Entheogenic Sufism
wahid...@gmail.com
"The word entheogen is a modern term derived from two Ancient Greek
words, ενθεος (entheos) and γενεσθαι (genesthai). Entheos
means literally "in God", more freely translated "inspired". The Greeks
used it as a term of praise for poets and other artists. Genesthai
means "to cause to be". So an entheogen is "that which causes (a
person) to be in God". The translation "creating the divine within"
that is sometimes given is not quite correct -- entheogen implies
neither that something is created (as opposed to just perceiving
something that is already there) nor that that which is experienced is
within the user (as opposed to having independent existence)...
The term "entheogen" was coined in 1979 by a group of ethnobotanists
and scholars of mythology (Carl A. P. Ruck, Jeremy Bigwood, Danny
Staples, Richard Evans Schultes, Jonathan Ott and R. Gordon Wasson).
The term was coined as a replacement for the terms "hallucinogen"
(popularized by Aldous Huxley's experiences with mescaline, published
as The Doors of Perception in 1953) and "psychedelic" (a Greek
neologism for "soul-expanding", coined by psychiatrist Humphry Osmond,
a friend of Huxley's). Ruck et al. argued that the term "hallucinogen"
was inappropriate due to its etymological relationship to words
relating to delirium and insanity. The term "psychedelic" was also seen
as problematic, due to the similarity in sound to words pertaining to
psychosis and also due to the fact that it had become irreversibly
associated with various connotations of 1960s pop culture.
The meanings of the term "entheogen" were formally defined by Ruck et
al.:
In a strict sense, only those vision-producing drugs that can be shown
to have figured in shamanic or religious rites would be designated
entheogens....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entheogen
Those interested in the topic from a comparative esoteric POV are
welcome to join the list. The scope of the list is primarily for
scholarly and academic research purposes in regard to entheogens as it
pertains in the Sufi mileu.
The list's description is the following,
The group is dedicated to discussions of entheogens as it pertains to
the universe of Sufism specifically. Topics include the use of
entheogens such as Acacia and Syrian Rue as well as brews such as
theIranian Dugh-i-Vahdat, as well as others similar, partaken in the
more heterodox mileu of the spiritual universe of Sufism.
Regards,
Wahid
PaxAmericana
have to do with a mental illness like Islam?
Pax Americana
<wahid...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1125198240....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/entheos_sufi/
"The word entheogen is a modern term derived from two Ancient Greek
words, ?????? (entheos) and ???????? (genesthai). Entheos
azo6...@yahoo.co.uk
>have to do with a mental illness like Islam?
>Pax Americana
now you are confusing sufism wih islam ....sufism ( theoSOPHia in greek
means divine wisdom) is as much semitic as greek ..............yes,
islam like any other western religion is a mental affliction ......
take care
azo
PaxAmericana
Pax Americana
<azo6...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1125331109....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
obov...@aol.com
> Hmmmmm, I see that I need to dig more deeply into this!
Some people can tell the differance between opinion and fact.
Far fewer can tell the differance between fact and knowledge.
Rarer still is an acquaintance with wisdom.
If you seek wisdom, look for the teachings of the Sufi.
To state that Sufism is Islamic Mysticism, is but opinion, no matter
how widely held.
Take Care,
obo
Eric
<<
The Greeks were and are a rational people. What would they
or their words have to do with a mental illness like Islam?
>>
Azo wrote:
<<
now you are confusing sufism wih islam ....sufism
( theoSOPHia in greek means divine wisdom) is as much
semitic as greek ..............yes, islam like any other western
religion is a mental affliction ......
>>
PaxAmericana" wrote:
<<
Hmmmmm, I see that I need to dig more deeply into this!
>>
Hi,
I wish you well in your search, and the more you dig, the more you'll become
aware of just how much digging needs to be done. At the intellectual level,
for example, the Sufi Idries Shah wrote some thirty-or-so books.
Here are a few very basic samples of Sufi wisdom to ponder:
It's said that there are three kinds of knowledge. The first is intellectual
information, ideas, opinions and regurgitating 'facts' about (say) an
orange; the second is emotional experience, like the feel or aroma of an
orange; the last - actually eating, digesting and assimilating the fruit. It
has also been likened to the idea of being a blacksmith; that of observing a
blacksmith in action; and that of actually practising the art of
blacksmithing. Most people rarely venture outside the first two levels.
Here are a couple of magazine interviews with Shah (with many thanks to Obo
for originally typing them in). Judge for yourself whether Shah comes across
as mentally ill or extraordinarily rational:
Psychology Today magazine:
http://www.anchor92.freeserve.co.uk/article22.htm
Human Behavior magazine
http://www.anchor92.freeserve.co.uk/article23.htm
"One Pair of Eyes: Dreamwalkers" BBC TV documentary transcript:
http://www.anchor92.freeserve.co.uk/onepair.htm
Best Wishes,
Eric.
PaxAmericana
information. And this information must be based on provable facts. Facts
that are obtained as the results of REPEATABLE observations and/or
experiments. This is the scientific method (invented by our friends the
Greeks!), and it is the only real path to truth. Most religions teach that
you must first have faith, and then seek for understanding. In science,
though, the reverse is true. You seek first for understanding, and then
place your faith in what you can demonstrate to be true. Machiavelli
teaches us that we must look upon the world as it is......not as we would
like for it to be!
I will look at your magazine articles because truth cannot enter a closed
mind, but you must do the same for me. My view of the world and religion is
based on what we know today about astronomy, biology, and geology. These
sciences tell us that:
a) The universe is very large and old.
b) Everything - from stars to bugs - evolves.
c) Life most likely exists throughout the universe, not just here on Earth.
A religion which does not acknowledge and incorporate this new knowledge has
a closed mind, and will never be able to be a source of truth for its
believers.
I call religion a mental illness because the thought that one can
participate in two-way telepathy (you call it prayer) with the creator of
the universe is irrational on the face of it. One or both of you may have
seen my discussions with Randy about all of this on alt.islam. I think that
Randy was trying to convert me. :>)
Pax Americana
"Eric" <er...@anchor92.NOfreeSPAMserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:df1euj$lhr$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
azo6...@yahoo.co.uk
besides eric's links the following is also a good place to start with :
http://www.ishkbooks.com/
best of luck ...
vive!
azo
Martin Edwards
> Hmmmmm, I see that I need to dig more deeply into this!
>
> Pax Americana
Indeed. Go down South. Go to Louisiana. Not the mès chères amis, big
fun on the bayou South, but the mind numbing, featureless landscape and
degenerate Anglo-Saxon peasantry of the North of the state. Go to a
trailer park and talk about the Bible and Jesus. Go to a few tabernacle
services. The atmosphere will be indistinguishable form mental illness.
--
You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause - Chico Marx
Eric
> But we must always begin our search for wisdom with a gathering of
> information.
Yes, I quite agree, PA. First there is a need for honest information.
> And this information must be based on provable facts.
> Facts that are obtained as the results of REPEATABLE
> observations and/or experiments.
In the area of mysticism, we might need to restate that as "And this initial
information must be based on provEN facts" and for a time rely on our
mentor's honesty until we arrive at a point where we can ourselves be in a
position to assertain whether or not what we have taken on trust is
provable. And in our turn, we will have to deal with others who ask for
proof ... when they are not yet ready to find such proof in and of
themselves.
> This is the scientific method (invented by our friends the Greeks!), and
> it is the only real path to truth. Most religions teach that you must
> first have faith, and then seek for understanding. In science, though,
> the reverse is true. You seek first for understanding, and then place
> your faith in what you can demonstrate to be true. Machiavelli teaches us
> that we must look upon the world as it is......not as we would like for it
> to be!
Yes indeed. The more one delves into the Sufi way, the more one realizes how
much conditioning needs to be unlearnt in order to see things as they really
are. And how little one truly knows.
> I will look at your magazine articles because truth cannot enter a closed
> mind, but you must do the same for me. My view of the world and religion
> is based on what we know today about astronomy, biology, and geology.
> These sciences tell us that:
I'm with you there, PA. At school, I studied physics, chemistry and biology.
And I've worked in a physics laboratory; as a test engineer in an
electronics factory; as an inspector of fettled widgets in a foundry, and as
a software engineer and helpline operator in a software house. So the
scientific method and logical, rational, mindset is not entirely alien to
me.
Eric
<<
Most religions teach that you must first have faith, and then seek
for understanding.
In science, though, the reverse is true. You seek first for
understanding, and then place your faith in what you can
demonstrate to be true.
Machiavelli teaches us that we must look upon the world
as it is......not as we would like for it to be!
>>
Dear PA,
What you say is true ... when it is true. It really requires a certain
context.
What the average person calls "facts" about science amount to no more than
"hypotheses" and "theories" based upon a faith in the scientists expounding
these hypotheses and theories, scientists whose work may later be
discredted. Science is always dismissing one set of hypotheses and theories
for another. And claiming to be objective when some of its practitioners can
be demonstrated to be as subjective and fallible as any other human being.
And then there's a question of attitude. If a junior school science student
demands that his professor prove that e = mc^2, he may be told that this is
something that for now -- or until a practical demonstratiuon can be
organized -- he'll have to take on faith. And if he persists, he may be
shown the door.
Best Wishes,
Eric.
PaxAmericana
Pax Americana
"Martin Edwards" <big_m...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:df1sc1$nqd$1...@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
PaxAmericana
> In the area of mysticism, we might need to restate that as "And this
> initial information must be based on provEN facts" and for a time rely on
> our mentor's honesty until we arrive at a point where we can ourselves be
> in a position to assertain whether or not what we have taken on trust is
> provable. And in our turn, we will have to deal with others who ask for
> proof ... when they are not yet ready to find such proof in and of
> themselves.
>
Well, let me try to answer this one first..... Hmmmmm, I get nervous when
someone asks me to trust them. How has this person obtained his facts? Is
he honest? Has he used a rigorous methodology in his research? Most
importantly, can someone else reproduce his results? Reality is based on
reproducible results.....usually! Mysticism based on trust is fine for fun
or even as a serious intellectual exercise, but one cannot use it as the
foundation for one's life. How does one ascertain the truth for himself in
the absence of a rigorous methodology? In my experience, most mystical or
philosophical "truths" are arrived at through deductive reasoning only.
Eratosthenes used deductive reasoning to devise a methodology to measure the
circumference of the Earth 2200 years ago, and obtained roughly accurate
results. Hippararchus used the total eclipse of March 14, 190 BC to
accurately determine the distance to the Moon using deductive reasoning. He
also used deductive reasoning to determine the distance to the Sun, and here
he was badly off. Deductive reasoning can only give us a direction to
explore. Experiment and observation must be used to give us truth.
>
> Yes indeed. The more one delves into the Sufi way, the more one realizes
> how much conditioning needs to be unlearnt in order to see things as they
> really are. And how little one truly knows.
>
I suppose that I have been conditioned to think the way that I do. So, of
course, have all of us. However, my way of thinking has a successful track
record. The scientific method has given us the world that we have today.
