Mel Gibson Arrested on Terrorism Charges.
Attuarii
url='http://www.bbclosangeles.com/BBCNEWS_Mel_Gibson_Arrested_On_Terrorism.htm'>
The famous Australian-American actor, director and producer has been
arrested at his residence today on terrorism charges. The details are still
coming in at this time.
The charges come two days after his run in with Southern California law
enforcement. In the previous incident Gibson reportedly failed a breath
test. He was charged on suspicion of driving under the influence and freed
on bail.
The charges come as little surprise after his anti-Semitic comments such
as ?Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world." Using the U.S.
Patriot Act the FBI had been following Mel Gibson?s illegal terrorist
activities for months. According to sources in the Los Angeles Division of
the FBI, Mel Gibson had been funneling money through Australia, where
Gibson had lived for many years, into Lebanon and Palestine to help Muslim
Extremists fight against Israel. Some of the money went to groups such as
Hezbollah and Hamas, no word on if any had been funneled to Al-Qaeda.
</quote>
--
"It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses
or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not
change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
Giordano Bruno
lex...@ix.netcom.com
Attuarii wrote:
> <quote
> url='http://www.bbclosangeles.com/BBCNEWS_Mel_Gibson_Arrested_On_Terrorism.htm'>
>
> According to sources in the Los Angeles Division of
> the FBI, Mel Gibson had been funneling money through Australia, where
> Gibson had lived for many years, into Lebanon and Palestine to help Muslim
> Extremists fight against Israel.
Wow. After all these years of being despised by Hollywood for being
Uber Christian, now he'll be their darling for being Uber Anti Israel.
lex...@ix.netcom.com
and facts."
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Jewish power element.
FFF
Dirk
Attuarii
Attuarii
Don't try to confuse him with the facts. It's not fair.
Attuarii
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
> lex...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>> Attuarii wrote:
>>> <quote
>>>
> url='http://www.bbclosangeles.com/BBCNEWS_Mel_Gibson_Arrested_On_Terrorism.htm'>
>>> According to sources in the Los Angeles Division of
>>> the FBI, Mel Gibson had been funneling money through Australia, where
>>> Gibson had lived for many years, into Lebanon and Palestine to help
>>> Muslim Extremists fight against Israel.
>> Wow. After all these years of being despised by Hollywood for being
>> Uber Christian, now he'll be their darling for being Uber Anti Israel.
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2294109,00.html
No great loss.
FFF
Dirk
lex...@ix.netcom.com
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
And I think you will find that Hollywood has a disproportionately large
politically liberal power element. Even being Jewish does not overpower
the liberal anti-Israel mindset in Hollywood.
But, in any event, this "news" item is a joke.
Attuarii
If it weren't for the fact that DUI is serious business, and so is war, I'd
find this entire episode hysterical.
<quote>
According to the arresting officer's original report, Gibson tried to escape
when invited to sit in the back of the patrol car, and was belligerent and
maudlin by turns, banging his head against a seat and bemoaning that his
life was "f*****d". He also called a female officer "sugar tits".
"Mr Gibson almost continually threatened me, saying he 'owned Malibu' and
will 'get even' with me," wrote Deputy James Mee, of the LA County
Sheriff's Department.
"He blurted out a barrage of anti-Semitic remarks about 'f***ing Jews'. He
called out, 'the Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world'. He
then asked: 'Are you a Jew?'
...
Deputy Mee, who happens to be Jewish, told the AP news agency yesterday that
he had considered it a routine arrest and did not take any comments made by
Gibson seriously.
</quote>
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
It does - in spades.
What it does not overpower is money.
FFF
Dirk
El Barbaro del Ritmo
Attitudes toward Israel don't fall along some simple
liberal/conservative line in the US, as recent Congressional votes
attest. Less-than-liberal Robert Novak wrote: "never before has support
of Israel been so universal among American politicians".
Since the "mindset of Hollywood" is "anti-Israel", you must have a list
of hundreds of examples. Name a few. (Remember that criticism of
policies doesn't constitute "anti-Israel", unless as a critic of
American policies you confess that you are "anti-American" As Israeli
politics go, Jews in Hollywood tend to identify not with Likud or
Kadima but Labor, according to the Jewish Journal).
Is Streisand a "Hollywood liberal"? Hmmm, raises money for Israel,
appears at celebrations of Israel.
Spielberg has been called "anti-Israel"- the Spielberg who said "I
would die for Israel".
Name a few.
Scott Lowther
>Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>
>
>>lex...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>And I think you will find that Hollywood has a disproportionately large
>>>politically liberal power element. Even being Jewish does not overpower
>>>the liberal anti-Israel mindset in Hollywood.
>>>
>>>
>
>Attitudes toward Israel don't fall along some simple
>liberal/conservative line in the US, as recent Congressional votes
>attest. Less-than-liberal Robert Novak wrote: "never before has support
>of Israel been so universal among American politicians".
>
>Since the "mindset of Hollywood" is "anti-Israel", you must have a list
>of hundreds of examples. Name a few. (Remember that criticism of
>policies doesn't constitute "anti-Israel",
>
Question: would you accept those who denounce Israeli policies regarding
Palestinians, but not Palestinian policies regarding Israel, to be
"anti-Israel?" I would. i suspect you wouldn't. And thus, there lies the
difficulty.
--
-------
The fact that I have no remedy for all the sorrows of the world is no reason for my accepting yours. It simply supports the strong probability that yours is a fake. - H.L. Mencken
El Barbaro del Ritmo
> Question: would you accept those who denounce Israeli policies regarding
> Palestinians, but not Palestinian policies regarding Israel, to be
> "anti-Israel?" I would. i suspect you wouldn't. And thus, there lies the
> difficulty.
Okay, so who are the people who comprise the "anti-Israel mindset of
Hollywood", even so defined?
Attuarii
> Spielberg has been called "anti-Israel"- the Spielberg who said "I
> would die for Israel".
I thought that was Clinton?
Attuarii
Mel Gibson...
bowman
> Question: would you accept those who denounce Israeli policies regarding
> Palestinians, but not Palestinian policies regarding Israel, to be
> "anti-Israel?"
Name names or stand down.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Scott Lowther
>Scott Lowther wrote:
>
>
>
>>Question: would you accept those who denounce Israeli policies regarding
>>Palestinians, but not Palestinian policies regarding Israel, to be
>>"anti-Israel?"
>>
>>
>
>Name names or stand down.
>
This was originally much longer, but Netscape crashed on me. So, a
truncated off-the-top-of-my-head version...
Penn, Sarandon, Robbins spring immediately to mind, as does Spielberg
and now Gibson. With all of these and others, you can find references to
them bitching about Israel... but you don;t find equivalent bitchings
about Palestinians or the Muslim world, which by *any* objective measure
are *vastly* worse than Israel on a bad day. What Billy Zane and Gary
Busey have recently done of course puts even those other losers to shame
in the "hate Israel" department. "Paradise Now," a film that "humanizes"
(i.e. condones) Palesitinians who *intentionally* target and blow up
Israeli civilians, got raves and awards (Golden Globes) from Hollywood.
Oliver Stone paid several personal visits to Yassir Arafat and made a
documentary about him for HBO that was apparently complementary.
Angelina Jolie moans about the plight of Palestinians in *Jordan,* but
never wonders why they are refugees still if they are in *Jordan.*Penn,
Sarandon, Robbins spring immediately to mind, as does Spielberg and now
Gibson. With all of these and others, you can find references to them
bitching about Israel... but you don’t find equivalent bitchings about
Palestinians or the Muslim world, which by *any* objective measure are
*vastly* worse than Israel on a bad day. What Billy Zane and Gary Busey
have recently done of course puts even those other losers to shame in
the "hate Israel" department. "Paradise Now," a film that "humanizes"
(i.e. condones) Palesitinians who *intentionally* target and blow up
Israeli civilians, got raves and awards (Golden Globes) from Hollywood.
Oliver Stone paid several personal visits to Yassir Arafat and made a
documentary about him for HBO that was apparently complementary.
Angelina Jolie moans about the plight of Palestinians in *Jordan,* but
never wonders why they are refugees still if they are in *Jordan.* The
virulently anti-American and anti-Israeli organization “ANSWER” has
quite the following in Hollywood, including Jessica Lange and Amy
Brenneman and has-beens such as Martin Sheen, Tyne Daly and Mike Farrell.
Attuarii
> Billy Zane and Gary Busey.
What exactly did they do in Hollywood?
Scott Lowther
>Scott Lowther wrote:
>
>
>
>>Billy Zane and Gary Busey.
>>
>>
>
>What exactly did they do in Hollywood?
>
>
They acted for a very long time (far too long, both are now quite washed
up), and are thus considered "part of Hollywood." Then they acted in an
especially anti-semitic movie in Turkey, as I'm sure you are aware, and
likely also have the posters hanging on your wall.
Attuarii
> Attuarii wrote:
>
>>Scott Lowther wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Billy Zane and Gary Busey.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>What exactly did they do in Hollywood?
>>
>>
> They acted for a very long time (far too long, both are now quite washed
> up), and are thus considered "part of Hollywood." Then they acted in an
> especially anti-semitic movie in Turkey, as I'm sure you are aware, and
> likely also have the posters hanging on your wall.
I don't even know who they are. I only recognize the names because of
something you posted.
Scott Lowther
>Scott Lowther wrote:
>
>
>
>>Attuarii wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Scott Lowther wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Billy Zane and Gary Busey.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>What exactly did they do in Hollywood?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>They acted for a very long time (far too long, both are now quite washed
>>up), and are thus considered "part of Hollywood." Then they acted in an
>>especially anti-semitic movie in Turkey, as I'm sure you are aware, and
>>likely also have the posters hanging on your wall.
>>
>>
>
>I don't even know who they are. I only recognize the names because of
>something you posted.
>
Considering that that was the first time I've ever posted about them...
I think you must be getting senile.
--
-------
The fact that I have no remedy for all the sorrows of the world is no reason for my accepting yours. It simply supports the strong probability that yours is a fake.. - H.L. Mencken
Attuarii
> Attuarii wrote:
>
>>Scott Lowther wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Attuarii wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Scott Lowther wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Billy Zane and Gary Busey.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>What exactly did they do in Hollywood?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>They acted for a very long time (far too long, both are now quite washed
>>>up), and are thus considered "part of Hollywood." Then they acted in an
>>>especially anti-semitic movie in Turkey, as I'm sure you are aware, and
>>>likely also have the posters hanging on your wall.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I don't even know who they are. I only recognize the names because of
>>something you posted.
>>
>
>
> Considering that that was the first time I've ever posted about them...
> I think you must be getting senile.
