as dangerous as they are now,
times when so many utterly vicious, maniacal people didn't have the
resources that they may have now.
-P.
Bill and Marianne
versa are made anyway. They are supposed to me talking about how they
are going to make our country better not knock each other down. I'm so
confussed about this part of running a political campaine. I thought
they where running for Presidend not for the World's most Comical cut
downs. I think that this whole political contraversy has gotten way out
of hand. They are supposed to make their stand on policial issues and I
really don't think the American people really care about the Clinton
issue with Monica. That was done and over with. I don't think that Gore
should be brought up in it. Just becaue Gore was VP at that time does
not mean that he was involved with what the President had done while he
was in office.
Joan Marie Shields
> I think it was MSNBC who provided me with the most generous and impartial
> reporting that I saw, during the "Elian" episode.
I'll check out CNBC occassionally but, personally, I have found that
the best way to get world news, nad even US news, is to scan a number of
newspapers. It's much easier to do on the web - I can look at the
Washington Post, The Irish Times, The London Times, etc. There's a lot
that happens in the world that we here in the US never hear about.
For instance, there was (is) a European Conference on Racism held in
Strasbourg recently - no coverage in the US papers about it (none in the
Britich Press either, that I could find) though the Irish Times covered
it. The different spins on stories are interesting not to mention
the background sometimes missing in US news.
There's a good listing of European papers at http://panworld.com/paneuro.htm
Also includes some sports papers.
yiwf,
joan
--
Joan Shields jshi...@uci.edu http://www.ags.uci.edu/~jshields
University of California - Irvine School of Social Ecology
Department of Environmental Analysis and Design
I do not purchase services or products from unsolicited e-mail advertisements.
Michael D Richard
: Paul Ilechko wrote:
:> > Friedman had a nice column
:> >
:> > ....................................... Imagine if when Mr.
:> > Sharon visited the Temple Mount, Mr. Arafat had ordered his
:> > people to welcome him with open arms and say, "When this
:> > area is under Palestinian sovereignty, every Jew will be
:> > welcome, even you, Mr. Sharon." Imagine the impact that would
:> > have had on Israelis.
:>
:> I guess the Palestinians were supposed to forget that Sharon was
:> responsible for the atrocities in the refugee camps a few years ago. And
:> when was the last time Arab Israelis were welcome in their own country ?
: The fact is that if you don't start over at every instant with the score
: keeping at zero, you will be damned. That's at least in Jewish and Christian
: religions, I don't know about others, and is at the bottom of morality.
The first wisdom I've seen in this thread.
Sayan Bhattacharyya
>> Friedman had a nice column
>>
>> ....................................... Imagine if when Mr.
>> Sharon visited the Temple Mount, Mr. Arafat had ordered his
>> people to welcome him with open arms and say, "When this
>> area is under Palestinian sovereignty, every Jew will be
>> welcome, even you, Mr. Sharon." Imagine the impact that would
>> have had on Israelis.
>
>I guess the Palestinians were supposed to forget that Sharon was
>responsible for the atrocities in the refugee camps a few years ago.
This is true. Sharon has been found responsible, even in the Israeli
courts, of having shared responsibility for the massacre of 1000-2000
Palestinians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Lebanon (in
1982). But he has never been punished.
Ovee the last week, I was struck by the irony that the US and its
allies are (rightly, in my opinion) calling for the extradition of
Slobodan Milosevic to try him as a war criminal for his crimes against
the Kosovars.
Yet, at the _very same time_, no one (no politician, none in the media)
in the USA comments on the irony that Sharon, who is by all accounts,
another war criminal, is being considered by the Israeli government
for the post of foreign minister !!!
The following is from an article in _Ha'aretz_, the Israeli newspaper,
that appeared on October 6:
------
October 6, 2000
Uri Avnery:
The Provocation
It's no use accusing Ariel Sharon of the bloodshed which
followed his visit to the compound of the mosques on the
Temple Mount. Since the Kibia massacre of 1953,
through his bloody reign in Gaza at the end of the
60s and the Beirut events of 1982, he has left behind
rivers of blood wherever he has gone. As the man in the
Bible cried out: "Come out, come out, thou bloody
man!" (Samuel II, 16,7)
------
Curious minds want to know after reading this article: why is
it "of no use" to accuse Ariel Sharon of his crimes, while evidently
it _is_ of use to accuse Milosevic (quite rightly) of his crimes?
Oh, what a difference the presence or absence of oil in a region
makes!
Oil is a most useful thing.
-Sayan.
Sayan Bhattacharyya
> I hope you're not suggesting that Anti-Israelis
> is somehow free of Antisemitism.
What exactly do you denote by anti-Israeli?
Do you mean someone who opposes Israel's military occupation
of the Occupied Territories and Israel's denial of Palestinian's
rights? (1)
The world "anti-Israeli" sounds like a red herring to me.
One could be opposed to Israel's policies in the sense (1) without being
anti-semitic in the least.
An analogy will make it clear. (Okay, so I'm risking Godwin's Law).