Many might not think much of this world, but knowledge and technology are
not evil in themselves; only their misuse is. The scientific method has
brought us forward to the brink of routine space travel and within reach of
being able to re-engineer our very minds and bodies. We now have (at least,
in the West and in Japan) the highest average standard of living and longest
average lifespan in our history. We have instant global communications,
which you and I are now using, thanks to the scientific method. Yes, there
is still much to learn. But I can foresee a time when Man will achieve a
complete understanding of all of the major branches of science. At that
point in time, with all important questions answered, religion will be of
historical interest only.
>
> I'm with you there, PA. At school, I studied physics, chemistry and
> biology. And I've worked in a physics laboratory; as a test engineer in an
> electronics factory; as an inspector of fettled widgets in a foundry, and
> as a software engineer and helpline operator in a software house. So the
> scientific method and logical, rational, mindset is not entirely alien to
> me.
>
I am also a software engineer (31 years), and have been an active amateur
astronomer for over 50 years. Astronomical history, the history of the
"Three Religions of the Book", and Roman history have been hobbies of mine
since childhood. As a boy, I was a devout Christian. I was raised that
way. But I soon outgrew the need for it, and I could not reconcile what was
taught by Christianity with my growing knowledge of history and the sciences
(actually, Christianity has a rather shameful history, as does Islam!). I
retained the MORALITY of Christianity, but not the belief in a supernatural
being. This is all about mindset, and though I know people with both
mindsets (long-time amateur astronomers who are nevertheless devout
Christians), I cannot understand how they can keep them both in one head.
:>) How does one reconcile a knowledge of the scale of the universe with
the belief that the creator of that universe has the interest or the TIME to
pay attention to one's prayers? Likelier that you would have the ability,
interest, and time to pay attention to the prayers of a flea on the other
side of the Earth. You are closer in space, time, and intelligence to that
flea than any of us are to God. How does one come to accept stellar
evolution but not biological evolution? How does one reconcile a strong
belief in the likelihood of intelligent life throughout the universe with a
strong belief that your religion (and only your religion, of all the others
on the Earth) is the only true one. Not only your religion, but your SECT
of that religion! We have thousands of religions just here on the Earth.
How many more must there be throughout the universe, with perhaps billions
of other intelligent species (plus all of those who have undoubtedly
perished during the last 12 billion years!)? Among all of these religions,
what is special about your's?
I have too many questions....:>)
Pax Americana
"Eric" <er...@anchor92.NOfreeSPAMserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:df1u7g$ls$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
Eric
<<
Well, let me try to answer this one first..... Hmmmmm, I get nervous when
someone asks me to trust them. How has this person obtained his facts? Is
he honest? Has he used a rigorous methodology in his research? Most
importantly, can someone else reproduce his results? Reality is based on
reproducible results.....usually! Mysticism based on trust is fine for fun
or even as a serious intellectual exercise, but one cannot use it as the
foundation for one's life. How does one ascertain the truth for himself in
the absence of a rigorous methodology? In my experience, most mystical or
philosophical "truths" are arrived at through deductive reasoning only.
... snippety snip snip ... ....
I have too many questions....:>)
>>
Hi, PaxAmericana. Here's what Idries Shah has to say on the matter of
scientific thinking. He also has a few things to say about trust and the
lack of trust, which is something worth pondering over, but let's leave that
aside for now:
{{{ It is interesting to note the difference between science as we see it
today, and as it was seen by one of it's pioneers. Roger Bacon, considered
to be the wonder of the middle ages and one of humanity's greatest thinkers,
was the pioneer of the method of knowledge gained through experience. This
Franciscan monk learned from the Sufi's of the illuminist school that there
is a difference between the collection of information and the knowing of
things through actual experiment. In his Opus Maius, in which he quotes Sufi
authority, he says:
" There are two modes of knowledge, through argument and experience.
Argument brings conclusions and compels us to concede them, but it does not
cause certainty nor remove doubts in order that the mind may remain at rest
in truth, unless this is provided by experience."
This Sufi doctrine is known in the west as the scientific method of
inductive proceeding, and subsequent Western knowledge is largely based upon
it.
Modern science, however, instead of accepting the idea that experience was
necessary in all branches of human thought, took the word in its sense of
"experiment," in which the experimenter remained as far as possible outside
the experience.
From the Sufi point of view, therefore, Bacon, when he wrote these words in
1268, both launched modern science and also transmitted only a portion of
the wisdom upon which it could have been based.
"Scientific" thinking worked continuously and heroically with this partial
tradition ever since. In spite of its roots in the work of the Sufis, the
impairment of the tradition has prevented the scientific researcher from
approaching knowledge by means of itself -- by "experience," not merely by
"experiment". }}}
Idries Shah, from the Author's Preface to The Sufis.
Best Wishes,
Eric.
G...@volcanomail.com
PaxAmericana wrote:
>...How does one ascertain the truth for himself in
>the absence of a rigorous methodology? In my experience, most mystical or
>philosophical "truths" are arrived at through deductive reasoning only.
They are learned through direct experience. One reasons and assesses
things
later. Maps are made like this.
Someone, lacking this experience, once wrote to Shah with this request:
"All right, then. I'll have a basinful."
Yours,
PaxAmericana
> "hypotheses" and "theories" based upon a faith in the scientists
> expounding these hypotheses and theories, scientists whose work may later
> be discredted. Science is always dismissing one set of hypotheses and
> theories for another. And claiming to be objective when some of its
> practitioners can be demonstrated to be as subjective and fallible as any
> other human being.
>
No, no, no..... We have theories, and we have laws. A law is a theory that
has "graduated" to a certain level of certainty. The theory has been tested
over and over again over a period of many years. Of course, even such
well-known and long-standing laws as Newton's Law of Gravity can be
overturned, and was by Einstein a century ago. Relativity is still a
theory, though it has withstood a century of testing. Yes, the work of a
scientist may well discredit the work of an earlier scientist, though what I
have seen has been more of a building process. Newton once said that he had
achieved all that he had achieved because "I have stood upon the shoulders
of giants", by whom he meant Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, Galileo, and Kepler.
All scientists build upon the work of their predecessors, and this process
continues to lead us towards truth today. We have to have amassed SOME hard
knowledge, or we wouldn't be able to have this conversation!
The scientific community is a small one. Certainly the astronomical
community is. Astronomers who are sloppy lose their credibility. Honest
mistakes are made. The data can seem to indicate something not supported by
later observations. We learn from this and go on. We formulate theories
and then see how well these theories can predict reality. If they do a good
job, we keep them until something better comes along. If they don't, we
discard them. Theories are only proposed models of reality. They are often
discarded when something predicts reality better; rarely, they will graduate
to the status of a law.
The kind of learning that you're talking about -- experience and reason --
has it's place. Certainly I have learned from the experiences of my long
life, and I have successfully reasoned many things out. But when this
experience is used as evidence in an argument, the scientific community
calls it anecdotal evidence. Here is how the Wikipedia website defines
anecdotal evidence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
Pax Americana
"Eric" <er...@anchor92.NOfreeSPAMserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:df1vu6$6fv$1...@newsm1.svr.pol.co.uk...
jaye...@my-deja.com
>From these words it most clearly appears that the knowledge of the
light in man must come from within, and not from without.
The external object, as they say, or the letter, is written for the
sake of our infirmity, as a further aid to the implanted light of
grace, as also the outward spoken word is used as an auxiliary means
for the conveyance and advancement of knowledge.
For example, if a white and a black tablet were put before you, and you
were asked to say which was white and which black, you would not be
able to answer the question if you had no previous knowledge of those
colours; your ability to do so, comes, not from looking at the tablets,
but from the knowledge that before was in your mind. The object only
stirs up your perceptive faculty, and calls out the knowledge that
before was in you, but does not of itself afford that knowledge.
In the same way, if any one put into your hand a flint, and asked you
to bring outward and visible fire out of it for him, you would be
unable to do so without the steel that belongs to it, with which you
would have to elicit the spark slumbering in the stone. Moreover, you
would have to catch and fan it into flame on a piece of tinder - or
else the spark would immediately vanish again. If you do this, you will
have a bright fire, and so long as you keep it up, you will be able to
do with it whatever you like.
In the same manner, the heavenly light slumbers in the human soul, and
must be struck out by outward contact, namely, by the true faith,
through reading and hearing, and through the Holy Spirit whom Christ
restored to us, and promised to give us (John xiv.: "No man comes to
the Father but by me"), and to put into our dark, but still glowing
hearts, as into a kind of tinder, where He may be fanned and kindled
into a bright flame, working the will of God in our souls. For He
delights to dwell in light unapproachable, and in the hearts of
believers.
Although no man ever has, or ever can, see God with his outward bodily
eyes, yet with the inward eyes of the soul He may well be seen and
known. But notwithstanding that inward light casts its bright beams
over the whole world, and into the heart of every man without any
difference, the world, by reason of its innate corruptness, cannot see
it rightly, and refuses to acknowledge it; and on this account so many
false and pernicious notions are current concerning it. But we shall do
well to consider that God has, not without a good purpose, furnished
our heads with two eyes and two ears; for He would thereby teach us
that man has a double vision and a double hearing; namely, the outward
and the inward.
With the inward he is to judge spiritual things, and the outward is
also to perform its own proper office. The same distinction we find in
the spirit and the letter of Scripture. For this reason I thought fit
to explain this matter for the sake of students of the simple sort, who
might otherwise be at a loss to apprehend the full significance of the
triune Stone.
(From the Sophic Hydrolith)
Eric
<<
This is all about mindset, and though I know people with both
mindsets (long-time amateur astronomers who are nevertheless devout
Christians), I cannot understand how they can keep them both in one head.
:>)
>>
I can only speak of the Sufi way, and of that very little, but science is to
the sufi way as the way of the head is to the way of the heart. It's
perfectly okay to have apples and oranges in the same fruit bowl, if you
like.
<<
How does one reconcile a knowledge of the scale of the universe with
the belief that the creator of that universe has the interest or the TIME to
pay attention to one's prayers? Likelier that you would have the ability,
interest, and time to pay attention to the prayers of a flea on the other
side of the Earth. You are closer in space, time, and intelligence to that
flea than any of us are to God.
>>
It is said that "truth is closer than your jugular vein."
<<
How does one come to accept stellar
evolution but not biological evolution?
>>
That's for the religionists, not for the sufis. Jalaludin Rumi wrote: "I
died from minerality and became vegetable; and from vegetativeness I died
and became animal. I died from animality and became man." Shah's
contemporary, Robert Ornstein, has written books about the evolution of
consciousness ...
<<
How does one reconcile a strong belief in the likelihood of intelligent life
throughout the universe with a strong belief that your religion (and only
your religion, of all the others on the Earth) is the only true one.
>>
There are as many ways as there are stars in the night sky.
<<
Not only your religion, but your SECT of that religion!
>>
I recall an old joke in which two old guys meet up and find they have
something in common. Along the lines of "Christian?" - "Sure!" "Baptist?"