<quote>
Path:
g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: lexc...@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: alt.religion.asatru
Subject: Re: Rape & Murder by US Soldiers
Date: 28 Jul 2006 07:30:35 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <1154097035....@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
References: <CvGdnWAEp-u_E1XZ...@speakeasy.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 138.64.8.53
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1154097040 18976 127.0.0.1 (28 Jul 2006 14:30:40
GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 14:30:40 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <CvGdnWAEp-u_E1XZ...@speakeasy.net>
User-Agent: G2/0.2
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1;
SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
Injection-Info: i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com; posting-host=138.64.8.53;
posting-account=n4n8SAwAAABwz2ZVWhPzgrurY6V4Wdpe
The Muslim Film Festival in Fremont will feature a virulently
antisemitic and anti-American Turkish film: Muslim Film Festival
includes anti-U.S. movie. (Hat tip: TS.)
FREMONT - The U.S. debut of the popular but controversial Turkish
action movie "Valley of Wolves: Iraq," starring Billy Zane and Gary
Busey, will be among the screenings Saturday during the Muslim Film
Festival at the Naz 8 Cinema.
Critics say the film - at $10 million the most expensive ever made in
Turkey - villifies the United States, showing American soldiers in
Iraq killing a little boy in front of his mother and randomly gunning
down dozens of other people.
Zane plays a CIA officer and self-professed "peacekeeper sent by
God," and Busey is cast as a Jewish American at Abu Ghraib prison who
harvests human organs to sell to rich people in New York, London and
Tel Aviv.
The mission statement of the Muslim Film Festival:
"Muslim Film Festival continues its commitment to promote diverse
images of people and cultures from the Muslim world through independent
film."
Celebrate diversity-and revel in hatred.
</quote>
cwblues
I have a theory that this is not real, seeing as doing some commands on
my linux box revealed that the index of bbclosangeles.com displays the
words "Bullshit Broadcasting Confederation LA" for a split second in
the title bar before redirecting to the BBC page. Therefore it is
unlikely that it is real.
Charlie
Attuarii
> Hi
> I have a theory that this is not real, seeing as doing some commands on
> my linux box revealed that the index of bbclosangeles.com displays the
> words "Bullshit Broadcasting Confederation LA" for a split second in
> the title bar before redirecting to the BBC page. Therefore it is
> unlikely that it is real.
>
> Charlie
> Attuarii wrote:
>> <quote
>>
url='http://www.bbclosangeles.com/BBCNEWS_Mel_Gibson_Arrested_On_Terrorism.htm'>
It's bogus, but I learned a lot trying to verify it.
Gomer Lightyear
> Penn, Sarandon, Robbins spring immediately to mind, as does Spielberg
> and now Gibson.
> With all of these and others, you can find references to
> them bitching about Israel... but you don;t find equivalent bitchings
> about Palestinians or the Muslim world, which by *any* objective measure
> are *vastly* worse than Israel on a bad day.
No quotes to prove your point?
I've seen quotes by some of these that were critical of particular
Israeli policies and the conditions of the Palestineans, and in none do
they condone the desperate acts of the oppressed. Had one condemned
American racist policies in the 50s and 60s, to do was hardly to
condone the burning of Watts or the racial kilings during the Detroit
riots of '67. And yet such criticism of suicide bombing is typically
made regardless.
The response to Gibson's anti-Jewish remarks (quite different from
criticism of Israeli policies) shows pretty clearly what "Hollywood"
thinks of it. Gibson is obviously- as I would hope even you can see-
not typical of "Hollywood".
> What Billy Zane and Gary
> Busey have recently done of course puts even those other losers to shame
> in the "hate Israel" department. "Paradise Now," a film that "humanizes"
> (i.e. condones) Palesitinians who *intentionally* target and blow up
> Israeli civilians, got raves and awards (Golden Globes) from Hollywood.
Have you seen "Paradise Now"? Should the motivations of bombers be seen
only in cartoonish, pro wrestling form, or are we advised to understand
that it is humans doing it? No need to "humanize" humans. Do you want
films with depth, films that perhaps help us to understand how a little
boy becomes an adult suicide bomber, or do you just want propaganda?
> Oliver Stone paid several personal visits to Yassir Arafat and made a
> documentary about him for HBO that was apparently complementary.
Have you seen it? Are you aware that at one time Israeli leaders were
saying complimentary things about him? Oliver Stone, however, is
another person considered to be an oddball in Hollywood, and yet I
suspect that a documentary shown on HBO has greater depth than you
suggest.
> Angelina Jolie moans about the plight of Palestinians in *Jordan,* but
> never wonders why they are refugees still if they are in *Jordan.*
She never wonders, eh, why someone case out of their home villages is a
refugee? You know this how? And how is this anti-Israel again?
> The
> virulently anti-American and anti-Israeli organization "ANSWER" has
> quite the following in Hollywood, including Jessica Lange and Amy
> Brenneman and has-beens such as Martin Sheen, Tyne Daly and Mike Farrell.
Sorry, bub, but opposition to the militarist polices of the Israeli and
US governments isn't anti-American or anti-Israel. It wasn't so when
people on the right and the left opposed Clinton's Yugoslav war, it
isn't so when people on the right and the left oppose Bush's Iraq war.
Essentially what you've done is take a handful of names (many
has-beens, as you see it), distort opposition to oppression and
militarism as "anti-Israel" (though we who are familiar with Israel,
with Israeli politics, and with the Israeli press know the same
criticisms are found among Israelis), and then claim that it represents
"the anti-Israel mindset of Hollywood"- in spite of the fact that
"Hollywood" fund-raising for Israel far surpasses that for any other
nation. What you haven't provided is a single "anti-Israel" statement
by a single person, let alone demonstrate that this monolithic
Hollywood mindset that you posit is anything but a crudely-formed
fiction.
I have been to Israel. I made friends there. I have engaged in military
exercises alongside Israeli forces. I am pro-Israel in that I think the
people who live there have a right to live there. I have long and often
abhorred the targeting of these innocent people with bombs, etc. I
think a solution is based on the reality that those who live on that
land, of all backgrounds, should be allowed to live in peace, with
justice, with dignity. I am critical of the way Israel was created (not
only of the Israeli founders but of Europe and the US, where it
originated). I am critical of its oppressive and intolerable treatment
of those displaced or relegated to inferior status. I am critical of
Israeli military aggression and its consequences for innocents. Most of
all, I am critical of US and Israeli politics for the adverse effect
they have had, time and again, on moderate voices- who are made
irrelevant and impotent, strengthening again and again the extremists,
as moderation is shown by those policies to be ineffective in bringing
justice, in ending oppression, in fighting back against the
neighborhood bully. Some simplistic world-views may term that
anti-Israel. I am pro-Israel, with Israel being the people, not unjust,
desructive, and counterproductive policies. I suspect that much which
you would call "anti-Israel" is just that sort of nuanced stance.
Attuarii
> Scott Lowther wrote:
> The response to Gibson's anti-Jewish remarks (quite different from
> criticism of Israeli policies) shows pretty clearly what "Hollywood"
> thinks of it. Gibson is obviously- as I would hope even you can see-
> not typical of "Hollywood".
Far more serious than what Gibson blathered on about under the influence is
the fact that he had been driving in that state. That is the real crime.
> Have you seen "Paradise Now"? Should the motivations of bombers be seen
> only in cartoonish, pro wrestling form, or are we advised to understand
> that it is humans doing it? No need to "humanize" humans. Do you want
> films with depth, films that perhaps help us to understand how a little
> boy becomes an adult suicide bomber, or do you just want propaganda?
Ha! Remember when I posted bin Ladin's "Declaration of War"? I suggested
we try to determine if there is anything in his grievances which were
legitimate. I concluded there were two key words: "oil" and "water".
>> Angelina Jolie moans about the plight of Palestinians in *Jordan,* but
>> never wonders why they are refugees still if they are in *Jordan.*
>
> She never wonders, eh, why someone case out of their home villages is a
> refugee? You know this how? And how is this anti-Israel again?
Didn't they give their baby a Hebrew name?
> I have long and often
> abhorred the targeting of these innocent people with bombs, etc.
Don't assume all the terrorism you hear about is due to the same faction.
Remember, not /all/ people in Israel are Jews.
> I
> think a solution is based on the reality that those who live on that
> land, of all backgrounds, should be allowed to live in peace, with
> justice, with dignity. I am critical of the way Israel was created (not
> only of the Israeli founders but of Europe and the US, where it
> originated). I am critical of its oppressive and intolerable treatment
> of those displaced or relegated to inferior status. I am critical of
> Israeli military aggression and its consequences for innocents. Most of
> all, I am critical of US and Israeli politics for the adverse effect
> they have had, time and again, on moderate voices- who are made
> irrelevant and impotent, strengthening again and again the extremists,
> as moderation is shown by those policies to be ineffective in bringing
> justice, in ending oppression, in fighting back against the
> neighborhood bully. Some simplistic world-views may term that
> anti-Israel. I am pro-Israel, with Israel being the people, not unjust,
> desructive, and counterproductive policies. I suspect that much which
> you would call "anti-Israel" is just that sort of nuanced stance.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=vK2xKURltqE&mode=related&search=
lex...@ix.netcom.com
Gomer Lightyear wrote:
> Should the motivations of bombers be seen
> only in cartoonish, pro wrestling form, or are we advised to understand
> that it is humans doing it?
Here's a hint: if you *intentionally* target women and children, you
have forfeitted you claim to being human.
No need to "humanize" humans. Do you want
> films with depth, films that perhaps help us to understand how a little
> boy becomes an adult suicide bomber, or do you just want propaganda?
Gosh, and Hitler liked puppies. Why don't we see more movies showing
Hitler as a dog lover? Why all the focus on his negative aspects? Why
not a TV movie focussing on John Wayne Gacy as an artist, not that
trifling "serial killer" bit?
Gomer Lightyear
> Far more serious than what Gibson blathered on about under the influence is
> the fact that he had been driving in that state. That is the real crime.
True, but the issue was "anti-Israel Hollywood" and Gibson was cited
because of his rant.
> Ha! Remember when I posted bin Ladin's "Declaration of War"? I suggested
> we try to determine if there is anything in his grievances which were
> legitimate. I concluded there were two key words: "oil" and "water".
As I've often said, there are inevitably a small number of extremists
in any society. The goal is to separate them from popular support by
not letting them exploit injustices, oppression, fear, powerlessness,
and desperation. American history is replete with examples of rises in
and reduction of extremist influence based on the control of such
factors.
> > I have long and often abhorred the targeting of these innocent people with bombs,
> > etc.
>
> Don't assume all the terrorism you hear about is due to the same faction.
> Remember, not /all/ people in Israel are Jews.
I don't see the connection between my statement and yours.
Attuarii
>
> Gomer Lightyear wrote:
>
>> Should the motivations of bombers be seen
>> only in cartoonish, pro wrestling form, or are we advised to understand
>> that it is humans doing it?
>
>
> Here's a hint: if you *intentionally* target women and children, you
> have forfeitted you claim to being human.
>
>
> No need to "humanize" humans. Do you want
>> films with depth, films that perhaps help us to understand how a little
>> boy becomes an adult suicide bomber, or do you just want propaganda?