To oppose the Nazis would not have made one anti-Germanic, although
it would have conceivably made one anti-Germany in the sense of
opposing the then German government's policies.
In exactly the same way, opposing the current policies of the Israeli
state does not make one an anti-semite.
Of course, many people may be against Israeli policies because they
are driven by anti-semitism. But it is ridiculous to conclude from
that, that any-one who is against Israeli policies is not free of
anti-semitism.
Michael D Richard
: I'd feel safer if we voted for the man who has major connections with
: those who have done *real* duty - whether it was on the ground, or
: in govt. or diplomacy, during Viet Nam, and during WWII.
Yeah! Let's put that sgt. from _Cryptonomicon_ into Oval O. He
shouldn't have been sent to the Kursk, too.
jimC
> I've never seen a more intractable problem than the one in the Middle
> East. I have great sympathies with the Israelis, even as I believe
> that the Palestinians have never gotten a truly fair shake.
>
> Being of neither faith or culture, it's incredibly difficult for little
> *me* to sort all of this out. But I know this:
>
> In the past that I can recall, things have never gotten as threateningly
> bad as they seem to be now.
Oh? Match the following events in Israel's history and the years they occurred.
(1) Suez crisis
(2) Yom Kippur War
(3) Israel invaded by 5 Arabic countries
(4) Israeli cities attacked by Iraqi missiles
(5) Six-Day War
(6) Israel invaded Lebanon
(a) 1948
(b) 1956
(c) 1967
(d) 1973
(e) 1982
(f) 1991
> And I think we need a new Administration,
> one with older and wiser folks behind it, and a brand-new man in Front of
> it, to play the part of "honest broker" - if that's what the world needs
> and wants of us.
With the expertise of a boy hick who doesn't even know the name of the
next door neighbor's head of state and doesn't bat an eye when told
that Prime Minister Jean "Poutine" has declared his support for
Dumbya's candidacy, itself a grossly -- and completely hypothetical --
improper interference in U.S. politics? You think this boy
has the expertise to settle hostilities in the Middle East?
> "They" have had their chance, and they've botched things up.
Who's botched up what? You're as stoopid as Dumbya is.
> I think it's time for them to go.
I think it's time for you to become as informed about the world
as the typical literate person living in industrial countries
outside the United States.
For our final quiz to see if you're even stoopider than Dumbya, name
the second largest metropolitan area in each EC nation. The core
city in that area will suffice. Example: Belgium - Antwerp.
I anticipate you'll know which nations are in the EC (Bill Clinton
certainly does), but the extra detail will separate you from the jaded whose
opinions don't count for anything. Normally, although I've been too polite
to say so, I don't think yours count for shit. You should be posting in
alt.idiot.hoplophiles or some other newsgroup where you won't face such
hostility.
jimC
Jean Clarke
(leaders with quivering lowerlips), wussy houses of possibly blackmailed
representatives "of could care less" citizens, media spokespersons that
are more braindead than caring, children that rule the streets and
intimidate the educational system, drugs that doom all progress among
users, but fatten the pockets of the distrtibuters, dropouts that want
no part of the procreative process, bible stompers that live in a bubble
of devine allusions of godliness, molesters with worms for a groin,
murderers who indulge for the sake of swallowing their own tail, hate,
greed, lust , vengeance and hiccups that convince you that they will
never end, are conditions that will drive you crazy if you really want
to take life seriously.
Just a Jeanie
Ron Hardin
> > .... The press appears to be hoping
> > for carnage and general video destruction, as I'm sure the audience is.
>
> shtick of yours is getting tiresome. Next thing you're gonna tell us that altruism is
> selfish, wow etc.
People also get tired of it, and then the story changes. Horror and outrage can be
made to pay if you have a press to report it, and the press likes it because it pulls in
audience, and audience is what they sell to advertisers: audience is their product,
not news.
The press is not into reporting complexity, just the simplest dumbest story possible.
Complexity means finding the right handle to grab the bunch with; the press finds
the best video regardless.
The press has to be seen as shameful entertainment. Enjoy pictures
of the airline disaster tonight at 7, war in the Middle East again at 8.
As George Carlin says, who has not been disappointed when they find earthquake
victims alive.
A characterization of the press and its audience.
My own handle on the bunch is be suspicious of anything larger than a neighborhood
intruding on your concerns. There's some politician or charity behind it. You're
being handed a line.
Ron Hardin
> Spoken like a true political thinker. One or a thousand, it matters not
> to you.
> Sure, they were in the military and lots of people die in the world
> every day from disease and accidents and war.
> Does that somehow make what the Palestinians did any less reprehensible?
> And please don't tell me we don't know who was behind the bombing in an
> effort to start a debate.
> Debates are for bullshitters.
The simple distinction is between people I know and people I don't.
M J Carley
>the way to take care of business. How much you want to bet that the
>Israeli Mossad is looking at the pictures taken during the killing of the
>two soldiers this week. One by one they'll be identified and taken out.