"Me, too!" ... and so on until at length they find out that they belonged to
two different and opposing splinter groups in the very same street. Maybe
someone here knows the joke? And as two fellow programmers, we too are not
immune from this tenency. Personally I dislike certain aspects of Windows
but marvel at the skill that's gone into it. And I think Linux is too geeky
and esoteric ....
<<
We have thousands of religions just here on the Earth.
How many more must there be throughout the universe, with perhaps billions
of other intelligent species (plus all of those who have undoubtedly
perished during the last 12 billion years!)? Among all of these religions,
what is special about your's?
>>
Though certain of our Islamic friends and I would beg to differ here, I
don't see the Sufi way as a religion. Dervishes (those still learning and
unlearning) are "seekers after truth".
<<
I have too many questions....:>)
>>
That's a good place to be.
Best Wishes,
Eric.
PaxAmericana
> I can only speak of the Sufi way, and of that very little, but science is
> to the sufi way as the way of the head is to the way of the heart. It's
> perfectly okay to have apples and oranges in the same fruit bowl, if you
> like.
>
Even if the apples and oranges contradict each other? That sounds more like
a path to confusion than a path to certainty, and what is truth if it is not
certain? No, while we must always be open to new ideas, we must have a view
of the world which is coherent and consistent.
>
> It is said that "truth is closer than your jugular vein."
>
Perhaps so, but from the atom to the cosmic background radiation, that truth
must account for all that we can observe. Science hasn't quite reached that
point yet, but it moves us forward. Religion does not.
>
> That's for the religionists, not for the sufis. Jalaludin Rumi wrote: "I
> died from minerality and became vegetable; and from vegetativeness I died
> and became animal. I died from animality and became man." Shah's
> contemporary, Robert Ornstein, has written books about the evolution of
> consciousness ...
>
So, you concede biological evolution?
>
> There are as many ways as there are stars in the night sky.
>
Ha! Literally! And that's my point. Truth should be objective, and the
same for all to see. Alien scientists in a solar system across the galaxy
would know essentially the same scientific truths as we do. Oh, they may
have a more advanced theory for this or that, and we may be ahead of them in
other areas, but they will have discovered the same basic laws of - say -
physics that we have, and probably agree with us on them. As far as
religion goes, though, they may have been worshiping a blue toadstool for
the last 10,000 years. Their religion would be totally different from ours.
I can see them sending missionaries here to convert us to their beliefs! My
point is, everyone will have a different set of mystic beliefs, but we will
all see science in more or less the same way. Objectively, their religion
is just as valid as yours (they revere a blue toadstool, and you revere a
large black meteorite in a box). Isn't it better to seek truth in the
material world, where the laws are universal? If truth isn't universal,
it's not truth.
>
> Though certain of our Islamic friends and I would beg to differ here, I
> don't see the Sufi way as a religion. Dervishes (those still learning and
> unlearning) are "seekers after truth".
>
I am also a seeker after truth. Having abandoned the idea of a personal god
long ago, I have come to believe that truth must be something that can be
demonstrated. Sufi is a religion if its beliefs are based on the existence
of a god.
You must understand that I have acquired an intense dislike for Islam over
the years. I'm sure that you understand why. But it goes beyond the
senseless terrorism. I fear that Islam, should it be victorious in the
struggle that we are currently engaged in, would turn Mankind away from
progress and back to the 7th century. As a species, we cannot afford to do
that. We are running out of everything on this planet, and our only hope is
to expand into the solar system and gain access to the resources waiting for
us there. Meanwhile, this silly religious war diverts resources from this
goal and wastes precious time.
Pax Americana
"Eric" <er...@anchor92.NOfreeSPAMserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:df7i37$ar1$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
Eric
<<
So, you concede biological evolution?
>>
Of course I do, based on the scientific and verifiable evidence.
And -- at the same time -- let's say that space and time are localized
phenomena and that one could stand outside those dimensions. In that case, I
see nothing wrong with the notion that the world could be created and that
this creation plays out in the dimensions of time and space as biological,
cultural and conscious evolution.
Eric wrote:
<<<<
There are as many ways as there are stars in the night sky.
>>>>
PaxAmerica wrote:
<<
Ha! Literally! And that's my point. Truth should be objective,
and the same for all to see.
>>
What I should perhaps have said is that there are as many ways to truth as
there are stars in the sky. As the Sufi Jan-Fishan once noted: "You may
follow one stream. Realize that it leads to the Ocean. Do not mistake the
stream for the Ocean." The Sufis also maintain that the phenomenal is a
bridge to the Real. Thus, ordinary human love is a bridge to what they call
real love.
Each person's experiences on the path to truth will vary acording to their
desires, their needs, their intelligence, their emotional intelligence,
their capacity, their circumstances. To examine the many and varied
experiences along the way -- especially by observers working outside that
way -- and to declare that this can't be truth since it is so subjective, is
folly. This is mistaking the subjective means of "travel" for the eventual
objective. A proper investigation can only be carried out by someone working
*in* the way, not making studies *of* it. And the study needs to take into
account process, content and container and context.
Nasrudin was once ferrying a pedant across a stretch of rough water and said
something ungrammatical to him.
"Have you never studied grammar?" asked the scholar.
"No."
"Then half your life has been wasted."
A few minutes later, Nasrudin turned to the passenger: "Have you ever
learned how to swim?"
"No. Why?"
"Then *all* your life has been wasted -- we are sinking!"
This emphasizes that the sufi way is a practical activity. The wholly
scholastic approach is simply not up to the task of making anything useful
of a study of the sufi way. The formal intellect cannot arrive at truth of
such things. Nor can pattern-thinking derived from the familiar world be
applied to true reality, which moves in another dimension.
PaxAmericana wrote:
<<
You must understand that I have acquired an intense dislike for Islam over
the years. I'm sure that you understand why. But it goes beyond the
senseless terrorism. I fear that Islam, should it be victorious in the
struggle that we are currently engaged in, would turn Mankind away from
progress and back to the 7th century. As a species, we cannot afford to do
that. We are running out of everything on this planet, and our only hope is
to expand into the solar system and gain access to the resources waiting for
us there. Meanwhile, this silly religious war diverts resources from this
goal and wastes precious time.
>>
The truth of the matter is: if we used "our" "resources" wisely; if we used
"our" "precious time" wisely, then we would not have to expand into the
solar system to rape that as well. Though having done so, perhaps there
really is no other way out for us? But the whole pseudo-scientific scenario
is based on dealing with the fallout of our own misguided, pursuit of
material progress and egocentric and ethnocentric conquest. Instead, we need
to tackle the disease at the root. This is one of the aims of the sufi way.
They paved paradise and put up a parkin' lot
With a pink hotel, a boutique, and a swingin' hot spot
Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you got till it's gone
They paved paradise and put up a parkin' lot
They took all the trees, and put em in a tree museum
And they charged the people a dollar and a half to see them
No, no, no, don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got till it's gone
They paved paradise, and put up a parkin' lot
Hey farmer, farmer, put away your DDT
I don't care about spots on my apples,
Leave me the birds and the bees - please
Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you got till it's gone
They paved paradise and put up a parking lot
Hey now, they've paved paradise to put up a parking lot
Why not?
Listen, late last night, I heard the screen door swing,
And a big yellow taxi took my girl away
Now don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you got till it's gone
They paved paradise and put up a parking lot
Hey now now, don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you got till it's gone
They paved paradise to put up a parking lot
Why not, they paved paradise
They put up a parking lot
Hey hey hey, paved paradise and put up a parking lot
I don't wanna give it
Why you wanna give it
Why you wanna givin it all away
Hey, hey, hey
Now you wanna give it
I should wanna give it
Cuz you're givin it all away, no no
I don't wanna give it
Why you wanna give it
Why you wanna givin it all away
Cuz you're givin it all givin it all away yeah yeah
Cuz You're givin it all away hey, hey, hey
Hey, paved paradise, to put up a parking lot
la,la, la, la, la, la, la ,la ,la ,la ,la
Paved paradise, and put up a parking lot.
---o---
Counting Crows / Joni Mitchell
Best Wishes,
Eric.
PaxAmericana
> The truth of the matter is: if we used "our" "resources" wisely; if we
> used "our" "precious time" wisely, then we would not have to expand into
> the solar system to rape that as well. Though having done so, perhaps
> there really is no other way out for us? But the whole pseudo-scientific
> scenario is based on dealing with the fallout of our own misguided,
> pursuit of material progress and egocentric and ethnocentric conquest.
> Instead, we need to tackle the disease at the root. This is one of the
> aims of the sufi way.
>
Pave paradise, put up a parking lot.....yes, I remember it well. But I see
that I have hit a nerve, here. Regardless of whatever mistakes we in the
West have made by over-consuming our (yes, OUR) planet, the truth of the
matter is that the Earth's resources are finite. At SOME point in time,
mankind would have found itself on the brink of running out of stuff. We
have over-consumed in the West, yes, but the rest of the world has
over-populated in the meantime. They will be starting to come on-line as
big consumers soon, too. Look at China, which is starting to buy oil in
larger and larger quantites (either because they really need it or because
they want to drive up prices in the West). Human beings are like locusts,
and that will always be true. Our only hopes are to continue to expand and
acquire new resources AND to develop more efficient technologies. And who
is going to enable us to expand and develop these technologies? Syria?
Iran? Eygpt? Saudi Arabia? I don't think so......
The time for ethnocentric conquest -- or religious conquest -- is over. We
must work together as a species if we expect to survive as a species. I
have precious little expectation that this will ever happen. Everyone wants
THEIR culture, THEIR religion, THEIR system of government to survive. But
if something doesn't change, nothing will survive. We are riding through
space on the Titanic. We have made a lot of mistakes. Our lookout didn't
have binoculars. We drove at full speed through a dark icefield. We left
too much sulphur in the iron, making it brittle in the icy waters. We
didn't build the walls of the water-tight compartments all the way up to the
ceiling. We didn't install a headlight on the stupid thing! But now we
have struck the iceburg, and what are we doing? Fighting among ourselves as
the ship sinks? Maybe there's something else we can do.
I have called for the extermination of Islam in these newsgroups. The above
is why. I would much prefer to see us all come together as a race to insure
all of our children a brighter future, but those who would endanger that
future must be eliminated. We need to move on.
Pax Americana
"Eric" <er...@anchor92.NOfreeSPAMserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dfc314$5cb$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
jaye...@my-deja.com
PaxAmericana wrote:
> The time for ethnocentric conquest -- or religious conquest -- is over. We
> must work together as a species if we expect to survive as a species.
>
> I have called for the extermination of Islam in these newsgroups. The above
> is why.
Truer words have seldom been written.
Guys, this is a rare lesson in
- binary logic,
- the law of opposition,
- misapplication of genuine conscience-based impulses to external
rather than internal referents (a common problem),
here allowed full clarity of expression due to the rudimentary
evolutionary level of this subject's cognitive capability.
I hope you are all paying attention, these don't come round very often.
Eric, keep him talking. Everybody else, just study him.