>
> Gosh, and Hitler liked puppies. Why don't we see more movies showing
> Hitler as a dog lover? Why all the focus on his negative aspects?
Because Hitler lost the war.
lex...@ix.netcom.com
Gomer Lightyear wrote:
> I have been to Israel. I made friends there.
"Some of my best friends are black."
> I am critical of its oppressive and intolerable treatment
> of those displaced or relegated to inferior status.
"Inferior status?" You mean like elected to the Knesset? Or do you mean
the Transjordanians who were abandoned by Jordan and *repeatedly*
offered their own nation?
> I am pro-Israel, with Israel being the people, not unjust,
> desructive, and counterproductive policies.
You are pro-Israel so long as Israel does not defend itself vigorously.
That's like being "pro-Fred" just so long as Fred does not wear a seat
belt.
lex...@ix.netcom.com
Gomer Lightyear wrote:
> As I've often said, there are inevitably a small number of extremists
> in any society.
"Small number." Hmmm...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2254738,00.html
"Six per cent of British Muslims believe that the 7/7 bombers were
acting according to the true principles of Islam, while 7 per cent
agree that suicide attacks on civilians in Britain can be justified
under certain circumstances, a figure that rises to 16 per cent if the
target is the military. "
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,171-2028033,00.html
"Nearly two fifths (37 per cent) believe that the Jewish community in
Britain is a legitimate target "as part of the ongoing struggle for
justice in the Middle East". Moreover, only 52 per cent think that
the state of Israel has the right to exist, with 30 per cent
disagreeing, a big minority. One in six of all Muslims questioned
thinks suicide bombings can sometimes be justified in Israel, though
many fewer (7 per cent) say the same about Britain."
http://www.thejakartapost.com/detailweekly.asp?fileid=20060728.@03
"Up to 1.3 percent of Indonesian Muslims nationwide admit using
violence against people or objects they consider contradictory to their
beliefs, a survey found, with more than 40 percent ready to wage war
for their faith. ... The survey, conducted from 2001 to March 2006,
found 43.5 percent of respondents were ready to wage war on threatening
non-Muslim groups, 40 percent would use violence against those
blaspheming Islam and 14.7 percent would tear down churches without
official permits. ... He noted that between 30 percent and 58 percent
approved of amputation of the left hand for thieves and the stoning to
death of rapists, as well as other tenets of sharia law, and opposed
the election of non-Muslims for president."
> The goal is to separate them from popular support by
> not letting them exploit injustices, oppression, fear, powerlessness,
> and desperation. American history is replete with examples of rises in
> and reduction of extremist influence based on the control of such
> factors.
And how do you explain this in terms of Indonesia and Britain? Seems to
me the Muslims there are not being oppressed in any way.
Perhaps by "small number" or "extremist" you're using some weird new
"civil disobedient" definitions...
Gomer Lightyear
> Gomer Lightyear wrote:
> No need to "humanize" humans. Do you want
> > films with depth, films that perhaps help us to understand how a little
> > boy becomes an adult suicide bomber, or do you just want propaganda?
>
> Gosh, and Hitler liked puppies. Why don't we see more movies showing
> Hitler as a dog lover? Why all the focus on his negative aspects?
The movie you cited doesn't neglect the "negative aspects", does it?
Your complaint was based on the fact that it doesn't, and your examples
in this reply all act as if it does.
If we are to understand and avoid the forces Hitler represents, or the
reasons for Rwanda, or the reasons for the Terror in Revolutionary
France, or the reasons for My Lai, or the reasons for Abu Ghraib, or
the reasons why a mother will hug her son as he goes off to blow
himself up on a bus, we'd better look into why Hitler's movement gained
popularity, how human beings came to justify and do these things.
We'd better look at the forces that drove human beings, to understand
and control those drives today and tomorrow. We'd damn well better
understand the reason why human beings come to hate and commit
atrocities against another identity group- it's still a relevant
lesson, it'll always be. We'd damn well better understand that it IS a
human problem, this turn that I've called the human form of the
transformation from grasshoppers to a horde of locusts.
It's not about "loving puppies". It's about seeing what leads people to
become what they are, and especially when it is representative not
merely of a single human's flaws, but of a wider social problem. I have
always felt that films which portray Hitler as a demon leave us
vulnerable to the very forces that made him appealing to the Germans.
Hitler was a human problem, his followers were human- we'd better
understand that. It won't be as obvious as a demon-man in our midst.
You haven't seen the film, have you? Where'd your opinion of it come
from? Did you get it from there because you are not human, or are the
reasons discernable at a human level?
lex...@ix.netcom.com
Gomer Lightyear wrote:
> If we are to understand and avoid the forces Hitler represents, or the
> reasons for Rwanda, or the reasons for the Terror in Revolutionary
> France, or the reasons for My Lai, or the reasons for Abu Ghraib...
See, here's the thing you seem to be unable or unwilling to understand.
Hitler, the killings in Rwanda, the Terror... these were Big
Institutional Things. My Lai and Abu Ghraib were isolated *incidents.*
But they are played up as if they are representative.
Focussing attention on them is a way to direct attention away from the
larger issues. As the Vietnamese learned, and then taught to the rest
of the world, the way to beat the US isn't in combat. It's in the
press. Play to the press, get them to focus their rage on the isolated
incidents of US (or Israeli) screwups while playign down the vastly
worse institutionalizing of evil on the other side, and the US will
sooner or later buckle.
We remember My Lai and Abu Ghraib because they were exceptions in the
larger conflicts. Hitler, Rwanda, Terror... those *were* the larger
conflicts.
Gomer Lightyear
> > desructive, and counterproductive policies.
>
> You are pro-Israel so long as Israel does not defend itself vigorously.
> That's like being "pro-Fred" just so long as Fred does not wear a seat
> belt.
No, if I oppose Fred's driving while drunk or driving on the sidewalk
or chasing down innocent pedestrians, it's both a just position and one
in the interests of his passengers (Fred being leadership, the
passengers being Israel, the cheeseburger he just got at the drive-thru
window being a cheeseburger).
Gomer Lightyear
> And how do you explain this in terms of Indonesia and Britain? Seems to
> me the Muslims there are not being oppressed in any way.
> Perhaps by "small number" or "extremist" you're using some weird new
> "civil disobedient" definitions...
Or perhaps I'm looking at the world, just as people in Britain and
Indonesia are. As with US policies in Iraq, the oppression and
injustice suffered by the Palestineans is an element involved in
radicalization around the world. How do I explain our interest in
Israel, Lebanon, etc. here in the US? Because we're not only concerned
with Utah and California.
How do we explain Norman Morrison?
Next issue:
Try to get over the long-past "civil disobedience" debate, will you? If
you had followed the links I provided them, you could've expanded your
knowledge of the historical debate. Did you even read Zinn? Fortas?
Berrigan? The recent article on "violent civil disobedience"? If your
interest is knowledge, do that. Too often your only goal seems to b
argmentative.
I'd rather you see discussion as an exchange of opinions and of
knowledge.
Gomer Lightyear
> Gomer Lightyear wrote:
>
> > If we are to understand and avoid the forces Hitler represents, or the
> > reasons for Rwanda, or the reasons for the Terror in Revolutionary
> > France, or the reasons for My Lai, or the reasons for Abu Ghraib...
>
> See, here's the thing you seem to be unable or unwilling to understand.
> Hitler, the killings in Rwanda, the Terror... these were Big
> Institutional Things. My Lai and Abu Ghraib were isolated *incidents.*
> But they are played up as if they are representative.
Did you ever read Greenberg's "The Torture Papers", as I've often
recommended?
I joined the military in '77. We still had many Vietnam Vets among the
Marines with whom I was stationed. Not only are other incidents similar
to My Lai documented, they told me that there was nothing all that
unusual about these. I can recommend some good histories of the Vietnam
War, if you're interested in knowing more.
Gomer Lightyear
isolated My Lai was or wasn't, understanding the human motivations of
the culprits remains essential to avoiding similar events.
lex...@ix.netcom.com
Gomer Lightyear wrote:
> lex...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> > And how do you explain this in terms of Indonesia and Britain? Seems to
> > me the Muslims there are not being oppressed in any way.
> > Perhaps by "small number" or "extremist" you're using some weird new
> > "civil disobedient" definitions...
>
> Or perhaps I'm looking at the world, just as people in Britain and
> Indonesia are.
Non responsive. What is a "small number?" 1% of a population? 10%? 30%?
And what do you consider "extremist?" Given that you consider me
"extremist" for interpretting the 2nd Amendment to mean exactly what it
says, what do you call those who would tear down the church of another
religion for no better reason than it's a church of another religion?
How about someone who claims that Palestinians, say, do not have the
right to exist? Or that someone who blows up a bus is operating
according to the principles of Asatru? How about someone who suggests
killign those who say bad things about Odin?
Any of that fall under the category of "extremist?"
> How do we explain Norman Morrison?
I don't. Sounds like that might be one individual, though. Not, say, 7%
of the British Muslims, for example.
> Next issue:
> Try to get over the long-past "civil disobedience" debate, will you? If
> you had followed the links I provided them, you could've expanded your
> knowledge of the historical debate. Did you even read Zinn? Fortas?
> Berrigan?
Sigh. Once again, you fail to make an arguement. Just appeals to
authoirities, without even the vaguest attempt to explain why I or
anyone should bother with these "authorities," when the common
understanding of the term "civil disobedience" is well understood by
society at large.
> I'd rather you see discussion as an exchange of opinions and of
> knowledge.
And I do. I just pointed out to you that your "small number" includes a
very LARGE number of people. Two fifths of UK Muslims see UK Jews as
legitimate targets. Do you not see this as "extremist?"
"there are inevitably a small number of extremists in any society." In
some societies, the number is LARGE. Argue with facts, if you wish.
lex...@ix.netcom.com
Gomer Lightyear wrote:
> Did you ever read Greenberg's "The Torture Papers", as I've often
> recommended?
Why should I?
> I joined the military in '77. We still had many Vietnam Vets among the
> Marines with whom I was stationed. Not only are other incidents similar
> to My Lai documented, they told me that there was nothing all that
> unusual about these.
My father was in VN '65-'66. Lots of tales of atrocities committed upon
the VN people. A very small percentage deal with *American* atrocities.
But *those* tales are the ones that would get raised. VC using children
as suicide bombs? Ignored. A US soldier machine gunning a hootch? Oh,
hell, Movie Of The Week, at the very least.
This sort of shit happens in *every* war. Heard lots of tales from WWII
vets. But during WWII, the press didn't paly up the Latest American
Atrocity.
lex...@ix.netcom.com
Gomer Lightyear wrote:
> Oh, and to bring this snippet back into context, regardless of how
> isolated My Lai was or wasn't, understanding the human motivations of
> the culprits remains essential to avoiding similar events.
Uh-huh. Here's a hint: you can't. If we could, rape and murder would be
unheard of.