Were there any twelve-year-olds in the lynch mob?
--
O makers of motorbikes and tractors! Builders of the Belfast and the
Titanic! Constructors of the Harlandic diesel electric locomotive
commissioned by the Buenos Aires Great Southern Railway Company!
M J Carley
>I'm not impugning your motives, just the balance of your post. The
>"J-word" is very much in vogue amongst those who call for more
>killings. I hope you're not suggesting that Anti-Israelis is somehow
>free of Antisemitism.
Anti-semitism isn't free of anti-Israelism (or anti-Zionism) but the
reverse is not necessarily true. I hope you're not suggesting that
those who believe Palestinians also have rights are necessarily
anti-semitic.
> And I'm old-fashioned enough to make distinctions between the
>shootings and the lynchings.
One was state-sponsored murder and the other was murder by an inflamed
mob, you mean?
M J Carley
>I don't know how cold-blooded you'd be under the circumstances, but have it
>your way. I'll be damned if I'll discuss Israel's right to exist with you
>(and that's precisely what's at stake).
No it's not. What is at stake is the right of Palestinians to basic
human, civil and national rights.
David E. Latane
On Sun, 15 Oct 2000, paschal wrote:
>
> You still didn't answer the question:
>
> WHO is going to be at Dover, when our dead sailors come home???
>
> Isn't that one of the top jobs of a so-called Commander In Chief???
So that's why FDR didn't make it thru the war. Worn out by too many trips
to Dover.
D. Latane
David E. Latane
On Sun, 15 Oct 2000, Francis Muir wrote:
>
>
> smw:
>
> > I'm not impugning your motives, just the balance of your post.
> > The "J-word" is very much in vogue amongst those who call
> > for more killings. I hope you're not suggesting that Anti-Israelis
> > is somehow free of Antisemitism.
>
> Of course not, but I still do not like your confused and confusing
> choice of words. The roots of Antisemitism were as much anti-Arab as
> anti-Jew.
I'd say that's a bit hyperbolic. Got any good examples from say 300 a.d.,
back when Christian anti-semitism was getting good and rooted? Tho I do
recognize the technical dance with the "anti-semite" -- though in its
real-world usage it means anti-jewish.
You will remember the old definition of Arabs as "Jews on
> horseback". The Palestinian reaction will involve both anti-Israeli and
> anti-Jewish feelings, but hardly anti-Semitic.
>
> > And I'm old-fashioned enough to make distinctions between
> > the shootings and the lynchings.
>
> Cold-blooded shooting is somehow on a different plane to mob lynching in
> a moment of fury? I agree.
Well, much of the shooting has been done in heat as well.
D. Latane
Ron Hardin
> > My own handle on the bunch is be suspicious of anything larger than a neighborhood
> > intruding on your concerns. There's some politician or charity behind it. You're
> > being handed a line.
>
> become more frequent). Two neighborhood spins of recent times: some guy asked some kid the
> time (apparently), and we had three days of kiddie rapist scare. The other one was,
> fourth-grade girl on the waitlist for a heart-transplant dies in the hospital; the crisis
> counselor pack was already dispatched to the school when it turned out that the girl was,
> after all, alive.
Both examples (kid rapists loose, grief counselors) are from national hysteria lines.
Old days, according to George Carlin again, when 3 kids were shot in school they
used it for math problems. 36 kids, 3 shot, that leaves 33.
He says he's not sure how grief counselors came up. It's probably in some union contract.
Francis Muir
smw wrote:
>
> Ron Hardin wrote:
>
> > ...
>
> > My own handle on the bunch is be suspicious of anything larger than a neighborhood
> > intruding on your concerns. There's some politician or charity behind it. You're
> > being handed a line.
>
> You're overestimating the neighborhood (or underestimating global linkages, which have
> become more frequent). Two neighborhood spins of recent times: some guy asked some kid the
> time (apparently), and we had three days of kiddie rapist scare. The other one was,
> fourth-grade girl on the waitlist for a heart-transplant dies in the hospital; the crisis
> counselor pack was already dispatched to the school when it turned out that the girl was,
> after all, alive.
Good grief, but surely that was a crisis and counceling was just,
perhaps, what the kiddies needed. They had expected Death and were
suddenly confronted by Life. Truly a fearful time.
Ron Hardin
> That's my point -- the local, the national, and the global can't be told apart as easily as
> you'd have it. Cathexis goes places, these days.
You can tell the explicitly national easily enough. Hardin's maxim doesn't protect you
from local deceptions (ie. don't believe story bigger than a neighborhood).
But a good added test is whether you've ever seen a national story about this local story, and if so
it's a suspect local story, probably from hysterics with TVs. Cathexis vectors.
Sayan Bhattacharyya
>ens...@bath.ac.uk (M J Carley) writes:
>
>> In the referenced article, smw <sm...@umich.edu> writes:
>>
>> >I don't know how cold-blooded you'd be under the circumstances, but
>> >have it your way. I'll be damned if I'll discuss Israel's right to
>> >exist with you (and that's precisely what's at stake).