J.
obov...@aol.com
> The time for ethnocentric conquest -- or religious conquest -- is over. We
> must work together as a species if we expect to survive as a species.
Howdy pax, three thoughts.
1) For as long as we can remember, Mankind has had a "tribal
mentality." My group, and the others. Then we went to a sense of
nation (the mother land). Now compeating with nations for the sense
of "Usness" are corporations & cartels. I think it won't be until the
dudes from outer space show up that a sence of one planet, one people
will evolve. Operating systems upgrade.
> I have called for the extermination of Islam in these newsgroups.
2) sorry that's a cheap shot, not allowed. Or effective.
No doubt the only solution contians and end to viloence for everybody.
And nobody should go to bed hungery. The rest is small stuff. I'de
like to see a curtailing of the power of the rich. Spock's Vulcan Motto
is good enough for me,"The needs of the many, outway the needs of the
few." But that's all negociatable, nothing to kill anybody about, or
polute somebody else's back yard or rob (buy) their resources. If your
worried about moma earth, global warming, finite resourses, ecology and
all that, then, it's the born again fundamentalist Christians who are
usually the bad guys. They all think we are approaching the end times
(gotta keep the masses afraid) and the Rapture is just around the
corner. Some of the Jews and Muslims are into the same trip. There're
all the loony tune characters who haven't upgraded into the current
version operating systemn (modernism), if you know what I mean? I'm
60, so I probably won't see the opperating systemn that's the next
planetary opperating evolution, but if we all work hard enough, there's
just the chance there will be a Post Modernism epoch. But those
Christians, Etc., think it makes no differance if we rape and plunder
the earth, in a generation or two all the good guys will be gathered up
in the Rapture and the rest of us Bozos on the Bus, will be left to
deal with all the horrors of the end times.
Now here's a thought, when the flying sauser people show up (and the
name of their ship is Rapture), maybe we can get rid of those
christians by sending them off into outer space. It would fit their
mythology. ;-) Anyone here remember the "Twilight Zone" TV episode
called 'To Serve Man"?
And third) A comment about knowledge, science, and technology.
It seems to me the ancient cultures, Egyptians, Greeks, Chinese etc..
All those dudes had something going on. After the fall of the Roman
culture (rise of Christian West), the dogma of the church saw the world
as evil, and hence should not be studied. Islam in the 700's, ruled
that the physical world WAS a creation of God (actually God created
multiplicity of form - the creative spark-, not matter out of nothing,
imo), so it was good. Worthy of study. It was't till the West again
picked up the fevor of knowledge from contact via the crusades and the
chalenge to the universal authority of the Roman Church was begun, that
the West began to excell in the last four hundred years. Somewhere in
this time map the far east was doing it's own thing. It would make an
interesting study to see how and why (and the pro and cons) of what
were the goals of Islamic societies post the 1600's. The West was hell
bent on conquest and making money.
Are you driving very far this holiday week-end? ;-)
Take Care,
obo
PaxAmericana
our conversation.
Pax Americana
<jaye...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1125777864.2...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
PaxAmericana
interesting. :>)
>
> 1) For as long as we can remember, Mankind has had a "tribal
> mentality." My group, and the others. Then we went to a sense of
> nation (the mother land). Now compeating with nations for the sense
> of "Usness" are corporations & cartels. I think it won't be until the
> dudes from outer space show up that a sence of one planet, one people
> will evolve. Operating systems upgrade.
>
>
TRUE. There has been an evolution over the centuries in our "operating
system" (good term!) from self, to family, to tribe, to nation. The next
step would be culture (e.g., Western Civilization). The matter in doubt is
whether we will have the time needed to make the next step after that --
species -- before we run out of everything and fall back 500 years.
Frankly, I'm not terribly optimistic about that.....
>
>> I have called for the extermination of Islam in these newsgroups.
>
> 2) sorry that's a cheap shot, not allowed. Or effective.
>
Well, as Spock said, "The needs of the many.....". Islam needs to lead,
follow, or get out of the way. Or die. We don't have time for this.
> No doubt the only solution contians and end to viloence for everybody.
> And nobody should go to bed hungery. The rest is small stuff. I'de
> like to see a curtailing of the power of the rich. Spock's Vulcan Motto
> is good enough for me,"The needs of the many, outway the needs of the
> few." But that's all negociatable, nothing to kill anybody about, or
> polute somebody else's back yard or rob (buy) their resources. If your
> worried about moma earth, global warming, finite resourses, ecology and
> all that, then, it's the born again fundamentalist Christians who are
> usually the bad guys. They all think we are approaching the end times
> (gotta keep the masses afraid) and the Rapture is just around the
> corner. Some of the Jews and Muslims are into the same trip. There're
> all the loony tune characters who haven't upgraded into the current
> version operating systemn (modernism), if you know what I mean? I'm
> 60, so I probably won't see the opperating systemn that's the next
> planetary opperating evolution, but if we all work hard enough, there's
> just the chance there will be a Post Modernism epoch. But those
> Christians, Etc., think it makes no differance if we rape and plunder
> the earth, in a generation or two all the good guys will be gathered up
> in the Rapture and the rest of us Bozos on the Bus, will be left to
> deal with all the horrors of the end times.
>
As an atheist, I think that all religions are a form of mental illness (so,
you say that you're in two-way telepathic communication with the creator of
the universe?). Thus, I have no quarrel with your complains about
Christianity. I just think that Islam is more of a nuisance.
The only solution contains an end to violence for everybody? No, that is
the optimal solution -- not the only one. There is hardly ever an "only"
solution to any problem, but there is almost always a best one. As for the
rich, we have always had class divisions because we are not equal. Not
everyone is equally intelligent, healthy, brave, or lucky. I have a very
certain feeling that if you took all of the money away from the rich and
gave it to the poor, in a year those who were rich before would be rich
again, and those who were poor before would be poor again. That's the human
condition. Redistribution of wealth is a communist ideal which the
experience of the Soviet Union has discredited.
Eric talked about moving out into space and raping the solar system, and you
speak of the rape and plunder of the Earth. We are locusts. We take what
we need and leave little behind. In this, we are in good company with the
rest of the lifeforms on this planet. You cannot change that part of our
nature and expect us to remain human afterwards. Oh, some cultures have
been kind to the land and have survived that way for thousands of years.
The American Indian comes to mind. But you cannot have run a technological
civilization that way, at least not until the technology become VERY
advanced. And without technology, we are doomed to die here on this planet.
> And third) A comment about knowledge, science, and technology.
>
> It seems to me the ancient cultures, Egyptians, Greeks, Chinese etc..
> All those dudes had something going on. After the fall of the Roman
> culture (rise of Christian West), the dogma of the church saw the world
> as evil, and hence should not be studied. Islam in the 700's, ruled
> that the physical world WAS a creation of God (actually God created
> multiplicity of form - the creative spark-, not matter out of nothing,
> imo), so it was good. Worthy of study. It was't till the West again
> picked up the fevor of knowledge from contact via the crusades and the
> chalenge to the universal authority of the Roman Church was begun, that
> the West began to excell in the last four hundred years. Somewhere in
> this time map the far east was doing it's own thing. It would make an
> interesting study to see how and why (and the pro and cons) of what
> were the goals of Islamic societies post the 1600's. The West was hell
> bent on conquest and making money.
I agree with all of the above. Islamic culture flowered and then declined
as the West ascended again. They sort of went to sleep. The Ottoman Empire
began its decline about then. These things go in cycles. I would like to
see the Islamic societies join with us in post-modernism, but they seen to
think that we are decadent and "unclean". In many ways, they are right.
Look at the barbarians who are running rampant in New Orleans. Cycles
again. But while we squabble, time passes. When the West falls, there must
be someone waiting to continue to move us forward. Islam? Hardly. China?
Hmmmm, I would think that Islam would want to stand with us against the
menace of godless China! The Chinese have no sense of humor and would not
hesitate, as we have, to destroy them.
>
> Are you driving very far this holiday week-end? ;-)
>
With these gas prices, I've stopped taking non-essential trips!
Pax Americana
<obov...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1125781567.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
obov...@aol.com
> you say that you're in two-way telepathic communication with the creator of
> the universe?
Perhaps you will begin to think I have a mental illiness. But yes, I
would say the above represents the goal (the optimal) and I have tasted
such experiences. They are as Eric mentioned in a saying from the
Tradition, as close as your jugular vein. They happen all the time if
your payin attention. Truely.
communication (of the key words above; two-way, telepathic, creator,
and universe) is probably the easiest word were thou and I would find a
common understaning.
telepathic. Are you a musician? I've played some jazz. A sensitive
ear of even the audiance can hear when the band is "cookin". Maybe a
scientist would call it an optimization of syncronicity in rapid fire
sequential/simutaneous events using structures of sound waves (the
language) spread over multipale resonating points (the individual
musicians). "Grace" in the situational context also works as a
discription.
But we've already established that I probably have a mental illness, so
what could I know?
All my best,
obo
PaxAmericana
> Perhaps you will begin to think I have a mental illiness. But yes, I
> would say the above represents the goal (the optimal) and I have tasted
> such experiences. They are as Eric mentioned in a saying from the
> Tradition, as close as your jugular vein. They happen all the time if
> your payin attention. Truely.
>
Don't be offended. I have been mentally ill, too. :>) I was a Christian as
a young boy, and believed that I was close to God while in prayer.
But....then the world of science came along. I learned about the size and
the age of the universe, about biological evolution (which fundamentalist
Christians do not believe in), and about animals not mentioned in the Bible
(dinosaurs). If the story of Genesis is not true, then, I felt, the rest
must be false as well. After all, the inspired Word of God must be true
throughout.
Randy (another Muslim who posts, especially in alt.Islam) told me that the
vastness of the universe does not preclude the existence of a personal god.
I didn't know how to answer him, for this is not something that you can
understand unless you can FEEL it. Randy has probably never looked at a
distant galaxy through a telescope, but I have been doing this since
childhood. His knowledge of the universe is intellectual only. I gave him
my usual spiel about how big just one light year is (some 6 trillion miles,
or about 1000 solar systems laid end to end), and that the nearest star is
4.3 light years away. I told him that our galaxy, one of 100 billion
others, was 100,000 light years across, and that each of galaxies in the
universe contain some 100 billion stars like our Sun. After awhile, numbers
like this just leave most people in a state of MEGO (My Eyes Glaze Over).
They have no meaning to the non-astronomer. My point is that the universe
is too large for He Who Made It ALL to even know that we are here. Are you
aware of every virus in Juno, Alaska? We are less significant than them.
And it's not just a matter of distance. It's also a matter of time. The
universe is some 13 billion years old. Forget about the lifetime of an
individual human. The lifetime of our SPECIES is too short a time for God
to have noticed us! We have only been around for about 1/4000th of the age
of the universe. The speck of dust that is our GALAXY (forget about us!) is
too small for God to have noticed it, among 100 billion others more or less
like it. And yet he can hear - and will respond - to YOUR prayers?