Gomer Lightyear
> And I do. I just pointed out to you that your "small number" includes a
> very LARGE number of people. Two fifths of UK Muslims see UK Jews as
> legitimate targets. Do you not see this as "extremist?"
>
> "there are inevitably a small number of extremists in any society." In
> some societies, the number is LARGE. Argue with facts, if you wish.
Perhaps your understanding would be improved by referring to the entire
quote (which is why it is so important to try to understand the entire
discussion, not isolated portions of isolated sentences in isolated
posts):
"As I've often said, there are inevitably a small number of extremists
in any society. The goal is to separate them from popular support by
not letting them exploit injustices, oppression, fear, powerlessness,
and desperation. American history is replete with examples of rises in
and reduction of extremist influence based on the control of such
factors."
You mentioned Britain and Indonesia, and I reminded you that they are
connected to the world, that injustice and oppression in Israel or Iraq
affect people elsewhere in the world.
Extremists in many parts of the world today have not been so separated
from popular desperation, in fact the elements that connect them to
popular support have been exasperated, and they have gained in
strength. The rise of Hamas did not happen in a vaccuum, for example.
Again, any society will have some number of violent, disturbed, extreme
people (some will rape and murder, etc., some will take on a violent
ideology, some will do both). Toss them out as unrepresentative, the
(perhaps) inherently flawed. (There's no magical moment when "small
number" becomes large, it is a continuum, and people will differ when
it becomes a problem. We know that when Puerto Rican nationalists tried
to kill Truman and had widespread popular support among Puerto Ricans,
that form of extremism had become a problem. Such extremists still
exist, and from time-to-time make themselves heard, but most people I
know don't think they're a social problem today, except as a flavor of
criminal behavior).
If a society begins to see a great many extremists (tending toward
violence) or they gain popular support, we can learn from and control
the human factors in this trend. If ordinary people engage in violent
actons, as at My Lai or a bus-bombing, we can learn from and control
the human factors for this alteration.
The issue remains the movie you mentioned, and my position remains what
it was.
Attuarii
I'm trying to figure out how many different absurdities that statement
represents.
lex...@ix.netcom.com
Gomer Lightyear wrote:
> lex...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> > And I do. I just pointed out to you that your "small number" includes a
> > very LARGE number of people. Two fifths of UK Muslims see UK Jews as
> > legitimate targets. Do you not see this as "extremist?"
> >
> > "there are inevitably a small number of extremists in any society." In
> > some societies, the number is LARGE. Argue with facts, if you wish.
>
> Perhaps your understanding would be improved by referring to the entire
> quote (which is why it is so important to try to understand the entire
> discussion, not isolated portions of isolated sentences in isolated
> posts):
>
> "As I've often said, there are inevitably a small number of extremists
> in any society.
And as I pointed out, there are LARGE numbers of extremists in certain
societies. You keep trying to gloss over or excuse that fact.
> You mentioned Britain and Indonesia, and I reminded you that they are
> connected to the world, that injustice and oppression in Israel or Iraq
> affect people elsewhere in the world.
Yawn. There are lots of people all over everywhere being oppressed. But
the fact that Muslims are busily slaughtering pagans in Chad doesn't
mean it makes the slightest damned bit of sense that *I* would suddenly
become a "let's blow up some nearby buses" extremist."
And the fact remains, even if the state of Israel were to be pushed
into the sea and it's citizens slaughter en masse... the extremists
would not suddenly become well-behaved members of modern society. The
fact remains, the vast bulk of Muslims around the world are *not*
under the slightest damned bit of oppression by non-Muslims. The fact
remains, the Israelies are *not* slaughtering kill-beasts intent on
oppressing, enslaving, exterminating, whatever the Palestinians.
The fact is... if the extremists are appeased, or achieve success in
wiping out Israel, they will *not* stop. They will *not* be appeased. A
good number are still pissed off about 1492, for fucks sake.
> Extremists in many parts of the world today have not been so separated
> from popular desperation, in fact the elements that connect them to
> popular support have been exasperated, and they have gained in
> strength. The rise of Hamas did not happen in a vaccuum, for example.
Indeed. Had there not been a serious anti-Jew, ant-Christian,
anti-pagan and pro-slaughter-the-infidels element to Islam, Hamas,
Hizbollah, Al Queda and the rest would have been impossible.
> lexc...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> > Gomer Lightyear wrote:
> > > Oh, and to bring this snippet back into context, regardless of how
> > > isolated My Lai was or wasn't, understanding the human motivations of
> > > the culprits remains essential to avoiding similar events.
> >
> > Uh-huh. Here's a hint: you can't. If we could, rape and murder would be
> > unheard of.
>
> Again, any society will have some number of violent, disturbed, extreme
> people
And some will have *more*. Some ideologies simply do not play well with
others. Religions that demand that their followers convert others.
Political systems that demand that everyone follow Dear Leader.
Economic systems that demand from each according to their ability.
Racial belief systems that demand that other races be considered
'sub-human." These systems are *inheirantly* incapable of co-existing
peacefully with those who believe/are different. Such systems either
need to be reformed or removed... or you'll have to accept Dar Al Harb
forever.
> If a society begins to see a great many extremists (tending toward
> violence) or they gain popular support, we can learn from and control
> the human factors in this trend.
Deportations. De-Nazification-style programs.
Gomer Lightyear
> And as I pointed out, there are LARGE numbers of extremists in certain
> societies. You keep trying to gloss over or excuse that fact.
Actually, no, the quote was _about_ how there come to be large numbers
of extremists in a society as opposed to the small number that will
exist in any society, and the controls to counter it. If we aren't
connecting on even that central point, there's no use in continuing the
discussion.
Attuarii
>
> Gomer Lightyear wrote:
>>
>> "As I've often said, there are inevitably a small number of extremists
>> in any society.
>
> And as I pointed out, there are LARGE numbers of extremists in certain
> societies. You keep trying to gloss over or excuse that fact.
Turn off your TV Scott, IT'S LYING TO YOU!
> The fact
> remains, the Israelies are *not* slaughtering kill-beasts intent on
> oppressing, enslaving, exterminating, whatever the Palestinians.
That is not completely clear. Exterminate? Are we talking kill off, or
aussroten?
> The fact is... if the extremists are appeased, or achieve success in
> wiping out Israel, they will *not* stop. They will *not* be appeased. A
> good number are still pissed off about 1492, for fucks sake.
Rumor has it that Columbus's crew was largely Jewish. I thought I'd throw
that in for the sake of absurdity, since that seems to be the spirit of
your reply in the first place.
> Indeed. Had there not been a serious anti-Jew, ant-Christian,
> anti-pagan and pro-slaughter-the-infidels element to Islam, Hamas,
> Hizbollah, Al Queda and the rest would have been impossible.
There are a fair number of Christians in Lebanon, if they were attacking
Christians all the while, why wasn't that being reported? I know that had
a pretty bad civil war for several years, but my impression is that much of
that was kind of an Elsaß-Lothringen type conflict. That is, mostly at the
instigation of outside forces.
>> Again, any society will have some number of violent, disturbed, extreme
>> people
>
> And some will have *more*. Some ideologies simply do not play well with
> others. Religions that demand that their followers convert others.
> Political systems that demand that everyone follow Dear Leader.
> Economic systems that demand from each according to their ability.
> Racial belief systems that demand that other races be considered
> 'sub-human." These systems are *inheirantly* incapable of co-existing
> peacefully with those who believe/are different. Such systems either
> need to be reformed or removed... or you'll have to accept Dar Al Harb
> forever.
It's interesting that before the militant Zionist arrived in the region,
there were Jews living throughout the Middle East in relative security.
>> If a society begins to see a great many extremists (tending toward
>> violence) or they gain popular support, we can learn from and control
>> the human factors in this trend.
>
> Deportations. De-Nazification-style programs.
This response intentionally left blank.
Gomer Lightyear
Muslims: Relatively Secular and Pro-Christian- But Support for
Terrorism and Anti-Semitism are Widespread":
Gomer Lightyear
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/story/439685p-370408c.html
A view from Cairo:
Scott Lowther
>lex...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>
>
>>Gomer Lightyear wrote:
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>>"As I've often said, there are inevitably a small number of extremists
>>>in any society.
>>>
>>>
>>And as I pointed out, there are LARGE numbers of extremists in certain
>>societies. You keep trying to gloss over or excuse that fact.
>>
>>
>
>Turn off your TV Scott, IT'S LYING TO YOU!
>
>
Since when is the Jakarta Post newspaper a TV?
>
>
>
>>The fact
>>remains, the Israelies are *not* slaughtering kill-beasts intent on
>>oppressing, enslaving, exterminating, whatever the Palestinians.
>>
>>
>
>That is not completely clear. Exterminate? Are we talking kill off, or
>aussroten?
>
>
*Anything.* The Israelies have had 40 years not only to get rid of the
Palestinians in "Palestine," but to get rid of the Palestinians in
*Israel.* so far, not only no motion on that front, there's no evidence
of interest in it.
>
>
>
>>The fact is... if the extremists are appeased, or achieve success in
>>wiping out Israel, they will *not* stop. They will *not* be appeased. A
>>good number are still pissed off about 1492, for fucks sake.
>>
>>
>
>Rumor has it that Columbus's crew was largely Jewish. I thought I'd throw
>that in for the sake of absurdity, since that seems to be the spirit of
>your reply in the first place.
>
>
Apparently you are unaware that *other* things happened in 1492 than
Columbus sailing the Atlantic.
>
>
>
>
>>Indeed. Had there not been a serious anti-Jew, ant-Christian,
>>anti-pagan and pro-slaughter-the-infidels element to Islam, Hamas,
>>Hizbollah, Al Queda and the rest would have been impossible.
>>
>>
>
>There are a fair number of Christians in Lebanon
>
Not as many as there were. Worked with more than a few christian former
Lebanese who were driven out at gunpoint for the crime of being Christian.
>
>
>
>>>Again, any society will have some number of violent, disturbed, extreme
>>>people
>>>
>>>
>>And some will have *more*. Some ideologies simply do not play well with
>>others. Religions that demand that their followers convert others.
>>Political systems that demand that everyone follow Dear Leader.
>>Economic systems that demand from each according to their ability.
>>Racial belief systems that demand that other races be considered
>>'sub-human." These systems are *inheirantly* incapable of co-existing
>>peacefully with those who believe/are different. Such systems either
>>need to be reformed or removed... or you'll have to accept Dar Al Harb
>>forever.
>>
>>
>
>It's interesting that before the militant Zionist arrived in the region,
>there were Jews living throughout the Middle East in relative security.
>
>
Dhimmitude provided a measure of protection. But it's interesting that
since Israel was founded, hundreds of thousands of Jews have been
expelled from various places around the ME, and yet we don't see:
1) Big protests in the West to have their homes restored to them
2) Excuses being made for why these Jews should be understood when they
suicide-bomb Jordanian delis or markets.