>>
>> No it's not. What is at stake is the right of Palestinians to basic
>> human, civil and national rights.
>
>independent state on almost all of the occupied territories, including
>some or most neighborhoods in East Jerusalem. That was his opening
>position!
[Interesting name of this poster -- "Philistine". Doesn't the word
"Palestine" derive from "Philistine" ? ]
Here's an extract from "The End of Oslo" by Edward Said, which sheds
light on this poster's question "what's all the fuss about?" :
"The portents of this disarray, however, were there from the 1993 start, as
I duly noted in The Nation (September 20, 1993). Labor and Likud leaders
alike made no secret of the fact that Oslo was designed to segregate the
Palestinians in noncontiguous, economically unviable enclaves, surrounded by
Israeli-controlled borders, with settlements and settlement roads
punctuating and essentially violating the territories' integrity.
Expropriations and house demolitions proceeded inexorably through the Rabin,
Peres, Netanyahu and Barak administrations, along with the expansion and
multiplication of settlements (200,000 Israeli Jews added to Jerusalem,
200,000 more in Gaza and the West Bank), military occupation continuing and
every tiny step taken toward Palestinian sovereignty--including agreements
to withdraw in minuscule, agreed-upon phases--stymied, delayed, canceled at
Israel's will.
"This method was politically and strategically absurd. Occupied East
Jerusalem was placed out of bounds by a bellicose Israeli campaign to decree
the intractably divided city off-limits to West Bank and Gaza Palestinians
and to claim it as Israel's "eternal, undivided capital." The 4 million
Palestinian refugees--now the largest and longest existing such population
anywhere--were told that they could forget about return or compensation.
With his own corrupt and repressive regime supported by both Israel's Mossad
and the CIA, Yasir Arafat continued to rely on US mediation, even though the
US negotiating team was dominated by former Israeli lobby officials and a
President whose ideas about the Middle East showed no understanding of the
Arab-Islamic world. Compliant but isolated and unpopular Arab chiefs
(especially Egypt's Hosni Mubarak) were humiliatingly compelled to toe the
American line, thereby further diminishing their eroded credibility at home.
Israel's priorities were always put first. No attempt was made to address
the injustice done when the Palestinians were dispossessed in 1948.
"Back of the peace process were two unchanging Israeli/American
presuppositions, both of them derived from a startling incomprehension of
reality. The first was that after enough punishment and beating,
Palestinians would give up, accept the compromises Arafat did in fact accept
and call the whole Palestinian cause off, thereafter excusing Israel for
everything it has done. Thus, the "peace process" gave no considered
attention to immense Palestinian losses of land and goods, or to the links
between past dislocation and present statelessness, while as a nuclear power
with a formidable military, Israel continued to claim the status of victim
and demand restitution for genocidal anti-Semitism in Europe. There has
still been no official acknowledgment of Israel's (by now amply documented)
responsibility for the tragedy of 1948. But one can't force people to
forget, especially when the daily reality is seen by all Arabs as
reproducing the original injustice."
-- "The End of Oslo"
by Edward W. Said
Edward Said is Professor of Comparative Literature
at Columbia University.
Sayan Bhattacharyya
>ens...@bath.ac.uk (M J Carley) writes:
>
>> In the referenced article, smw <sm...@umich.edu> writes:
>>
>> >I don't know how cold-blooded you'd be under the circumstances, but
>> >have it your way. I'll be damned if I'll discuss Israel's right to
>> >exist with you (and that's precisely what's at stake).
>>
>> No it's not. What is at stake is the right of Palestinians to basic
>> human, civil and national rights.
>
>Then what's all the fuss about? Barak already offered Arafat an
>independent state on almost all of the occupied territories, including
>some or most neighborhoods in East Jerusalem. That was his opening
>position!
[Interesting name of this poster -- "Philistine". Does the word
-- from "The End of Oslo"
by Edward Said
[Edward Said is Professor of Comparative Literature
at Columbia University, New York]
Sayan Bhattacharyya
>M J Carley wrote:
>
>> In the referenced article, smw <sm...@umich.edu> writes:
>>
>> >I'm not impugning your motives, just the balance of your post. The
>> >"J-word" is very much in vogue amongst those who call for more
>> >killings. I hope you're not suggesting that Anti-Israelis is somehow
>> >free of Antisemitism.
>>
>> Anti-semitism isn't free of anti-Israelism (or anti-Zionism) but the
>> reverse is not necessarily true.
>
>I wasn't talking of every instance --
Thanks for clarifying that. Your original statement: "I hope you're not
suggesting that Anti-Israelis is somehow free of Antisemitism." was
rather misleading, because an unqualified assertion _is_ conventionally
taken to be universally quantified by default. (E.g. if I say "Birds
can fly", the default interpretation is "All birds can fly", not
"Some birds can fly", unless I explicitly say so.)