This is the chasm that I can never cross. The idea that the Creator, if
there is one, knows or cares about me as an individual is just too
incredible for me to believe. The likelihood that this can be true is too
remote. And, as I discussed with Eric, we are probably not the only
intelligent species in the universe. Does Allah listen to the prayers of
non-humans as well? How do they know which way to face five times a day?
They would know nothing of Earth, much less Mecca.
If you are in the Middle East, you are blessed with dark skies out in the
desert. Take a drive out there, somewhere really dark away from city
lights, and turn off your motor. Close your eyes and let them become
dark-adapted. Then climb out of your car (turn off the interior light
first!) and look up. All of the stars that you can see are within a few
hundred light years of us, but the darkness that you see between the stars
is essentially infinity. The first time that I realized this at the
emotional level, I got vertigo. I had to grab a nearby fencepost because I
was afraid of falling UP into space! There's nothing out there. We are
alone. I don't mean in terms of other intelligent lifeforms like us. I
mean in terms of God. We are alone. Get a telescope and take an even
better look.
Pax Americana
<obov...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1125803818.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
PaxAmericana
> telepathic. Are you a musician? I've played some jazz. A sensitive
> ear of even the audiance can hear when the band is "cookin". Maybe a
> scientist would call it an optimization of syncronicity in rapid fire
> sequential/simutaneous events using structures of sound waves (the
> language) spread over multipale resonating points (the individual
> musicians). "Grace" in the situational context also works as a
> discription.
>
Oh....I have a good musical memory, but I can't sing and have never played
an instrument.
Pax Americana
<obov...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1125803818.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
obov...@aol.com
> Don't be offended. I have been mentally ill, too. :>) I was a Christian as
> a young boy, and believed that I was close to God while in prayer.<
I was raised Catholic, began to question the church at age seven (about
the time of the sacrement of communion- so maybe it worked in my
case;-) and to this day prayer has never worked for me. That's why I
pursued Being. To this day I have a phobia about prayer. An old rock
and roll star, Jim Morrison of "the Doors", used to do this great bit
about YOU CAN NOT BESEECH THE LORD THY GOD WITH PRAYER.
> But....then the world of science came along.<
I'm not making any of this up:
I'm a third generation American living in south east Michigan.
Starting in the seventh grade I to became seized with "Science", in the
eigth grade my sience project was to buy from Edumund Scientific a 4"
mirror kit and ground my own mirror for a complete functioning
telescope. In 1957 I watched sputnik pass over head and became
interested in Rocketry. I went from wanting to see the universe to
wanting to touch it. By the time I graduated High School and went off
to college, my other passion, music, had blossomed. I now wanted to
feel the universe. Youth has such wonderful, sometime silly, notions.
I live about 25 miles from the closest city, on the edge of a very
large state park (20,367 acres) across the lake to the north. I have
an excelent night sky to the north (I dig the northern lights, mucho
much) and a quarter mile down a dirt road is a hill with an excelent
360 degree horizon. (nights with the right cloud cover will show the
lights of the city 25miles in the distance -and smaller clusters of man
made light speckeled about.) First thing I did when I flew into London
was take a bus, than a train out to Salisbry Plains and spend a day and
a night at Stonehedge -this was before it was fenced and the grounds
modernized. So I've viewed the night sky, granted not with the detail
and modern higher tech technology as often as you - I have seen some of
the photos from hubble.
> After all, the inspired Word of God must be true
> throughout.
Are you being sarcastic? I can't tell. Sometimes rain falls and water
vapor rises, water is constant to our presence, not consistent, should
God be any less. From our world view (opperating system) every thing
is relative.
With all due respect, the understanding of God which you object to in
Moslems (lets say for the sake of argument all fundamentalist
religions) is as fundamentalist as what you object to. Let it go, move
on. As you say it is a very big Universe. I hope I don't sound, I'm
smarter than you. One reason we communicate is to offer mirrors to
each other mentations, imo.
>
The lifetime of our SPECIES is too short a time for God
> to have noticed us!
There you go with those fundamentalist notions again! Ponder this, my
friend free of religion, (I am being sarcastic) If our insignificant
species after so short a time can see big, contemplate the vastness
(something you say you've experienced) why can not God have the
possibility of impact on the small. ...ET phone home. ... Hello. ...
If you only accept time as being a linear function, we might have real
problems if we ever get down to talking about the vastnes of Realities,
but that's another story.
> We are alone.<
Yea, but resonace is all about us. I know I am of matter, but waves in
space are all about. All kinds on manifestations of energies.
Take Care,
obo
Eric
<<
I fear that Islam, should it be victorious in the struggle that we are
currently
engaged in, would turn Mankind away from progress and back to the
7th century. As a species, we cannot afford to do that. We are running
out of everything on this planet, and our only hope is to expand into the
solar system and gain access to the resources waiting for us there.
Meanwhile, this silly religious war diverts resources from this goal and
wastes precious time.
I have called for the extermination of Islam in these newsgroups. The above
is why. I would much prefer to see us all come together as a race to insure
all of our children a brighter future, but those who would endanger that
future must be eliminated. We need to move on.
Pax Americana
>>
Dear PaxAmericana,
Perhaps you might consider the kind of requirements which settlers and
starship personnel would have to fulfill in order to get their "Green
Cards"?
I somehow think that you (or me for that matter) would find it difficult to
gain settler status, but one option you might like to consider would be to
sign up to the National Guard or the Spetsnaz and to work your passage. Such
specialist skills are sure to remain in high demand, and membership would
enable you to bypass the personality profiling and all the other red tape
that the settlers and other personnel would face.
Best Wishes,
Eric.
jaye...@my-deja.com
> Right. We appreciate your attempt to contribute something intelligent to
> our conversation.
Hi Pax,
I'll try to make a more intelligible contribution then. Comments below.
> <jaye...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:1125777864.2...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > PaxAmericana wrote:
> >
> >> The time for ethnocentric conquest -- or religious conquest -- is over.
> >> We
> >> must work together as a species if we expect to survive as a species.
> >>
> >> I have called for the extermination of Islam in these newsgroups. The
> >> above
> >> is why.
> >
> > Truer words have seldom been written.
> >
> > Guys, this is a rare lesson in
> >
> > - binary logic,
Binary logic keeps you preoccupied with a certain topic, in this case
religious conquest/fundamentalism. It leads to an endless fascination
with "for" or "against", which makes you miss out on other, more
fruitful pursuits. Also known as an inability to think "out of the
box".
> > - the law of opposition,
The law of opposition says that you tend to become what you oppose. In
this case, you opposed religious conquest, yet -- and this is not
surprising, but entirely to be expected -- saw no contradiction in
championing the "extermination" of Islam just moments later. It is a
flip-flop mechanism. The wiping out of any awareness of having just
crossed from flip to flop is characteristic of the unmeditative state
of mind.
> > - misapplication of genuine conscience-based impulses to external
> > rather than internal referents (a common problem),
Something genuine in you knows that religious conquest -- practised by
you or others -- is unethical, yet by a clever rationalisation you
apply this knowledge only to others who you have correcty identified as
suffering from the same affliction as yourself. Your solution is to
exterminate them (or their operating system), rather than curing the
identical flaw in your own operating system first and thus gaining the
ability to see others objectively (and in due course perhaps even help
them get rid of their flaws).
I thank Obo for his more humane response to you.
FYI, I maintain an active interest in both astronomy and paleontology.
The notion that, just because I participate in alt.sufi, I should be a
creationist is totally absurd (I don't know what people in
alt.islam.sufism are like -- I don't spend time there).
As far as I am concerned, science is the only relevant method for
understanding and manipulating the material world around us.
Genuine religion (most religion is fake) is a science of the inner. It
is concerned with understanding the nature and origin of our own
intelligence, as well as leading a life informed by a moment-to-moment
appreciation of our and everybody's mortality. This is not incompatible
with scientific work, no more than breathing is incompatible with
working in a lab.
Good luck
J.
Martin Edwards
--
You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause - Chico Marx
Martin Edwards
Martin Edwards
> PaxAmericana wrote:
>
>
>>Don't be offended. I have been mentally ill, too. :>) I was a Christian as
>>a young boy, and believed that I was close to God while in prayer.<
>
>
> I was raised Catholic, began to question the church at age seven (about
> the time of the sacrement of communion- so maybe it worked in my
> case;-) and to this day prayer has never worked for me. That's why I
> pursued Being. To this day I have a phobia about prayer. An old rock
> and roll star, Jim Morrison of "the Doors", used to do this great bit
> about YOU CAN NOT BESEECH THE LORD THY GOD WITH PRAYER.
>
to school and saying prayers from the age of five, felt that anything
was happening. Yet I remained a Christian in theory: I was taught it,
so I assumed it was true.
Martin Edwards
>>telepathic. Are you a musician? I've played some jazz. A sensitive
>>ear of even the audiance can hear when the band is "cookin". Maybe a
>>scientist would call it an optimization of syncronicity in rapid fire
>>sequential/simutaneous events using structures of sound waves (the
>>language) spread over multipale resonating points (the individual
>>musicians). "Grace" in the situational context also works as a
>>discription.
>>
>
>
> Oh....I have a good musical memory, but I can't sing and have never played
> an instrument.
>
the one piece of rudeness that is, for some reason, acceptable.
PaxAmericana
>
> Binary logic keeps you preoccupied with a certain topic, in this case
> religious conquest/fundamentalism. It leads to an endless fascination
> with "for" or "against", which makes you miss out on other, more
> fruitful pursuits. Also known as an inability to think "out of the
> box".
>
I am preoccupied with this topic here, but my entire life is hardly centered
on it. I have no interest in religious conquest beyond the present attempt
of others to impose it upon me. If I did not feel that my way of life -- my
very civilization -- were under attack, I would have no interest in visiting
Islamic newsgroups at all. The naked truth is that we ARE engaged in a
"for" and "against" situation forced upon us by Islamic terrorism. Who
started the cycle of violence is of no interest to me. I only know that _I_
didn't!
>
> The law of opposition says that you tend to become what you oppose. In
> this case, you opposed religious conquest, yet -- and this is not
> surprising, but entirely to be expected -- saw no contradiction in
> championing the "extermination" of Islam just moments later. It is a
> flip-flop mechanism. The wiping out of any awareness of having just
> crossed from flip to flop is characteristic of the unmeditative state
> of mind.
>
I oppose the forcible imposition of another's point of view on me. Islam
would do that in this country if they had the power to do so. The proof of
this is that they do it now wherever they are in a majority. My championing
of Islamic extermination (or the extermination of their operating system) is
not born of a desire for conquest. I think that it will be an unfortunate
last resort. Rather, it's born of a desire to:
a) be left alone. Islamists need to go home and stay there. Please don't
whine about the diversity of ideas at this point. Islamists don't practice
it with others when they are in the majority, and so I am not required to
practice it with them.
b) not see Western Civilization ensnared in a stupid religious/cultural war
when there are greater problems to be solved. I see no other recourse at
this time but to make Islam go away. Conquer them? Hardly. You conquer
something worth conquering. But Islam is a dangerous belief. It needs to
stay in the Middle East and mind its own business. We'll then mind ours.