3) Jews suicide-bombing Jordanian delis and markets
--
-------
The fact that I have no remedy for all the sorrows of the world is no reason for my accepting yours. It simply supports the strong probability that yours is a fake. - H.L. Mencken
Scott Lowther
>lex...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>
>>And as I pointed out, there are LARGE numbers of extremists in certain
>>societies. You keep trying to gloss over or excuse that fact.
>>
>>
>
>Actually, no, the quote was _about_ how there come to be large numbers
>of extremists in a society as opposed to the small number that will
>exist in any society, and the controls to counter it.
>
Unfortunately, your simplistic analysis - that it's somehow Israel's
fault that a sizable percentage of British Muslims would clap with glee
if they saw Dirk get his head sawed off on the BBC - failed to get to
the heart of the matter. You failed to mention the rather nasty ideology
that underlies so much of Islam.
>If we aren't
>connecting on even that central point, there's no use in continuing the
>discussion.
>
>
Oh, but you will anyway.
Gomer Lightyear
> >Actually, no, the quote was _about_ how there come to be large numbers
> >of extremists in a society as opposed to the small number that will
> >exist in any society, and the controls to counter it.
>
> Unfortunately, your simplistic analysis - that it's somehow Israel's
> fault that a sizable percentage of British Muslims would clap with glee
> if they saw Dirk get his head sawed off on the BBC - failed to get to
> the heart of the matter. You failed to mention the rather nasty ideology
> that underlies so much of Islam.
Since your understanding of "my" analysis is limited by your lack of
travel, background, and first-hand experience, I can recommend a number
of books to expand and deepen your perspective. A year or two ago I
recommended Mansoor Moaddel's "Islamic Modernism, Nationalism, and
Fundamentalism" and have often recommended Robert Dreyfuss' "Devil's
Game". Have you bothered to look at either? I can recommend many others
so that you don't mistake your simplistic understanding for the
analysis itself.
Scott Lowther
>Scott Lowther wrote:
>
>
>>>Actually, no, the quote was _about_ how there come to be large numbers
>>>of extremists in a society as opposed to the small number that will
>>>exist in any society, and the controls to counter it.
>>>
>>>
>>Unfortunately, your simplistic analysis - that it's somehow Israel's
>>fault that a sizable percentage of British Muslims would clap with glee
>>if they saw Dirk get his head sawed off on the BBC - failed to get to
>>the heart of the matter. You failed to mention the rather nasty ideology
>>that underlies so much of Islam.
>>
>>
>
>Since your understanding of "my" analysis is limited by your lack of
>travel, background, and first-hand experience,
>
Ah. So the last 1400 years of history is wrong because *you* wandered
around a bit.
> I can recommend a number
>of books to expand and deepen your perspective. A year or two ago I
>recommended Mansoor Moaddel's "Islamic Modernism, Nationalism, and
>Fundamentalism" and have often recommended Robert Dreyfuss' "Devil's
>Game". Have you bothered to look at either?
>
>
Have you read "Islamic Imperialsim" yet?
Gomer Lightyear
> Have you read "Islamic Imperialsim" yet?
As with all the books you mention, I sat down on the balcony at B&N and
read for awhile, yes. I had once done the same at Borders with the book
David Duke released a few years ago. The shallow and artificial
historical narrative of "Islamic Imperialism" in the service of
simplistic bigotry was very similar to Duke's narrative about the Jews.
History's more complex and interesting, and so's the world today, than
any bigoted narrative, with experience and knowledge having the added
benefit of providing actual solutions to real problems.
lex...@ix.netcom.com
Gomer Lightyear wrote:
> Scott Lowther wrote:
> > Have you read "Islamic Imperialsim" yet?
>
> As with all the books you mention, I sat down on the balcony at B&N and
> read for awhile, yes. I had once done the same at Borders with the book
> David Duke released a few years ago. The shallow and artificial
> historical narrative of "Islamic Imperialism" in the service of
> simplistic bigotry was very similar to Duke's narrative about the Jews.
Nice. You don't agree with it... it's bigotted.
Attuarii
There's usually a grain of truth in such diatribes, but I find them to be
designed to foster conflict and animosity rather than to resolve problems.
I guess I can appreciate the irony intended by Duke talking about "Jewish
supremacism", but every time I've looked at something he writes, I get - to
used the oh so cliche 70s term - negative vibes.
There's a lot I don't like about radical Islam. In particular I don't like
they way they treat women. It just seems counterproductive to focus
directly on the most negative aspects and then try to characterize the
entire Islamic population as representing that, and only that.
The people who really scare me are the Judeo-Christian Armegiddonians. I'm
not talking about the religiously motivated. I'm talking about the ones
who use it as a guise.
Noodles Jefferson
> The people who really scare me are the Judeo-Christian Armegiddonians. I'm
> not talking about the religiously motivated. I'm talking about the ones
> who use it as a guise.
The model I use to describe violent extremism is the bacteriological.
There are hundreds of such ideologies in our midst at any given time,
but generally spread only to that small number I mentioned earlier as
seemingly inevitable in any society. However, when the proper
conditions of fear, of desperation, of oppression, of outrage, of
injustice, etc. reach a certain point in a society or some part of a
society, like germs in a weakened host ideologies of violent extremism
gain in strength. Numbers of extremists increase. Popular support for
extremism increases. And conversely, moderation increasingly appears
weak, ineffective, impotent. Like violence, extremism has an
exponential growth after a certain ill-defined point, and include a
polar benefit for opposing forms of extremism.
At this point in history, I don't place much meaning on most varieties
of extremism in the US. It doesn't take many to make an impact- as
anti-abortion killers, the occasional neo-nazi act, various religious
extremists, etc. demonstrate- but they aren't widely popular.
Two exceptions come to mind. One is, of course, neo-conservatism and
related ideologies that have utilized the State and industrial
apparatus to spread its views violently around the world and to
threaten fundamental liberties. They've adeptly exploited the fears
aroused by 9/11, and by spreading violence, injustice, and fear have
provided much for other forms of extremism to feed on, as with violent
Salafists.
The other is various branches of extreme Christianity. At this point
the ideology hasn't resorted to violence on any great scale (occasional
anti-abortion actions have been individuals and small groups), except
as a sub-section of the same movement as the neo-cons. But the
potential is there, as evidenced by the shrilly fearful "War On
Christians" conferences headed by leading Congressional politicians and
calls for violence by various popular figures, combined with fears of
cultural shifts, etc. and desires for millenarian transformation.
Because of connections between this movement and the ruling party, it
bears watching.
At any time, of course, the various identity fault-lines could crack as
well, and extremist ideologies are lurking to exploit it.
lex...@ix.netcom.com
Noodles Jefferson wrote:
> Two exceptions come to mind. One is, of course, neo-conservatism and
> related ideologies that have utilized the State and industrial
> apparatus to spread its views violently around the world and to
> threaten fundamental liberties.
Snort. You *are* a conspiracy theory-monger of the highest order.
I'm still waiting to see what "fundamental liberties" have been
threatened by the "neo-Cons." It wasn't them who voted to allow the
government to disarm the citizenry in times of emergency, for example.
> The other is various branches of extreme Christianity.
And here I thought you were going to say "Environmentalists."
> But the
> potential is there, as evidenced by the shrilly fearful "War On
> Christians" conferences headed by leading Congressional politicians and
> calls for violence by various popular figures,
Alec Baldwin?
Attuarii
>
> Noodles Jefferson wrote:
>
>
>> Two exceptions come to mind. One is, of course, neo-conservatism and
>> related ideologies that have utilized the State and industrial
>> apparatus to spread its views violently around the world and to
>> threaten fundamental liberties.
>
> Snort. You *are* a conspiracy theory-monger of the highest order.
>
> I'm still waiting to see what "fundamental liberties" have been
> threatened by the "neo-Cons." It wasn't them who voted to allow the
> government to disarm the citizenry in times of emergency, for example.
Germar Rudolf was deported to serve a prison term for writing a book. That
is in direct and absolute contradiction to the foundational laws of the
United States of America. There has also been a considerable erosion of
the protections of our right to privacy. I have the most amazing document
sitting on my desk. It specifies no offense, but demands that I surrender
myself in to law enforcement.
Yes, it is an official government document.
lex...@ix.netcom.com
Attuarii wrote:
> lex...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> >
> > Noodles Jefferson wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Two exceptions come to mind. One is, of course, neo-conservatism and
> >> related ideologies that have utilized the State and industrial
> >> apparatus to spread its views violently around the world and to
> >> threaten fundamental liberties.
> >
> > Snort. You *are* a conspiracy theory-monger of the highest order.
> >
> > I'm still waiting to see what "fundamental liberties" have been
> > threatened by the "neo-Cons." It wasn't them who voted to allow the
> > government to disarm the citizenry in times of emergency, for example.
>
> Germar Rudolf was deported to serve a prison term for writing a book.
Deporting foreign criminals is a concept that precedes neo-Cons. We've
had extradition treaties for rather a long time. Not new.
> There has also been a considerable erosion of
> the protections of our right to privacy.
Indeed?
1) Which Amendement specifies a "right to privacy?"
2) How has this right been eroded by neo-Cons?
> I have the most amazing document
> sitting on my desk. It specifies no offense, but demands that I surrender
> myself in to law enforcement.
What, selective service? Jury duty? These rather precede neo-Cons.
Attuarii
>
> Attuarii wrote:
>> lex...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Noodles Jefferson wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> Two exceptions come to mind. One is, of course, neo-conservatism and
>> >> related ideologies that have utilized the State and industrial
>> >> apparatus to spread its views violently around the world and to
>> >> threaten fundamental liberties.
>> >
>> > Snort. You *are* a conspiracy theory-monger of the highest order.
>> >
>> > I'm still waiting to see what "fundamental liberties" have been
>> > threatened by the "neo-Cons." It wasn't them who voted to allow the
>> > government to disarm the citizenry in times of emergency, for example.
>>
>> Germar Rudolf was deported to serve a prison term for writing a book.
>
> Deporting foreign criminals is a concept that precedes neo-Cons. We've
> had extradition treaties for rather a long time. Not new.
There is no Constitutionally valid law which permits the deportation of a
person to be punished for writing a book. Any such law would abridge the
freedom of speech and of the press. If you cannot understand that, then
there really isn't anything I can do to help you.
>> I have the most amazing document
>> sitting on my desk. It specifies no offense, but demands that I
>> surrender myself in to law enforcement.
>
> What, selective service? Jury duty? These rather precede neo-Cons.
Selective service? Jury duty? No Scott, that is not what I am talking
about.
lex...@ix.netcom.com
Attuarii wrote:
> lex...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> >
> > Attuarii wrote:
> >> lex...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Noodles Jefferson wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> Two exceptions come to mind. One is, of course, neo-conservatism and
> >> >> related ideologies that have utilized the State and industrial
> >> >> apparatus to spread its views violently around the world and to
> >> >> threaten fundamental liberties.
> >> >
> >> > Snort. You *are* a conspiracy theory-monger of the highest order.