You used the word "anti-Israelis", not "some anti-Israelis"; so I
think my, Francis's and Michael's interpretation of what you said
was not unjustified. Anyway, thanks for clearing it up.
ObBird: Tweety, the penguin.
Arthur Nelson
peace table when your enemy is hell bent on your complete annihilation.
When have you seen any Palestinian carrying a sign promoting "Peace."
Never. All you see are the shooting of machine guns into the air and the
screaming of "jihad!" Drive the Jews into the sea!! Golda Meir said it
first, "the only way we will have peace is when the Palestinian's love their
children more than they hate us." Perhaps that is the only way
unfortunately, you kill more Palestinians and more and more until they beg
to come to the peace table and then you kill a few more. Cold-blooded?
Probably. But this has been a conflict that has been going on for 5000
years and it will never be resolved in my lifetime. I have a good idea
though. Why don't we put the Christian shrines under the Palestinian
guardianship? If they treat them like they did the Joseph shrine and tear
them down brick by brick, will we hear from our Christian leaders and
perhaps the Pope?
"Philistine" <a_a_...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:lyu2acn...@hecate.bfr.co.il...
> > >have it your way. I'll be damned if I'll discuss Israel's right to
> > >exist with you (and that's precisely what's at stake).
> >
> > No it's not. What is at stake is the right of Palestinians to basic
> > human, civil and national rights.
>
> Then what's all the fuss about? Barak already offered Arafat an
> independent state on almost all of the occupied territories, including
> some or most neighborhoods in East Jerusalem. That was his opening
> would of course follow (hah-hah) once the state is established.
>
> What the offer did not include was sovereignty over the Temple Mount.
> Not coincidentally, lots of the Arabs I've seen on TV have been
> describing the fighting as a battle for the Temple Mount or Al Aksa.
> Can't you trust what they're saying?
>
> Barak's offer didn't include territory within the Green Line either.
> If you interpret "basic national rights" as most Palestinian Arabs
> interpret the phrase, to include sovereignty over Haifa, Lod, Jaffa,
> and Ashkelon, then you're correct, they weren't offered those rights,
> and they do see those rights as being ultimately at stake. Is that
> what you're getting at?
Arthur Nelson
"Sayan Bhattacharyya" <bhat...@engin.umich.edu> wrote in message
news:8XEG5.309$_k1...@srvr1.engin.umich.edu...
> Philistine wrote:
> >ens...@bath.ac.uk (M J Carley) writes:
> >
> >> In the referenced article, smw <sm...@umich.edu> writes:
> >>
> >> >I don't know how cold-blooded you'd be under the circumstances, but
> >> >have it your way. I'll be damned if I'll discuss Israel's right to
> >> >exist with you (and that's precisely what's at stake).
> >>
> >> No it's not. What is at stake is the right of Palestinians to basic
> >> human, civil and national rights.
> >
> >Then what's all the fuss about? Barak already offered Arafat an
> >independent state on almost all of the occupied territories, including
> >some or most neighborhoods in East Jerusalem. That was his opening
> >position!
>
> [Interesting name of this poster -- "Philistine". Doesn't the word
> -- "The End of Oslo"
> by Edward W. Said
>
> Edward Said is Professor of Comparative Literature
> at Columbia University.
>
>
Bruce McGuffin
>
> > The correct response would be something like we will find out who
> > you are and take out you and your ilk, and more or less drop it
> > until you do.
Isreal has tried that, but it hasn't worked all that well.
It looks really bad when you kill the wrong person by
mistake.
Bruce McGuffin
obbook: John LeCarre, The Little Drummer Girl
Bruce McGuffin
> Interesting comments. Could anyone give me an accounting of the terrorists
> that killed the Israeli athletes at the olympics? I believe Israel
> eliminated them all except the leader. I may be wrong, but that seems like
> the way to take care of business. How much you want to bet that the
> Israeli Mossad is looking at the pictures taken during the killing of the
> two soldiers this week. One by one they'll be identified and taken out.
Yeah. They also killed a waiter in Norway who
had the misfortune to resemble one of the
guilty parties.
Bruce McGuffin
Bruce McGuffin
> And please don't tell me we don't know who was behind the bombing in an
> effort to start a debate.
> Debates are for bullshitters.
Boy, are you in the wrong place.
Bruce McGuffin
Ed Howdershelt
that means reporting it like a wrestling match, that's what they'll do.
Ed.
ABINTRA PRESS! SF and Sensual Fiction
http://abintra.virtualave.net/
Ron Hardin wrote:
> People also get tired of it, and then the story changes. Horror and outrage can be
> made to pay if you have a press to report it, and the press likes it because it pulls in
> audience, and audience is what they sell to advertisers: audience is their product,
> not news.
> The press is not into reporting complexity, just the simplest dumbest story possible.
> Complexity means finding the right handle to grab the bunch with; the press finds
> the best video regardless.
Ed Howdershelt
> "Arthur Nelson" <a.l.n...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> > Israeli Mossad is looking at the pictures taken during the killing of the
> > two soldiers this week. One by one they'll be identified and taken out.