As alternative fuels come on line, we will have no further need for Middle
Eastern oil. We have enough of our own if we just use it as a lubricant.
We will not be over there bothering the people of the Middle East for their
next most important export product: sand.
>
>
> Something genuine in you knows that religious conquest -- practised by
> you or others -- is unethical, yet by a clever rationalisation you
> apply this knowledge only to others who you have correcty identified as
> suffering from the same affliction as yourself. Your solution is to
> exterminate them (or their operating system), rather than curing the
> identical flaw in your own operating system first and thus gaining the
> ability to see others objectively (and in due course perhaps even help
> them get rid of their flaws).
>
I think that I DO see Islam objectively! Some Muslims like to cut off
peoples' heads on-camera, and others like to broadcast this footage on their
TV networks. I have seen what Islam has chosen to show me of itself. Are
you proud of what Islam is showing to the world? To be fair, I have also
seen Muslim voters proudly waving their purple fingers in the air, and
Muslim policemen dying to protect what those voters appear to yearn for.
Islam seems to have many faces, but the purple fingers and brave policemen
give me hope. I would maintain, though, that certainly the EVIL face of
Islam needs to be destroyed. Weeding out the bad ones, though, should be
the responsibility of the good ones -- not us! We lack both the time and
the knowledge of your culture to perform such fine surgery. So, I would
admit that my operating system is not perfect. Neither is anyone else's.
But my main goal is to solve the problem and move on.
>
> I thank Obo for his more humane response to you.
>
>
> FYI, I maintain an active interest in both astronomy and paleontology.
> The notion that, just because I participate in alt.sufi, I should be a
> creationist is totally absurd (I don't know what people in
> alt.islam.sufism are like -- I don't spend time there).
I thank Obo for his response, too. Actually, my postings to alt.sufi are
accidental. That is, I'm really posting in alt.islam.sufism, and not paying
the attention that I probably should be to where else my postings are going.
I speak of creationism only because I perceive that fundamentalist Muslims
believe in Genesis, which is a fine story but nothing more. But when others
multi-post, my replies get multi-posted.
Do you have a telescope?
>
> As far as I am concerned, science is the only relevant method for
> understanding and manipulating the material world around us.
>
YES!
> Genuine religion (most religion is fake) is a science of the inner. It
> is concerned with understanding the nature and origin of our own
> intelligence, as well as leading a life informed by a moment-to-moment
> appreciation of our and everybody's mortality. This is not incompatible
> with scientific work, no more than breathing is incompatible with
> working in a lab.
>
"A science of the inner". That is a good description! It is only the
belief that there is a personal god that makes religion dangerous. With the
belief that one is in communication with the Creator can also come the
belief that the Creator wants you to do something for him. You can then
justify murder or anything else you want to do because "God wills it!".
This is my core problem with (especially) all of the religions that have
sprung from the Middle East.
I appreciate this response from you much more than your last one. It's
obvious that have very different world-views. I'm a Secular Humanist who
thinks that religion is both foolish and dangerous, and you see in it a path
to understanding ourselves. Perhaps I also have a religion, but it is a
faith (often sorely tested!) in Mankind and the future that we could have.
I will not post to alt.sufi any longer. You folks do not seem to be the
Islamofacists that I am trying to target.
Ave
Pax Americana
<jaye...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1125841078.9...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Eric
<<
Binary logic keeps you preoccupied with a certain topic, in this case
religious conquest/fundamentalism. It leads to an endless fascination
with "for" or "against", which makes you miss out on other, more
fruitful pursuits. Also known as an inability to think "out of the
box".
>>
Here's an example of the Sufis' means of thinking outside of the box, Pax:
The Prisoner
-------------
A man was once sent to prison for life for something which he had not done.
When he had behaved in an exemplary way for some months, his jailors began
to regard him as a model prisoner.
He was allowed to make his cell a little more comfortable; and his wife sent
him a prayer-carpet which she had herself woven.
When several more months had passed, this man said to his guards: 'I am a
metalworker, and you are badly paid. If you can get me a few tools and some
pieces of tin, I will make small decorative objects, which you can take to
the market and sell. We could split the proceeds, to the advantage of both
parties.'
The guards agreed, and presntly the smith was producing finely-wrought
objects whose sale added to everyone's well-being.
Then, one day, when the jailers went to the cell, the man had gone. They
concluded that he must have been a magician.
After many years when the error of the sentence had been discovered and the
man was pardoned and out of hiding, the king of that country called him and
asked him how he had escaped.
The tinsmith said: 'Real escape is possible only with the correct
concurrence of factors. My wife found the locksmith who had made the lock on
my cell, and other locks throughout the prison. She embroidered the interior
designs of the locks in the rug which she sent me, on the spot where the
head is prostrated in prayer. She relied upon me to register this design and
to realize that it was the wards of the locks. It was necessary for me to
get materials with which to make the keys, and to be able to hammer and work
metal in my cell. I had to enlist the greed and need of the guards, so that
there would be no suspicion. That is the story of my escape.'
--- Retold in The Magic Monastery, Idries Shah, Octagon Press.
And another:
The Indian Bird
----------------
A merchant had a bird in a cage. He was going to India, the land from which
the bird came, and asked him whether he could bring anything back for him.
The bird asked for his freedom, but was refused. So he asked the merchant to
visit a jungle in India and announce his captivity to the free birds who
were there.
The merchant did so, and no sooner had he spoken than a wild bird, just like
his own, fell senseless out of a tree on to the ground. The merchant thought
that this must be a relative of his own bird, and felt sad that he should
have caused this death.
When he got home, the bird asked him whether he had brought good news from
India. 'No,' said the merchant, 'I fear that my news is bad. One of your
relations collapsed and fell at my feet as soon as I mentioned your
captivity.'
As soon as these words were spoken the merchant's bird collapsed and fell to
the bottom of the cage.
'The news of his kinsman's death has killed him too,' thought the merchant.
Sorrowfully he picked up the bird and put it on the window-sill. At once the
bird revived and flew to a near-by tree. 'Now you know,' he said, 'that what
you thought was disaster was in fact good news for me. And how the message,
the suggestion how to behave in order to free myself, was transmitted to me
through you, my captor.' And he flew away, free at last.
--- Retold in The Way of the Sufi, Idries Shah, Octagon Press.
PaxAmericana
with their hands on their ears when I attempt to sing.
Pax Americana
"Martin Edwards" <big_m...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dff0r2$3u3$2...@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
PaxAmericana
think about it, SF has probably been as much a reason for my abandonment of
religion as anything else. I SAY that was the science, but perhaps it was
just as much the mind-expanding experience of reading lots of SF! SF
readers live in a much larger universe (literally) than most people do.
They become used to the concepts of traveling in space and time, and they
WANT that future for Mankind!
Pax Americana
"Martin Edwards" <big_m...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dff0hn$f11$2...@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
Eric
<<
Yes......I've been reading SF since the 50's. And you know, now that I
think about it, SF has probably been as much a reason for my abandonment of
religion as anything else. I SAY that was the science, but perhaps it was
just as much the mind-expanding experience of reading lots of SF! SF
readers live in a much larger universe (literally) than most people do.
They become used to the concepts of traveling in space and time, and they
WANT that future for Mankind!
>>
Dear PaxAmerica,
Have you read any Doris Lessing, such as "Memoirs of a Survivor" or any of
her "Canopus in Argos" series, such as "Shikasta"?
Best Wishes,
Eric.
jaye...@my-deja.com
> I am preoccupied with this topic here, but my entire life is hardly centered
> on it. I have no interest in religious conquest beyond the present attempt
> of others to impose it upon me. If I did not feel that my way of life -- my
> very civilization -- were under attack, I would have no interest in visiting
> Islamic newsgroups at all. The naked truth is that we ARE engaged in a
> "for" and "against" situation forced upon us by Islamic terrorism. Who
> started the cycle of violence is of no interest to me. I only know that _I_
> didn't!
Several things.
I am a German national living in the UK. I am not, and never have been,
a muslim.
As I am sure you have heard, we had several fatal bomb attacks in
London a few weeks ago. Yet I do not feel as you do about Islam.
You are aggrieved now, because Americans were killed in 9/11 and in
other terrorist outrages. However, a proper study of middle-eastern
affairs over the last 100 years or so will show, I believe, that even
with 9/11, people in that part of the world have a vastly larger number
of legitimate grievances against the West than the West has against
them. Their outrage is as understandable to me as is yours.
And -- the people at alt.islam.sufism and elsewhere have in all
likelihood as little to do with starting the cycle of violence as you
or me. (The same applies of course to the vast majority of muslims in
general.)
> I oppose the forcible imposition of another's point of view on me. Islam
> would do that in this country if they had the power to do so. The proof of
> this is that they do it now wherever they are in a majority. My championing
> of Islamic extermination (or the extermination of their operating system) is
> not born of a desire for conquest. I think that it will be an unfortunate
> last resort. Rather, it's born of a desire to:
>
> a) be left alone. Islamists need to go home and stay there. Please don't
> whine about the diversity of ideas at this point. Islamists don't practice
> it with others when they are in the majority, and so I am not required to
> practice it with them.
Many Islamists feel as you do ... they want to be left alone. But the
US (and previously the UK and France, I believe) have had a military
presence in the Middle East for decades, and seem unlikely to want to
give that up any time soon.
Now, as a thought experiment, how would you feel if Saudi Arabia or
Syria had insisted on having military bases in New York State or
California, and had achieved this goal in your childhood, by bribing
corrupt US politicians with oil money?
The truth is, the West has not left the East alone. What Bin Laden
wants is exactly what you want in reverse -- he wants the Americans to
go home, and stay there.
> b) not see Western Civilization ensnared in a stupid religious/cultural war
> when there are greater problems to be solved. I see no other recourse at
> this time but to make Islam go away. Conquer them? Hardly. You conquer
> something worth conquering. But Islam is a dangerous belief. It needs to
> stay in the Middle East and mind its own business. We'll then mind ours.
> As alternative fuels come on line, we will have no further need for Middle
> Eastern oil. We have enough of our own if we just use it as a lubricant.
> We will not be over there bothering the people of the Middle East for their
> next most important export product: sand.
The point is, we have been bothering them for a long time, for entirely
selfish reasons, and without much regard for, or interest in, their
humanity, treating them pretty much as an unfortunate and unwelcome
feature of (their) oil-rich landscape.
> I thank Obo for his response, too. Actually, my postings to alt.sufi are
> accidental. That is, I'm really posting in alt.islam.sufism, and not paying
> the attention that I probably should be to where else my postings are going.
> I speak of creationism only because I perceive that fundamentalist Muslims
> believe in Genesis, which is a fine story but nothing more. But when others
> multi-post, my replies get multi-posted.
I realise that.
> Do you have a telescope?
No, but I do enjoy looking at the night sky.
> "A science of the inner". That is a good description! It is only the
> belief that there is a personal god that makes religion dangerous.