> >> >
> >> > I'm still waiting to see what "fundamental liberties" have been
> >> > threatened by the "neo-Cons." It wasn't them who voted to allow the
> >> > government to disarm the citizenry in times of emergency, for example.
> >>
> >> Germar Rudolf was deported to serve a prison term for writing a book.
> >
> > Deporting foreign criminals is a concept that precedes neo-Cons. We've
> > had extradition treaties for rather a long time. Not new.
>
> There is no Constitutionally valid law which permits the deportation of a
> person to be punished for writing a book. Any such law would abridge the
> freedom of speech and of the press.
Ah, no. Those apply to *US* *Citizens*. Foreign citizens living in the
US do *not* have the same rights as citizens. Can't vote, right to
firearms is curtailed, can't protest the US government, can't run for
office.
If you cannot understand that, then there really isn't anything I can
do to help you.
In any event, I fail to see how the extradition of foreign nationals is
somehow the fault of the "neo-Cons."
> >> I have the most amazing document
> >> sitting on my desk. It specifies no offense, but demands that I
> >> surrender myself in to law enforcement.
> >
> > What, selective service? Jury duty? These rather precede neo-Cons.
>
> Selective service? Jury duty? No Scott, that is not what I am talking
> about.
Well, since you have chosen not to explain, you leave it to the reader
to guess. Perhaps it's one of those stings the cops run every now and
then on dumbass criminals?
Attuarii
Where in the Constitution does it say that the First Article of Amendment
only applies to US Citizens? I should also mention that there are clear
statutes which dictate that Rudolf should have been granted asylum.
> If you cannot understand that, then there really isn't anything I can
> do to help you.
>
> In any event, I fail to see how the extradition of foreign nationals is
> somehow the fault of the "neo-Cons."
Chertoff is a Neocon.
>> Selective service? Jury duty? No Scott, that is not what I am talking
>> about.
>
> Well, since you have chosen not to explain, you leave it to the reader
> to guess.
How can I explain what has not been explained to me?
http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=31537&Disp=0
Noodles Jefferson
> Noodles Jefferson wrote:
>
> > Two exceptions come to mind. One is, of course, neo-conservatism and
> > related ideologies that have utilized the State and industrial
> > apparatus to spread its views violently around the world and to
> > threaten fundamental liberties.
>
> Snort. You *are* a conspiracy theory-monger of the highest order.
Nice try, but no. The foreign and domestic policies of this
administration followed quite closely the radical reworking of the
world advocated by theorists loosely termed "neo-conservatives", as
anyone who's kept track of the political happenings of the past several
years can attest. It would be difficult, except by an effort to do so,
to miss that fact. Since their theories were in conflict with reality,
they've become bogged down in Iraq before accomplishing their
utopian/dystopian goals, and yet it remains that the mere attempt has
unleashed further and further extremism.
When utopian/dytopian extremists have control of a militarily powerful
nation, the inevitable miscalculation which arises from their fantasies
can often set in motion a chain of violence. It hasn't helped that this
ideology has been wed in this Administration with incompetence,
ignorance, greed, and corruption. Hopefully rational, realistic people
can regain control of the US before it spirals any further
out-of-control.
> I'm still waiting to see what "fundamental liberties" have been
> threatened by the "neo-Cons."
If you're still waiting, you haven't been paying attention, because
it's the topic of widespread controversy in the US, we've talked about
it here, and I have provided a series of links. Among the few who
haven't "got it" have been those who self-censor their reading by
dismissing contrary views as "the MSM", "the liberal media", etc.
But I think I reached the "why bother?" with you point on this one long
ago. A genuine effort to expand your experience or knowledge is
necessary. As far as I can tell, you've never utilized any of the
resources I have recommended, and that suggests an indifference to
knowledge that you'll have to remedy yourself.
***
My links
http://www.ericandsuzanne.com/Links.html
***
Attuarii
> lex...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>> Noodles Jefferson wrote:
>>
>> > Two exceptions come to mind. One is, of course, neo-conservatism and
>> > related ideologies that have utilized the State and industrial
>> > apparatus to spread its views violently around the world and to
>> > threaten fundamental liberties.
>>
>> Snort. You *are* a conspiracy theory-monger of the highest order.
>
> Nice try, but no. The foreign and domestic policies of this
> administration followed quite closely the radical reworking of the
> world advocated by theorists loosely termed "neo-conservatives", as
> anyone who's kept track of the political happenings of the past several
> years can attest. It would be difficult, except by an effort to do so,
> to miss that fact. Since their theories were in conflict with reality,
> they've become bogged down in Iraq before accomplishing their
> utopian/dystopian goals, and yet it remains that the mere attempt has
> unleashed further and further extremism.
The way I interpret things, they are exactly where they wanted to be, with
the exception that their secrecy is coming unraveled. There was no exit
strategy in Iraq, there is no intention of pulling out until the oil runs
out.
> When utopian/dytopian extremists have control of a militarily powerful
> nation, the inevitable miscalculation which arises from their fantasies
> can often set in motion a chain of violence. It hasn't helped that this
> ideology has been wed in this Administration with incompetence,
> ignorance, greed, and corruption. Hopefully rational, realistic people
> can regain control of the US before it spirals any further
> out-of-control.
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking
at the root."
"Strike the Root"
> If you're still waiting, you haven't been paying attention, because
> it's the topic of widespread controversy in the US, we've talked about
> it here, and I have provided a series of links. Among the few who
> haven't "got it" have been those who self-censor their reading by
> dismissing contrary views as "the MSM", "the liberal media", etc.
Whateverhappenedto Sandra Day O'Connor?
Scott Lowther
>lex...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>
>>Noodles Jefferson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Two exceptions come to mind. One is, of course, neo-conservatism and
>>>related ideologies that have utilized the State and industrial
>>>apparatus to spread its views violently around the world and to
>>>threaten fundamental liberties.
>>>
>>>
>>Snort. You *are* a conspiracy theory-monger of the highest order.
>>
>>
>
>Nice try, but no. The foreign and domestic policies of this
>administration followed quite closely the radical reworking of the
>world advocated by theorists loosely termed "neo-conservatives", as
>anyone who's kept track of the political happenings of the past several
>years can attest. It would be difficult, except by an effort to do so,
>to miss that fact. Since their theories were in conflict with reality,
>they've become bogged down in Iraq before accomplishing their
>utopian/dystopian goals, and yet it remains that the mere attempt has
>unleashed further and further extremism.
>
>When utopian/dytopian extremists have control of a militarily powerful
>nation, the inevitable miscalculation which arises from their fantasies
>can often set in motion a chain of violence. It hasn't helped that this
>ideology has been wed in this Administration with incompetence,
>ignorance, greed, and corruption. Hopefully rational, realistic people
>can regain control of the US before it spirals any further
>out-of-control.
>
>
Yup. Whackadoodle conspiracy mongering, as I said.
>
>
>>I'm still waiting to see what "fundamental liberties" have been
>>threatened by the "neo-Cons."
>>
>>
>
>If you're still waiting, you haven't been paying attention, because
>it's the topic of widespread controversy in the US, we've talked about
>it here, and I have provided a series of links.
>
I *have* been paying attention, and hearing a lot of bleating about
rights that don't exist, or infractions that don't exist.
>But I think I reached the "why bother?" with you point on this one long
>ago. A genuine effort to expand your experience or knowledge is
>necessary.
>
Here's your shot: what *actual* rights have you lost? Be specific.
Scott Lowther
lex...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Ah, no. Those apply to *US* *Citizens*. Foreign citizens living in the US do *not* have the same rights as citizens. Can't vote, right to firearms is curtailed, can't protest the US government, can't run for office.Where in the Constitution does it say that the First Article of Amendment only applies to US Citizens?
And I'll again point out that foreigners don;t get to vote. They don;t even get to donate to state or federal political campaigns.
If you cannot understand that, then there really isn't anything I can do to help you. In any event, I fail to see how the extradition of foreign nationals is somehow the fault of the "neo-Cons."Chertoff is a Neocon.
Selective service? Jury duty? No Scott, that is not what I am talking about.Well, since you have chosen not to explain, you leave it to the reader to guess.How can I explain what has not been explained to me?
El Barbaro del Ritmo
> The way I interpret things, they are exactly where they wanted to be, with
> the exception that their secrecy is coming unraveled. There was no exit
> strategy in Iraq, there is no intention of pulling out until the oil runs
> out.
Peter Galbraith reviews a number of books concerning the issue of Iraq
in the latest New York Review of Books. While I differ with his
partition plan as elaborated in his own book, the NYRB article is
recommended.
***
Electronic Intifada, Electronic Iraq, Electronic Lebanon
http://www.electronicintifada.net
Middle East Report Online
http://www.merip.org/mero/mero.html
Informed Comment
http://www.juancole.com
El Barbaro del Ritmo
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19197
Scott, take note...Like all scholars of recent US political and
intellectual history, Galbraith notes the influence of
neo-conservatism, ideologically and via individuals in the
Administration. Dismissing that influence as a "conspiracy theory" is
akin to dismissing claims that "supply-side" economic theory and
theorists influenced Reagan era policies or that William Julius Wilson
had influence during the Clinton era or that Harrington's "The Other
America" was an influence on New Frontier and Great Society policies.
lex...@ix.netcom.com
El Barbaro del Ritmo wrote:
> Forgot to include the link:
>
> http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19197
>
> Scott, take note...Like all scholars of recent US political and
> intellectual history, Galbraith notes the influence of
> neo-conservatism, ideologically and via individuals in the
> Administration.
Then he differes with conspiracy mongers like yourself. it's one thing
to note an "influence," which nobnody would disagree with, and to crank
out wild-eyed paranoia like:
"When utopian/dytopian extremists have control of a militarily powerful
nation, the inevitable miscalculation which arises from their fantasies
can often set in motion a chain of violence. It hasn't helped that this
ideology has been wed in this Administration with incompetence,
ignorance, greed, and corruption. Hopefully rational, realistic people
can regain control of the US before it spirals any further
out-of-control."
Can you see the difference? If not, you can't be either helped, or
reasonably debated.
Still waiting to hear what essnetial liberties you've lost due to
neo-cons.
El Barbaro del Ritmo
> Then he differes with conspiracy mongers like yourself. it's one thing
> to note an "influence," which nobnody would disagree with, and to crank
> out wild-eyed paranoia like:
I wrote:
> "When utopian/dytopian extremists have control of a militarily powerful
> nation, the inevitable miscalculation which arises from their fantasies
> can often set in motion a chain of violence. It hasn't helped that this
> ideology has been wed in this Administration with incompetence,
> ignorance, greed, and corruption. Hopefully rational, realistic people
> can regain control of the US before it spirals any further
> out-of-control."