> Yeah. They also killed a waiter in Norway who
> had the misfortune to resemble one of the
> guilty parties. Bruce McGuffin
Cite a source, please. I was peripherally involved in some of the
tracking at the time and don't remember the incident.
Petter Settli
"Ed Howdershelt" <wicca...@yah-o.com> wrote in message
news:39EB57...@yah-o.com...
> Bruce McGuffin wrote:
> > "Arthur Nelson" <a.l.n...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> > > Israeli Mossad is looking at the pictures taken during the
killing of the
> > > two soldiers this week. One by one they'll be identified and
taken out.
> > Yeah. They also killed a waiter in Norway who
> > had the misfortune to resemble one of the
> > guilty parties. Bruce McGuffin
>
> Cite a source, please. I was peripherally involved in some of the
> tracking at the time and don't remember the incident.
It happened. They shot a Morroccan waiter, mistaking him for the main
perpetrator responsible for the massacre of the Israelis at the 1972
Munich
Olympics.
http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,193475,00.html
--
PS
ted samsel
>
>
>
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2000, smw wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > paschal wrote:...
> >
> > > In the past that I can recall, things have never gotten as threateningly
> > > bad as they seem to be now.
> >
> > Give or take a few full-blown wars.
>
> ...in times when things were not nearly as dangerous as they are now,
> times when so many utterly vicious, maniacal people didn't have the
> resources that they may have now.
Can you say amok? Can you say assassin? Can you say jihad?
How about kamakaze?
Or more nordically, beserker?
A man's got to do what a man's got to do.
--
TBSa...@infi.net
http://home.infi.net/~tbsamsel/
'Do the boogie woogie in the South American way'
Hank Snow (1914-1999)
THE RHUMBA BOOGIE
ted samsel
>
> >
> > smw:
> > Cold-blooded shooting is somehow on a different plane to mob lynching in
> > a moment of fury? I agree.
>
> Well, much of the shooting has been done in heat as well.
>
> D. Latane
That's why they call 'em firefights.
Paul Ilechko
Ed Howdershelt wrote:
> Does that somehow make what the Palestinians did any less reprehensible?
No, it was reprehensible, more or less equally reprehensible with what
the Israeli soldiers did when they cold-bloodedly murdered the 12 year
old boy.
Paul Ilechko
paschal wrote:
> Well, what the hell am I supposed to think, or do, Paul???
You could shut the fuck up, for a change.
Paul Ilechko
Arthur Nelson wrote:
>
> Said?? Apparently no bias there.
>
Certainy nowhere near as much as you are showing. I assume you were also
in favour of the policy of confining the blacks into homelands in South
Africa ?
Ron Hardin
``[Erasmus] Darwin's grotesque verse, a critic has remarked, everywhere
shows a powerful mind. ``The Loves of the Plants'' was published in 1789,
and was followed by ``Zoonomia, or Laws of Organic Life,'' and ``Phytologia,
or the Philosophy of Agriculture and Gardening.'' The first was praised by
Cowper, Hayley, and Walpole; two of these being men of piety and benevolence,
the third a man of fashion. The vivid romanc of Eliza which follows is
unique in that never before an English (or any other) poet so clearly
demonstrated the folly of taking the children to see a battle.''
_The Stuffed Owl_ p.105
Ed Howdershelt
> > > Yeah. They also killed a waiter in Norway who
> > > had the misfortune to resemble one of the
> > > guilty parties. Bruce McGuffin
> > Cite a source, please. I was peripherally involved in some of the
> > tracking at the time and don't remember the incident.
> It happened. They shot a Morroccan waiter, mistaking him for the main
> perpetrator responsible for the massacre of the Israelis at the 1972
> Munich Olympics.
> http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,193475,00.html
> -- PS
Huh. Missed that bit of late-nineties news completely.
My involvement ended in 1980, when Solutions "disbanded".
New job, back in the states, etc...
Had other things to think about.
Ed Howdershelt
> Ed Howdershelt wrote:
> > Does that somehow make what the Palestinians did any less reprehensible?
> No, it was reprehensible, more or less equally reprehensible with what
> the Israeli soldiers did when they cold-bloodedly murdered the 12 year
> old boy.
Cold-bloodedly? In the middle of a riot?
Been there. Dunnit. No such thing as cold blood in a riot.
Was that your choice of words, or someone else's?
If yours, go back to adjective school.
Ron Hardin
And the salting of the fields of Carthage!
M J Carley
>ens...@bath.ac.uk (M J Carley) writes:
>
>> No it's not. What is at stake is the right of Palestinians to basic
>> human, civil and national rights.
>
>Then what's all the fuss about? Barak already offered Arafat an
>independent state on almost all of the occupied territories, including
>some or most neighborhoods in East Jerusalem. That was his opening
>would of course follow (hah-hah) once the state is established.
The `independent state' was a Bantustan. It is not even possible to
travel freely within the Palestinian `controlled' areas.