I do not believe in a personal God. I am interested in enquiring into
the nature of consciousness. To me, God is merely a poetic name for
all-that-is -- the visible and the hidden.
> With the
> belief that one is in communication with the Creator can also come the
> belief that the Creator wants you to do something for him. You can then
> justify murder or anything else you want to do because "God wills it!".
> This is my core problem with (especially) all of the religions that have
> sprung from the Middle East.
Such religions are corruptions. They say more about human nature than
about the nature of religion, in the proper sense of the word. A point
made time and time again by many sufis -- and mystics of all
traditions, for that matter.
> I appreciate this response from you much more than your last one. It's
> obvious that have very different world-views. I'm a Secular Humanist who
> thinks that religion is both foolish and dangerous, and you see in it a path
> to understanding ourselves. Perhaps I also have a religion, but it is a
> faith (often sorely tested!) in Mankind and the future that we could have.
> I will not post to alt.sufi any longer. You folks do not seem to be the
> Islamofacists that I am trying to target.
I can understand your wish to find these Islamofascists and shout at
them. But how fruitful is it likely to be? Not even a moderate Muslim
is likely to agree with you that Islam should be exterminated; instead,
your views will be seen as just another exemplification of American
arrogance.
And if you find some strident muslim voices in these newsgroups (as you
may), then you will only succeed in making them more hateful, until you
and they end up posting mutual murder threats -- and stupidity will
truly have won the day. Life is too good.
So feel welcome to post to, and read, alt.sufi, when you need a break.
Ceterum censeo "ceterum censeo" significare "by the way, I think", non
"therefore, I conclude". :-)
J.
obov...@aol.com
obov...@aol.com wrote:
> > Anyone here remember the "Twilight Zone" TV episode
> > called 'To Serve Man"?
\Martin Edwards wrote
> >
> It was based on a Brian Aldiss story.
I never read it, my experience was the old black and white TV show. If
anyone is interested the story in a nutshell: The flying sauser people
come down and only want peace and offer all sorts of wonders, They can
cure our disease and provide us with limitless clean power. Every
thing is roses for a while. The visitors suguest an exchange program
and envite earth people to got to the stars. They present us with a
book in their language which has the title, "To Serve Man? Thousands
leave, and it is only about when the second ship load is about to leave
for the stars when we translate the rest of the book. It is a cook
book.
I suppose that if we're talking about the opperating systems of current
human beings it might be fair to admit to hardware (our evolved
physical bodies- your personal threads of the gene pool) and software
which up grades more rapidly. How many paradigm changes/evolutions
might be necessary for a person to come to consider learning how to
learn. Is this a bias towards change being a positive thing? We can
never go back, but some things might be worth while to take with us
into the future.
Pax, I have no problem with your posts showing up here (alt. sufi) and
appoligize if I'm offending any at the other sites we seem to be cross
posting into. I've found the exchange worth while, so maybe cross
postings might not be negitive always.
Also I think it was Jafar who mentioned Faith. It would be educated
Faith which would keep a person (what ever religion, I would say) from
killing unjustly. A man whom I respect talked about "religious life"
having three stages: Faith, Thought, and Discovery. Now if Faith be a
"quality of energy", it would seem that thought also has a quality of
energy. And Discovery would have a quality of energy. How ever it
manifests in us, the unfolding of this evolution of energies as
experienced in us, is much of the responsibility of being a human.
I think it is mostly an aboration when some one thinks God is wispering
in their ear to go and kill someone. But the aboration does exist.
Take Care,
obo
PaxAmericana
> Several things.
>
> I am a German national living in the UK. I am not, and never have been,
> a muslim.
>
Ah, my son-in-law is German. He just got his U.S. citizenship! My only
complaint about him is that I wish that he would spend more time using
German with my granddaughter. She holds dual-citizenship, and may want to
live in Germany when she grows up.
>
> As I am sure you have heard, we had several fatal bomb attacks in
> London a few weeks ago. Yet I do not feel as you do about Islam.
>
Yes, I was very angry about the London bombings! I'm glad to see that your
government is moving to round up and deport those who preach violence. You
just can't expect to immigrate into a country and then get away with
preaching violence against it.
>
> You are aggrieved now, because Americans were killed in 9/11 and in
> other terrorist outrages. However, a proper study of middle-eastern
> affairs over the last 100 years or so will show, I believe, that even
> with 9/11, people in that part of the world have a vastly larger number
> of legitimate grievances against the West than the West has against
> them. Their outrage is as understandable to me as is yours.
>
I have not made a study of the history of the Middle East over the past 100
years. Oh, I vaguely understand the basics of things like the fall of the
Ottoman Empire and the establishment of modern Turkey by Ataturk. I know
(mostly from the film "Lawrence of Arabia"!) that the British did not deal
fairly with the Arab tribes during and after WWI. I don't know of anything
that America has specifically done to warrant the hatred that it receives
from the Arab world, aside from its support of Israel.
>
> And -- the people at alt.islam.sufism and elsewhere have in all
> likelihood as little to do with starting the cycle of violence as you
> or me. (The same applies of course to the vast majority of muslims in
> general.)
>
Yes, you all seem like very nice people, and I've decided to harass Muslims
on other newsgroups. :>) One of the problems with Islam is that it widely
supports (or maybe just tolerates) the teaching of hate in its religious
schools. I'm sure that Muslims are just as varied in their outlook as
Christians are, but I need to see the "good" Muslims do more to root the
"bad" ones from their religion. Many Americans feel this way..... We
really can't go on like this. I can see China moving in to pick up the
pieces after Islam and the West wear themselves out in warfare, and I can't
believe that anyone wants that.
>
>
> Many Islamists feel as you do ... they want to be left alone. But the
> US (and previously the UK and France, I believe) have had a military
> presence in the Middle East for decades, and seem unlikely to want to
> give that up any time soon.
>
> Now, as a thought experiment, how would you feel if Saudi Arabia or
> Syria had insisted on having military bases in New York State or
> California, and had achieved this goal in your childhood, by bribing
> corrupt US politicians with oil money?
>
Well, we've had a military presence in that part of the world for at least
three reasons, in no particular order:
a) To insure the existence of Israel.
b) To protect our oil interests.
c) To contain communism.
The last two of these should have been seen as something positive. Had the
Soviet Union taken over the Persian Gulf, they would have just taken the
oil, not bought it. Also, the Soviets would have closed all the mosques and
worked hard to suppress Islam. We were at least a lesser of two evils.
Still, a Saudi or Syrian military base in New York? I'd be out there
planting roadside bombs. Ever see the movie "Red Dawn"? :>)
Well, the Soviet Union is gone (but not forgotten!). And I hope fervently
that we will soon be on-line with an alternative to oil. Hydrogen sounds
good to me, though I remember the Hindenburg! :>) With the need for Middle
Eastern oil gone, I think that you will see America lose interest in the
region very quickly. There would certainly be no more support for us having
a presence there from the majority of Americans.
>
>
> The point is, we have been bothering them for a long time, for entirely
> selfish reasons, and without much regard for, or interest in, their
> humanity, treating them pretty much as an unfortunate and unwelcome
> feature of (their) oil-rich landscape.
>
True. But was that entirely our fault? How much of our lack of respect for
them was their own fault? I know that I shouldn't confuse Hollywood with
history, but this snippet of dialog between Lawrence and Sherif from
"Lawrence of Arabia" illustrates much about the differences in our cultures.
Sherif has just ridden up and shot Lawrence's guide for drinking from his
well.
Sherif: He is dead.
Lawrence: Yes. WHY?
Sherif: This is my well.
Lawrence: I have drunk from it.
Sherif: You are welcome.
Lawrence: He was my friend.
Sherif: That!
Lawrence: Yes. That.
Sherif: ...You are angry, English. He was nothing. The well is everything.
The Hasimi may not drink at our wells. He knew that. Sa'lam.
Lawrence: Sherif Ali, so long as the Arabs fight tribe against tribe, so
long will they be a little people, a silly people, greedy, barbarous, and
cruel, as you are.
Sherif: Come, I will take you to Feisal.
Lawrence: I do not want your company, Sherif.
Sherif: Wadi Safra is another day from here. You will not find it. And not
finding it, you will die.
Lawrence: I will find it, with this. (He holds up his compass which Sherif
snags with his camel stick.)
Sherif: Good Army compass. How if I take it?
Lawrence: Then you would be a thief.
Sherif: Have you no fear, English?
Lawrence: My fear is my concern.
Sherif: Truly. God be with you, English.
A little people, a silly people, greedy, barbarous, and cruel.....
>
>> Do you have a telescope?
>
>
> No, but I do enjoy looking at the night sky.
>
Here is a website that can take you further into astronomy if you are
interested. I recommend a good pair of 7X50 binoculars because they provide
an ideal exit pupil size for the dark-adapted eye (about 7mm) and are
lightweight. Magazines like "Astronomy" or "Sky and Telescope" have monthly
sky charts in them showing the brighter deepsky objects (galaxies, etc.).
The British Astronomical Association is also an excellent resource.
http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/borley/49/tutorial.htm
>
> I can understand your wish to find these Islamofascists and shout at
> them. But how fruitful is it likely to be? Not even a moderate Muslim
> is likely to agree with you that Islam should be exterminated; instead,
> your views will be seen as just another exemplification of American
> arrogance.
>
> And if you find some strident muslim voices in these newsgroups (as you
> may), then you will only succeed in making them more hateful, until you
> and they end up posting mutual murder threats -- and stupidity will
> truly have won the day. Life is too good.
>
I know. Still, I hate them for what they have done. Whatever America has
done in the world, we have not cut off peoples' heads for network TV.
Pax
<jaye...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1125856338.7...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Eric
<<
And -- the people at alt.islam.sufism and elsewhere have in all
likelihood as little to do with starting the cycle of violence as you
or me. (The same applies of course to the vast majority of muslims in
general.)
>>
PaxAmerica wrote:
<<
Yes, you all seem like very nice people, and I've decided to harass Muslims
on other newsgroups. :>) One of the problems with Islam is that it widely
supports (or maybe just tolerates) the teaching of hate in its religious
schools. I'm sure that Muslims are just as varied in their outlook as
Christians are, but I need to see the "good" Muslims do more to root the
"bad" ones from their religion. Many Americans feel this way..... We
really can't go on like this. I can see China moving in to pick up the
pieces after Islam and the West wear themselves out in warfare, and I can't
believe that anyone wants that.
>>
Hi Pax,
The following, based on fact rather than shooting from the hip and posted
earlier by segovius may be of use to you in your search:
<<
But to the facts: the picture that Azo paints and that others see fit
not to examine is a true one. It is a true picture of ONE sect. That
sect is the Wahabi sect and possibly extend to their offshoots and
related splinter groups such as Deobandis and Salafis. At a push this
group would make up about 7% of the Islamic community but probably far
less.
Now it gets interesting and this is where it concerns every one of us
here and why you should realise you are being played like a violin:
The Wahabis are the ones responsible for the terrorism. It's a simple
as that. The 911 hijackers were Wahabi. Obl is Wahabi. Zarqawi is
Wahabi. The Taleban were Wahabi related Deobandi. And on and on.