Galbraith wrote:
"Saddam could not imagine that the United States would see an advantage
in replacing him with a pro-Iranian, Shiite-dominated regime. Knowing
very little about American politics, he could not grasp the ideological
fervor of the Pentagon neoconservatives who believed Iraq's democratic
transformation would revolutionize the Middle East. Rumsfeld and the
neoconservatives could not imagine that Iraqis would not embrace
liberation and pro-Western democracy and they assumed that both the
invasion and occupation to follow would be easy. For the American
generals, to challenge the petty tyrant on the Potomac could have ended
their careers; for their Iraqi counterparts, taking on the tyrant on
the Tigris could have ended their lives."
Had you made yourself familiar with any of the recent works concerning
the war, you'd find a similar position expressed by most observers-
namely, that policies arose due to the influence of
ideologically-oriented neo-conservatives with the inevitable
miscalculation that accompanies such a failure to think and act
realistically and rationally. Far from "wild-eyed paranoia" or "a
conspiracy theory" or any other cute phrase you use to evade reality,
the consequences of neo-con influence has been precisely the spiralling
violence of which I spoke, but which is hardly a minority view.
> Can you see the difference? If not, you can't be either helped, or
> reasonably debated.
Again, the problem is your unwillingness to avail yourself of the
available knowledge and information. Did you ever read even Halper and
Clarke's "America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order",
as recommended a year or two ago? One reason I recommended it is
because one of the authors considers himself a Reagan Republican. How
about Lieven's "America Right or Wrong"? Bacevich's "The New American
Militarism" (recommended partly because he is a former contributor to
"The Weekly Standard")?
> Still waiting to hear what essnetial liberties you've lost due to
> neo-cons.
A case in point. Pursue the links and read the books I recommended in
our previous discussions. Go to civil liberties websites and read the
available documentation. It isn't my job to transcribe information here
when you've shown what appears to be no interest in expanding your
knowledge. Stop "waiting".
***
ACLU
http://www.aclu.org/
CCR
http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/home.asp
El Barbaro del Ritmo
> conspiracy monger
> wild-eyed paranoia
Let's break it down to see where, beyond the buzzwords above, you and I
stand and the political and intellectual history of our times.
"When utopian/dytopian extremists have control of a militarily powerful
nation, the inevitable miscalculation which arises from their fantasies
can often set in motion a chain of violence."
Neo-conservatism is inescapably an ideology based on a
utopian/dystopian vision. It's use of military power to promote that
vision- the death of thousands in that cause- is inescapably extreme.
That the ideology had control is evident by the policies pursued, as in
Iraq, and by the placement of neo-cons in key roles, particularly in
the Department of Defense and the Vice President's office. That a chain
of violence has been set in motion is undeniable, as the opportunity to
address extremism effectively in the days that followed 9/11 was
abandoned in favor of long-standing neo-conservative ideological goals.
All of these are common views among scholars and observers.
"It hasn't helped that this ideology has been wed in this
Administration with incompetence, ignorance, greed, and corruption."
The incompetence, ignorance, greed, and corruption of this
Administration has been well-documented.
"Hopefully rational, realistic people can regain control of the US
before it spirals any further out-of-control."
This is a statement made by an eternal optimist- I am hopeful that the
damage done can be remedied in time, though it will be a long and
difficult process.
There's no "wild-eyed paranoia" above, there's only your unwillingness
to inform yourself.
lex...@ix.netcom.com
El Barbaro del Ritmo wrote:
> Clarke's "America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order",
> as recommended a year or two ago?
As with all the books you mention, I sat down on the balcony at B&N and
read for awhile, yes. I had once done the same at Borders with the book
David Duke released a few years ago. The shallow and artificial
historical narrative of "America Alone" in the service of
simplistic bigotry was very similar to Duke's narrative about the Jews.
History's more complex and interesting, and so's the world today, than
any bigoted narrative, with experience and knowledge having the added
benefit of providing actual solutions to real problems.
> > Still waiting to hear what essnetial liberties you've lost due to
> > neo-cons.
>
> A case in point. Pursue the links and read the books I recommended in
> our previous discussions.
So, once again, you refuse to answer a simple question.
Here's the thing, Eric: I *have* perused the crackpot websites and
books you'd referenced. There's a whole lot of wild-eyed handwaving,
but nothing substantive. Hell, they're bitching about the NSA program
that looked at phone records and screaming that this is an invasion of
their privacy and first amendment rights by the neo-Cons... and yet
they don't seem to realize that the USSC ruled it legal in *1979.*
So. Can you even answer the question in your *own* words? What
essential liberties have you lost?
If you can't, or won't, answer that question, the only conclusion that
a reasonable person can draw is that you are being arguementative for
no better reason than to be arguementative. if you *do* imagine you've
lost specific liberties, bring 'em out and discuss them openly and
honestly, and don't hide behind some whackadoodle website. As with your
environmental hysteria, you *won't* convince me with your appeals to
authority. Nobody *ever* convinces me with appeals to authority.
El Barbaro del Ritmo
> So. Can you even answer the question in your *own* words? What
> essential liberties have you lost?
>
> If you can't, or won't, answer that question, the only conclusion that
> a reasonable person can draw is that you are being arguementative for
> no better reason than to be arguementative. if you *do* imagine you've
> lost specific liberties, bring 'em out and discuss them openly and
> honestly, and don't hide behind some whackadoodle website. As with your
> environmental hysteria, you *won't* convince me with your appeals to
> authority. Nobody *ever* convinces me with appeals to authority.
No, thanks. I see no reason to repeat my previous commentaries on the
issue. You've demonstrated no genuine interest. If you cannot see what
even the courts have seen, what even many Republican legislators have
seen, if you didn't listen on previous occasions, then you aren't truly
interested.
I will note that I have not "appealed to authority" in this or any
other debate. I have appealed to experience, knowledge, and having a
clue. I have suggested that you inform yourself.
***
Natural Resources Defense Council US Policy and Law page
http://www.nrdc.org/legislation/legwatch.asp
lex...@ix.netcom.com
El Barbaro del Ritmo wrote:
> > So. Can you even answer the question in your *own* words? What
> > essential liberties have you lost?
> >
> > If you can't, or won't, answer that question, the only conclusion that
> > a reasonable person can draw is that you are being arguementative for
> > no better reason than to be arguementative. if you *do* imagine you've
> > lost specific liberties, bring 'em out and discuss them openly and
> > honestly, and don't hide behind some whackadoodle website. As with your
> > environmental hysteria, you *won't* convince me with your appeals to
> > authority. Nobody *ever* convinces me with appeals to authority.
>
> No, thanks.
Sigh.
> I will note that I have not "appealed to authority" in this or any
> other debate.
Yes, you have. In this, as in most debates, you do not provide an
arguement so much as a list of refereneces and the calim that they
should be believed because they are the experts.
lex...@ix.netcom.com
El Barbaro del Ritmo wrote:
> > conspiracy monger
> > wild-eyed paranoia
>
> Let's break it down to see where, beyond the buzzwords above, you and I
> stand and the political and intellectual history of our times.
>
> "When utopian/dytopian extremists have control of a militarily powerful
>
> nation, the inevitable miscalculation which arises from their fantasies
>
> can often set in motion a chain of violence."
>
> Neo-conservatism is inescapably an ideology based on a
> utopian/dystopian vision.
And liberalism is different?
> The incompetence, ignorance, greed, and corruption of this
> Administration has been well-documented.
By those with an ideological need for it to be so.
>
> "Hopefully rational, realistic people can regain control of the US
> before it spirals any further out-of-control."
>
> This is a statement made by an eternal optimist-
Inescapably an ideology based on a utopian/dystopian vision.
Attuarii
> So. Can you even answer the question in your *own* words? What
> essential liberties have you lost?
The right to live in a country in which government officials are held
accountable for their actions.
lex...@ix.netcom.com
El Barbaro del Ritmo wrote:
> I have suggested that you inform yourself.
"Children arrested, DNA tested, interrogated and locked up... for
playing in a tree"
GASP! Must've been NeoCons!
lex...@ix.netcom.com
El Barbaro del Ritmo wrote:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000953----000-.html
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 45 > § 953
§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without
authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or
carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign
government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence
the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or
agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the
United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be
fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or
both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself
or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for
redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government
or any of its agents or subjects.
----
Ruh-roh... somebody better tell those neo-Cons Kerry ands Sheehan!
El Barbaro del Ritmo
> El Barbaro del Ritmo wrote:
> > Neo-conservatism is inescapably an ideology based on a
> > utopian/dystopian vision.
>
> And liberalism is different?
Liberalism and conservatism, in their standard forms, are less
ideologies than a set of approaches and models that play out in policy
and process. A conservative's model, for instance, may hold that
government power is intrusive and his approach may be to reduce
taxation. A liberal's model may be that as a representative institution
government is an effective mechanism to address social problems, and
may hold that progressive taxation is a way to address injustice. The
common political goal is- how can we address problems rationally and
make society better.
Neo-conservatism, like Trotskyism or any number of other ideological
visions, doesn't posit an incremental and policy-based approach.
Instead, it has a grand vision of a world-transformed, and in the
pursuit of this vision is willing to employ great violence, war, etc.
The extreme ideological worldview revolves around an idealized vision,
which inescapably relies on a host of "enemies" and "evil" to explain
why it hasn't been realized, and violence against these "obstacles" to
the Heavenly City in whatever form they imagine it.
Now, since liberalism and conservatism are loose terms, they contain a
variety of meanings. There are cognates among liberals to
neo-conservatism, most notably among the editors of "The New Republic"
and often those of "Dissent", whose foreign policy vision matches
closely that of the neo-cons. And the influence of ideology has colored
politics across the spectrum in the US, as the authors of "Overthrow"
and Lieven document. Eisenhower's warnings against the
military-industrial complex point to another force long distorting US
policy.
But, in general terms, yes, neo-conservatism is a great shift from
politics as usual, just as the policies of this Administration have
been a shift from preceding administrations.
> > The incompetence, ignorance, greed, and corruption of this
> > Administration has been well-documented.
>
> By those with an ideological need for it to be so.
Apparently the vast majority of commentators and several courts.
> > "Hopefully rational, realistic people can regain control of the US
> > before it spirals any further out-of-control."
> >
> > This is a statement made by an eternal optimist-
>
> Inescapably an ideology based on a utopian/dystopian vision.
You should also learn a bit more about "utopianism" so that you can
distinguish it from "optimism".
On the civil liberties discussion, for those with a genuine interest in
further research, my Links page provides some useful resources (in
addition to groups whose focus is civil liberties, sites such as the
New York Review of Books, Salon and Alternet have good archival
material), and these are helpful as well....