>What the offer did not include was sovereignty over the Temple Mount.
>Not coincidentally, lots of the Arabs I've seen on TV have been
>describing the fighting as a battle for the Temple Mount or Al Aksa.
>Can't you trust what they're saying?
Given that Palestinians were forcibly expelled when East Jerusalem was
illegally occupied, why shouldn't they want it back?
>Barak's offer didn't include territory within the Green Line either.
>If you interpret "basic national rights" as most Palestinian Arabs
>interpret the phrase, to include sovereignty over Haifa, Lod, Jaffa,
>and Ashkelon, then you're correct, they weren't offered those rights,
>and they do see those rights as being ultimately at stake. Is that
>what you're getting at?
What I'm getting at is that Israel should start by giving up all of
the land it illegally occupies. It should then stop treating its Arabs
as second class citizens and it should make reparations to those it
has dispossessed.
--
O makers of motorbikes and tractors! Builders of the Belfast and the
Titanic! Constructors of the Harlandic diesel electric locomotive
commissioned by the Buenos Aires Great Southern Railway Company!
M J Carley
>> Anti-semitism isn't free of anti-Israelism (or anti-Zionism) but the
>> reverse is not necessarily true.
>
>I wasn't talking of every instance -- obviously, one can have deeply
>disagree with Israel's policies w/o being antisemitic --, but of the
>anti-Israel scene as a whole.
What anti-Israel scene? US opinion tends to be pro-Israel and the
number of people who are openly and publicly opposed to Israeli policy
is quite small.
>> I hope you're not suggesting that
>> those who believe Palestinians also have rights are necessarily
>> anti-semitic.
>
>Sure, that's exactly what I'm thinking.
>
>Sigh,
Usually, when someone starts referring to anti-semitism, that is
exactly what they are thinking. But I'm glad we cleared it up.
>> One was state-sponsored murder and the other was murder by an inflamed
>> mob, you mean?
>
>One was an escalation of violence (and, yes, I blame Sharon for the first
>provocation), the other one was a staged mob scene. The shootings were
>awful, but at least I didn't see any Israeli soldiers reveling in the
>blood.
Look at it this way: a mob, inflamed by days of murder, kills two
people. Being inflamed, they revel in the blood. Trained soldiers
deliberately kill a twelve year old boy but are not seen on television
afterwards. Why is the mob so much worse than the soldiers?
Heather Henderson
>
>
> Paul Ilechko wrote:
>
> > Ed Howdershelt wrote:
> >
> > > Does that somehow make what the Palestinians did any less reprehensible?
> >
> > No, it was reprehensible, more or less equally reprehensible with what
> > the Israeli soldiers did when they cold-bloodedly murdered the 12 year
> > old boy.
>
It's hardly "cold-blooded murder" - this is a war. It seems that both
sides think of it in those terms.
--
Heather Henderson
hea...@scc.net
http://scc.net/~heather
John Gilmer
"Paul Ilechko" <pile...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:39EB92B8...@worldnet.att.net...
>
>
> Ed Howdershelt wrote:
>
> > Does that somehow make what the Palestinians did any less reprehensible?
>
> No, it was reprehensible, more or less equally reprehensible with what
> the Israeli soldiers did when they cold-bloodedly murdered the 12 year
> old boy.
Reasonable parents would instruct such that by the time their kids are 12
years old they don't go around throwing rocks at people they don't like.
Especially they should not throw rocks at folks with guns!
M J Carley
>ens...@bath.ac.uk (M J Carley) writes:
>
>> not seen on television afterwards. ...
>
>What's your evidence that it was deliberate?
The large number of bullets fired in that direction.
M J Carley
>ens...@bath.ac.uk (M J Carley) writes:
>
>> travel freely within the Palestinian `controlled' areas.
>
>offered a large, contiguous plot of real estate, not Ariel Sharon's
>Bantustan version. Maybe I'm wrong; have you seen the map? Remember,
>I'm talking about the latest offer Arafat turned down, not the land
>that's currently under the Palestinians' control.
As I understand it, the contiguity or otherwise was not the issue. It
was about control and about the [illegal] Jewish settlements.
>Of course they want it back. I believe what they say, and I don't
>blame them. But again you're missing the point: Barak *offered* them
>most of East Jerusalem, but not sovereignty over the Temple Mount. If
>the Temple Mount is the main reason that they're fighting, then I
>think it's misleading to say that "national" rights are at stake.
Barak offered them part of the old city: the most on offer was `a more
generous US proposal [which] would have given him sovereignty in two
quarters of the Old City---the Muslim and the Christian' Arafat,
apparently, insisted on `full sovereignty throughout the areas of
Jerusalem that Israel captured in the 1967 war, with the exception of
the Western Wall and the Jewish quarter of the Old City.'
(http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/world/2000/0728/wor1.htm)
>What land is illegally occupied? The West Bank and Gaza, or all of
>Palestine from the river to the sea? If it's the former, then (as I
>understand it) Barak offered to give back almost all of it, except for
>some Jewish settlements near the border. Oh yeah, and the Temple
>Mount.