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bush_administration_vs._the_U.S._Constitution
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=11188
It's also good to review Administration policies against the
Constitution, whether attempts to suppress free speech and free
assembly, or attempts to overturn due process, or attempts to seize
greater power for the executive, or evading requirements of treaties,
or evading the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure,
the imposition of cruel and unusual punishment, ad infinitum.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html
lex...@ix.netcom.com
El Barbaro del Ritmo wrote:
Saddam's WMD hidden in Syria, says Iraq survey chief
By Con Coughlin
(Filed: 25/01/2004)
"David Kay, the former head of the coalition's hunt for Iraq's weapons
of mass destruction, yesterday claimed that part of Saddam Hussein's
secret weapons programme was hidden in Syria."
http://www.nysun.com/article/26514
Iraq's WMD Secreted in Syria, Sada Says
"The man who served as the no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein's air force
says Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war
by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger
seats were removed."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050427-121915-1667r.htm
CIA can't rule out WMD move to Syria
"The CIA's chief weapons inspector said he cannot rule out the
possibility that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were secretly
shipped to Syria before the March 2003 invasion, citing "sufficiently
credible" evidence that WMDs may have been moved there.
Inspector Charles Duelfer, who heads the Iraq Survey Group (ISG),
made the findings in an addendum to his final report filed last year."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041028-122637-6257r.htm
Russia tied to Iraq's missing arms
"Russian special forces troops moved many of Saddam Hussein's weapons
and related goods out of Iraq and into Syria in the weeks before the
March 2003 U.S. military operation, The Washington Times has learned.
John A. Shaw, the deputy undersecretary of defense for
international technology security, said in an interview that he
believes the Russian troops, working with Iraqi intelligence, "almost
certainly" removed the high-explosive material that went missing from
the Al-Qaqaa facility, south of Baghdad. "
http://70.168.46.200/Released/07-24-06/ISGQ-2005-00022470.pdf
"In the day of 10 Mouharam before the coalition forces started the war
on Iraq, 50 trucks for land transportation entered Syria on an
intermittent convoy. I met some of the drivers and they did not know
what they carried in these trucks. These trucks were loaded from an
unknown location in Baghdad and was brought to the drivers and the
Iraqi Intelligence was with them. Each time they crossed a certain
distance, the Iraqi Intelligence stopped them and asked them what are
they carrying and their answer was we do not know. And when these
trucks arrived to Syria in the area of Deir Al Zour the drivers were
taken out of their trucks and the Syrian Intelligence ride instead.
These trucks were entered into large warehouses and when these trucks
were emptied it was given back to the Iraqi drivers. And they were
given a reward worth of 200 dollars for the safety of arrival."
Ah, but I suppose this is the wrong sort of "information." It does not
support the proper ideological conclusions.
lex...@ix.netcom.com
El Barbaro del Ritmo wrote:
> Neo-conservatism, like Trotskyism or any number of other ideological
> visions, doesn't posit an incremental and policy-based approach.
> Instead, it has a grand vision of a world-transformed, and in the
> pursuit of this vision is willing to employ great violence, war, etc.
So is every political view. Liberals were more than happy to bomb the
shit out of Serbs, for example.
> The extreme ideological worldview revolves around an idealized vision,
> which inescapably relies on a host of "enemies" and "evil" to explain
> why it hasn't been realized, and violence against these "obstacles" to
> the Heavenly City in whatever form they imagine it.
I can't recall seeing any "Heavenly City" references in the Neo-Con
Weekly Newsletter.
> But, in general terms, yes, neo-conservatism is a great shift from
> politics as usual, just as the policies of this Administration have
> been a shift from preceding administrations.
You think maybe having World War Four dumped in the administrations lap
might have had something to do with it? Interring Japs was a new thing
that the FDR administration thought up. Nuking Japs was something
nobody prior to Truman had done. Cutting off relations with Cuba was
new to Kennedy.
When situations change... polices had *better* change.
> > > The incompetence, ignorance, greed, and corruption of this
> > > Administration has been well-documented.
> >
> > By those with an ideological need for it to be so.
>
> Apparently the vast majority of commentators and several courts.
Indeed so. "Commentators" tend to have ideological leanings, in case
you were unaware. And courts... well, I fail to recall when Bush,
Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Rice, etc. have been put in the slammer.
> On the civil liberties discussion, for those with a genuine interest in
> further research, my Links page provides some useful resources
That's nice. Do you know what they are? Can you articulate your
concerns regarding civil liberties?
> It's also good to review Administration policies against the
> Constitution, whether attempts to suppress free speech and free
> assembly,
Where? I see protests all the time. Haven't seen anyone muzzled yet.
> or attempts to overturn due process
Where?
>, or attempts to seize
> greater power for the executive,
Every President does that.
> or evading requirements of treaties,
Which ones?
> or evading the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure,
Where? Or do you mean the long-growing War On Drugs no-knock approach
to law enforcement, or the "Shoot any male with a weapon" approach used
at ruby Ridge? Not a problem that *this* administration started.
> the imposition of cruel and unusual punishment,
Upon what US citizen?
El Barbaro del Ritmo
> Ah, but I suppose this is the wrong sort of "information." It does not
> support the proper ideological conclusions.
To the contrary, as with the propaganda that preceded and promoted the
Iraq war, the problem is inadequate information. If you're still
uncritical of information provided by The Washington Times and similar
sources at this point, you're the cause of your own disinformation.
http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?ID=8211 adds some depth to
Kay's unverifiable opinion. What he actually does know is that WMDs
weren't found in Iraq, because he looked far and wide. What other
observers think vis a vis the possibility of a transfer to Syria is
that 1. there was nothing to transfer and 2. that Syria wouldn't be
given any if there had been.
And again we come back to the very old conversations about the
justifications and illegality of the war, of the propaganda "threat"
posed by Iraq, etc. I don't buy the fear and it's obvious that the war
has made things worse.
I've found that http://medimatters.org is a good place to get beyond
the talking points and political propaganda distributed first to and
then from The Washington Times, etc.
El Barbaro del Ritmo
> the talking points and political propaganda distributed first to and
> then from The Washington Times, etc.
That is, http://mediamatters.org
I may visit Usenet this weekend, but I think we're beating that dead
horse again, Scott, but thanks for helping me pass a slow Friday
morning. With just me, you, and Steven going on in predictable ways on
rehashed subjects, I'm gonna spend my energies elsewhere than
continuing in this thread. If you're really interested in the issues,
pursue some of the recommended reading I've suggested these past couple
of years. It covers a wide range of opinion from Reaganites up.
***
lex...@ix.netcom.com
El Barbaro del Ritmo wrote:
> I may visit Usenet this weekend, but I think we're beating that dead
> horse again,
That's because you rarely engage beyond making the assumption that the
reason why someone disagrees with you is because they are ignorant or
stupid. It's a common enough conceit among the Left.
> If you're really interested in the issues,
> pursue some of the recommended reading I've suggested these past couple
> of years.
I have, as always. However, the thing you fail to understand is that
even though *you* might believe your sides spin, that doesn't mean it's
necessarily believable to someone who digs deeper or in another
direction.
lex...@ix.netcom.com
El Barbaro del Ritmo wrote:
> > Ah, but I suppose this is the wrong sort of "information." It does not
> > support the proper ideological conclusions.
>
> To the contrary, as with the propaganda that preceded and promoted the
> Iraq war, the problem is inadequate information. If you're still
> uncritical of information provided by The Washington Times and similar
> sources at this point, you're the cause of your own disinformation.
I'm not uncritical of the Washington Times. I am far less interested in
their spin than in their primary sources.
> http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?ID=8211 adds some depth to
> Kay's unverifiable opinion. What he actually does know is that WMDs
> weren't found in Iraq, because he looked far and wide. What other
> observers think vis a vis the possibility of a transfer to Syria is
> that 1. there was nothing to transfer and 2. that Syria wouldn't be
> given any if there had been.
3. That rather a large amount of cargo was sent to Syria jsut before
the war
4. That it was in Saddam's (as well as Russia's, and likely France's)
best interest to do so
5. That there ahve been numerous eye-witness accounts of such transfers
6. That there have been numerous pre-war Iraqi documents that say that
Iraq had active WMD programs
7. That there have been numerous pre- and during-war Iraqi documents
that describe such WMD shipments to the Ba'athist regiem in Syria
> I've found that http://medimatters.org is a good place ...
It's a very biased and bigotted site. I notice that they call Glenn
Beck's program "hate speech." And you talk smack about FreeRepublic.
Pfff.
Scott Lowther
>
> I have suggested that you inform yourself.
>
>
More vile loss-of-liberties thanks to the neo-Cons!
http://www.wkyc.com/news/watercooler/watercooler_article.aspx?storyid=55240
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) -- A woman in Columbus may lose her long-time vanity
license plate because the state now says it's obscene.
Pat Niple (NY'-puhl) has had a plate with the letters N-W-T-F. She says
they're short for "Northwood Tree Farm," a Christmas tree business she
and her late husband owned.
But the 74-year-old recently got a letter from the Bureau of Motor
Vehicles saying the personalized plate violates the agency's standards
against profanity.
At a BMV office, Niple says she was told the letters are an abbreviation
popular online. She says a clerk whispered it stands for a phrase
beginning with, "Now what the."
Niple plans to appeal. In the meantime, she's got temporary tags.
----------
Clearly, this is part of the conspiracy between the neo-Cons, the
Illuminati and the Bilderbergers. Let's just hope she uses her own name
on the new vanity plates.
Scott Lowther
Reuters employee issues 'Zionist pig' death threat
Worker suspended after telling American blogger: 'I look forward to day
when you pigs get your throats cut'
Attuarii
> http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3256534,00.html
>
> Reuters employee issues 'Zionist pig' death threat
>
>
>
> Worker suspended after telling American blogger: 'I look forward to day
> when you pigs get your throats cut'
Bunglawala, who contirbuted an editorial to the Guardian website, has
attracted negative attention in the past after making anti-Semitic
outbursts, and has declared that the British media
was "Zionist-controlled."
Why is observing that the British media is Zionist
controlled "anti-Semitic"?
Scott Lowther
>Scott Lowther wrote:
>
>
>
>>http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3256534,00.html
>>
>>Reuters employee issues 'Zionist pig' death threat
>>
>>
>>
>>Worker suspended after telling American blogger: 'I look forward to day
>>when you pigs get your throats cut'
>>
>>
>
>
>Bunglawala, who contirbuted an editorial to the Guardian website, has
>attracted negative attention in the past after making anti-Semitic
>outbursts, and has declared that the British media
>was "Zionist-controlled."
>
>Why is observing that the British media is Zionist
>controlled "anti-Semitic"?
>
>
Something to do with the anti-Jewish death threats, I believe.
Attuarii
> Attuarii wrote:
>
>>Scott Lowther wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3256534,00.html
>>>
>>>Reuters employee issues 'Zionist pig' death threat
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Worker suspended after telling American blogger: 'I look forward to day
>>>when you pigs get your throats cut'
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>Bunglawala, who contirbuted an editorial to the Guardian website, has
>>attracted negative attention in the past after making anti-Semitic
>>outbursts, and has declared that the British media
>>was "Zionist-controlled."
>>
>>Why is observing that the British media is Zionist
>>controlled "anti-Semitic"?
>>
>>
> Something to do with the anti-Jewish death threats, I believe.
No.