That's not what the Irish Times says.
>But most Palestinians say that *all* of Israel is illegally occupied
>Arab land. What's so special about the Green Line anyway? You
>haven't said whether you agree with that view. If you do, then I
>agree that you were right in the first place: Even Barak's offer
>denies important *national* rights (in the Arabs' view), by not
>including Haifa, Jaffa, Lod, etc.
Whether or not it is all illegally occupied is irrelevant: it is
neither desirable nor practical to dissolve Israel. That said,
Palestinians who were deprived of their homes deserve proper
reparations and they deserve to have their own country.
>> and it should make reparations to those it has dispossessed.
>
>Oh, that's the easy part. There won't be significant Israeli
>opposition to paying reparations, especially if it comes out of
>American tax dollars. There will probably also be reparations paid to
>Jewish refugees from Arab countries, just to make everything look nice
>and fair.
Of course, why should Palestinians accept financial compensation for
loss of their homes?
M J Carley
>I wasn't thinking of the US or even the West as a whole.
Point taken. That puts the Palestinian mob on the same level as those
in `the West' that say that Islam is a threat to all we hold dear.
>> Usually, when someone starts referring to anti-semitism, that is
>> exactly what they are thinking.
>
>Usually, when people start running around calling "kill all Jews," there's
>some antisemitic feeling in the air.
True.
>> Look at it this way: a mob, inflamed by days of murder, kills two
>> people. Being inflamed, they revel in the blood. Trained soldiers
>> deliberately kill a twelve year old boy but are not seen on television
>> afterwards. Why is the mob so much worse than the soldiers?
>
>I'm amazed how you and Ilechko know so much about those soldiers you haven't
>even "seen on TV." How does Paul know they were "cold-blooded"? How do you
>know that they "deliberately killed a twelve-year old boy"? Where do these
>fantasies originate? What function do they serve?
The evidence from the footage of the twelve year old being killed
showed a lot of bullets being fired in his direction. It did not show
any other potential target in the area. Given that the Israeli state
has been quite happy to shoot people throwing rocks and to support the
people responsible for Sabra and Shatila, why is it so implausible that
they would shoot a twelve year old?
> I'm really amazed at the bemused tolerance for mob murder that's surfacing
>in rab. Possibly a variant of what Adorno called "amor intellectualis for the
>kitchen personnel." Yeah, I know, inflammatory. Run with it.
What bemused (?) tolerance? What is wrong with pointing out a double
standard. Why is the murder of two people a terrible thing but the
killing of more than one hundred justifiable?
Francis Muir
>
> In the referenced article, Philistine <a_a_...@mail.com> writes:
> >ens...@bath.ac.uk (M J Carley) writes:
> >
> >> not seen on television afterwards. ...
> >
> >What's your evidence that it was deliberate?
>
> The large number of bullets fired in that direction.
And the fact that they were up against a wall without any other target
in sight and with no possibility of escape. Even hunters don't shoot
sitting ducks.
Jeff Inman
I thought they had been hiding behind a barrel. (?)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Jeff Inman
> Jeff Inman wrote:
> > Indeed. And if one somehow found out about such a
> > thing at the last minute and prophylactically
> > vaporized the little boat with the chain guns, it
> > would still look like a bullying move. So how do
> > we win?
>
> We can't win, given those conditions. The only thing to do is declare
a
> fire zone around all ships and atomize anyone stupid enough to think
we
> were kidding about not coming close.
But how do you get fuel into the ships?
If you commandeer a port, then you probably
leave some standing presence there full time,
which becomes a liability. I suppose you
could send some guys in, have them inspect a
loaner tanker thoroughly, and then bring it
out to the ship, with your guys riding shotgun.
But then you risk something happening to your
guys while they are away from the ship.
Sayan Bhattacharyya
> >> Look at it this way: a mob, inflamed by days of murder, kills two
> >> people. Being inflamed, they revel in the blood. Trained soldiers
> >> deliberately kill a twelve year old boy but are not seen on television
> >> afterwards. Why is the mob so much worse than the soldiers?
>The shootings were part of a riot -- incited, quite deliberately, by Sharon,
>it appears, but the provocation was received and responded to
>happily enough. The two guys lost their way, for damn's sake.
>They were inside a police department. You really don't see a problem here?
There is a very important point that is being lost sight of here.
When a mob engages in violence, the agency behind that violence is the
mob (the individuals that make up the mob) and no one else.
However, when professional soldiers kill civilians, the agency behind
that violence is the State. State-sponsored violence is infinitely more
dangerous than mob violence, not only because the State is much more
powerful than individuals or even mobs, but because the state,
especially a state that calls itself democratic like the Israeli
state does, is engaging in the violence in the name of its citizens.
The responsibility for killings by a mob rests with the mob and none
else. The responsibility for killings by an army rests,
ultimately, with citizens who elect the government that deploys that
army.
*That* is the important distinction here.