This 7% is responsible for almost 100% of the terrorism (if you
discount Iraqi insurgents who are genuine resistance fighters although
there are some terrorists active there too). This 7% are the ones who
have the 'extreme beliefs'. Thus 7% are the ones that the people I am
addressing take as representing the whole phenomena.
I hope I don't need to quote the Elephant and the Blind Men but it may
repay a re-reading.
But it gets worse: the people who wish to convince others that the
heterodox beliefs of the Wahabi sect (Wahabis are acknowledged by all
orthodox Islamic authorities as a heterodox sect - a cult in fact - the
fact that they were invented in the eighteenth century should be a
tip-off to those who bother to research these things) represent the
WHOLE of Islam are operating from a fixed and widespread agenda: the
defamation of Islam.
But worse, they are being duped - for these Wahabis are really western
allies and have a licence to do what they do. Consider the following:
I mentioned OBL, 911 hijackers, Zarqawi et al being Wahabis - what
punishment does Saudi ever get (Saudi is the only Wahabi state in the
world - it is called an 'Islamic State' but that just is more evidence
for my point. No non-Wahabi Muslim accepts their legitimacy) -
answer:none. They get to go to dinner in the White House.
What happens when the US or UK catch a 'terrorist' in Iraq or Iran (I
use brackets for 'terrorist' because often these suspects are merely
ordinary Muslims - people like Tahir actually) - they send them to
Saudi to be tortured, and oif course, being the good ally, Saudi sends
the information to the US or UK. Handy because Saudi is exempt from
censure in human rights terms and the US and UK can continue to claim
they do not torture (Abu Ghraib notwithstanding).
So let's paraphrase so we all know what we're actually standing for on
one side or the other:
It is suggested that Islam is a 'religion of hate' and by definition
fosters extreme views.
The evidence presented for this is the interpretations of an extreme
heterodox sect that was created in the 1800s and which represents less
than 7% of the Islamic religion.
Any dissenting voices in the remaining 93% of Muslims are disregarded.
As are condemnations of extremism from Muslims. The historical
manifestation of Sufism within Islam is likewise ignored as are the
contributions to society by Muslims such as Hafez, Rumi, Ghazali etc -
not to mention the insights and injunctions of Idries Shah. All within
the context of a 'Sufi' newsgroup.
Not a pretty picture......
[from segovius].
>>
Best Wishes,
Eric.
obov...@aol.com
EarthtoPax,EarthtoPax: Wake up and smell the roses!!!
PaxAmericana wrote:
I don't know of anything
> that America has specifically done to warrant the hatred that it receives
> from the Arab world, aside from its support of Israel.
Which must be stated is no small thing. The Britts had a major moment
of dumbness. Israel has the right to exist, but it's current form is
totally unjust (it's molded after the US -or vise-versa- so I suppose
myopic behavior is to be expected)
American (western) capitalistic ventures have been taking advantage and
killing people for as long as this continent has been remolded into a
Judeo-Christian killing machine (the last 450 years). The differance
between our terrorists (people in power) and the current crop of Muslim
terrorists is that when we chop off a head the people in power who are
responsible DON"T WANT TO SHOW IT ON TV. Wake up and smell the roses.
The Saudis have no need to set up military bases here. They are buying
this land one gallon at a time. "Red Dawn" indeed. The car companies
& oil barons (Bush & associates) have so many of us brain washed
(asleep) that most of us are actually willing colaborator's every time
we fill her up. I'm every bit as angry and full of rage as you
(regulars at alt.sufi, are saying "amen") but we must learn to channel
that energy into truely positive ventures (actually we first need to
learn how to identify the positive, not just what we want). With all
due respect friend, you are chaseing after shadows projected on the
smoke screen which is advertized as "The American Way of Life." Wake
up and smell the roses
I'de also like to remind you (as a fellow lover of the Film, "Lawrance
of Arabia") that the Prince Fisal in that film (I think of the Hannif
tribe) was overthrown in about 1928 by the Saudi briggians. In the
thirties our oil companies started making them all rich. Might be
interesting to know more about that history, perhaps some western power
was the money at that take over as well. Remember the Shah of Iran?
American inteligent behavior created that dilema. We enpowered Osama
Bin Laden in the 1980's. We even helped build up Sadam Hussien at
times. There is so much blood on the hands of post W. W. II American
Capitalism that the level is up over most American's eye brows. If
Americans weren't so brainwashed our collective grief at the reality of
our situation would over whelm us. Speaking of films, remember
"Network" "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore."
And in that film from thirty years ago the bad guys were our Dream
walking Consummerist American Masses, maniplative coporate interests
and the Saudis. Wake up and smell the roses.
Sorry for my early morning rant, will try to be more positive in my
next post.
Take Care,
obo
obov...@aol.com
> > I'm sure that Muslims are just as varied in their outlook as
> Christians are, but I need to see the "good" Muslims do more to root the
> "bad" ones from their religion. Many Americans feel this way.....<
What is ironic is that less than a year ago, during the Dara battles, I
said the very same thing to the Muslim presence then at alt.sufi.
People should be responsible for cleaning their own house. Wouldn't it
be nice if we all woke up and smelled the roses ;-)
> I can see China moving in to pick up the
> pieces after Islam and the West wear themselves out in warfare, and I can't
> believe that anyone wants that.<
Are you saying that over a billion Chinese could be wrong? Perhaps we
all need time with a microscope as well as a telescope to understand
the marvels of the Universe.
Memos to us all (but what do I know)
Learn the differances between belief and faith
Explore the depths of your own conscience
Act locally, think globally
Always have a rose handy
Eric
<<
There's nothing out there. We are alone. I don't mean in terms of other
intelligent lifeforms like us. I mean in terms of God. We are alone.
Get a telescope and take an even better look.
>>
Friend Pax. Space is not the final frontier, though it's an escape from the
realities of life down here on terra firma. As Peter Gabriel sings: "take
all your telescopes and turn them inside out. Point them away from the big
sky."
"Bigger, better technology will save us. Hallalujah!" you cry. Isn't that
just another form of worship? Another form of prayer? Waiting for the Big
Day when the "deus ex machina" -- the God from the machine -- or the little
green men in their flying machines -- will come and save us. Hallalujah!
The final frontier? A closer to home: inside our own minds; our own beings;
in the here and now. Not in the past where the fundamentalists live; nor the
apocalyptic future of the fundamentalism, nor the shiny new future of
Technologism.
Real Escape? Here's a story about real escape:
The Smuggler
--------------
Time and again Nasrudin passed from Persia to Greece on donkey-back. Each
time he had two panniers of straw, and trudged back without them. Every time
the guard searched him for contraband. They never found any.
'What are you carrying, Nasrudin?'
'I am a smuggler.'
Years later, more and more prosperous in appearance, Nasrudin moved to
Egypt. One of the customs men met him there.
'Tell me, Mulla, now that you are out of the jurisdiction of Greece and
Persia, living here in such luxury - what was it that you were smuggling
when we could never catch you?'
'Donkeys.'
You like Science Fiction? Here's some Science Faction. A story about our
current predicament and the technology with which we might return home:
Legend of the Islanders
--------------------------------------------------------
Most fables contain at least some truth, and they often enable people to
absorb ideas which the ordinary patterns of their thinking would prevent
them from digesting.
Fables have therefore been used, not least by the Sufi teachers, to present
a picture of life more in harmony with their feelings than is possible by
means of intellectual exercises.
Here is a Sufic fable about the human situation, summarized and adapted, as
must always be, suitably to the time in which it is presented. Ordinary
"entertainment" fables are considered by Sufi authors to be a degenerated or
inferior form of art.
The Legend of the Islanders
----------------------------
Once upon a time there lived an ideal community in a far-off land. Its
members had no fears as we now know them. Instead of uncertainty and
vacillation, they had purposefulness and a fuller means of expressing
themselves. Although there were none of the stresses and tensions which
[hu]mankind now considers essential to its progress, their lives were
richer, because other, better elements replaced these things. Theirs,
therefore, was a slightly different mode of existence. We could almost say
that our present perceptions are a crude, makeshift version of the real ones
which this community possessed.
They had real lives, not semilives.
We can call them the El Ar people.
They had a leader, who discovered that their country was to become
uninhabitable for a period of, shall we say, twenty thousand years. He
planned their escape, realizing that their descendants would be able to
return home successfully, only after many trials.
He found for them a place of refuge, an island whose features were only
roughly similar to those of the original homeland. Because of the difference
in climate and situation, the immigrants had to undergo a transformation.
This made them more physically and mentally adapted to the new
circumstances; course perceptions, for instance, were substituted for finer
ones, as when the hand of the manual labourer becomes toughened in response
to the needs of his calling.
In order to reduce the pain which a comparison between the old and new
states would bring, they were made to forget the past almost entirely. Only
the most shadowy recollection of it remained, yet it was sufficient to be
awakened when the time came.
The system was very complicated, but well arranged. The organs by means of
which the people survived on the island were also made the organs of
enjoyment, physical and mental. The organs which were really constructive in
the old homeland were placed in a special form of abeyance, and linked with
the shadowy memory, in preparation for its eventual activation.
Slowly and painfully the immigrants settled down, adjusting themselves to
the local conditions. The resources of the land were such that, coupled with
effort and a certain form of guidance, people would be able to escape to a
further island, on the way back to their original home. This was the first
of a succession of islands upon which gradual acclimatization took place.
The responsibility of this "evolution" was vested in those individuals who
could sustain it. These were necessarily only a few, because for the mass of
the people the effort of keeping both sets of knowledge in their
consciousness was virtually impossible. One of them seemed to conflict with
the other. Certain specialists guarded the "special science".
This "secret", the method of effecting the transition, was nothing more or
less than the knowledge of maritime skills and their application. The escape
needed an instructor, raw materials, people, effort and understanding. Given
these, people could learn to swim, and also to build ships.
The people who were originally in charge of the escape operation made it
clear to everyone that a certain preparation was necessary before anyone
could learn to swim or even take part in building a ship. For a time the
process continued satisfactorily.
Then a man who had been found, for the time being, lacking in the necessary
qualities rebelled against this orderand managed to develop a masterly idea.
He had observed that the effort to escape placed a heavy and often seemingly
unwelcome burden upon the people. At the same time they were disposed to
believe things which they were told about the escape operation. He realized
that he could acquire power, and also revenge himself upon those who had
undervalued him, as he thought, by a simple exploitation of these two sets
of facts.
He would merely offer to take away the burden, by affirming that there was
no burden.
He made this announcement:
"There is no need for man to integrate his mind and train it in the way
which has been described to you. The human mind is already a stable and
continuous, consistent thing. You have been told that you have to become a
craftsman in order to build a ship. I say, not only do you not need to be a
craftsman - you do not need a ship at all! An islander needs only to observe
a few simple rules to survive and remain integrated into society. By the
exercise of common sense, born into everyone, he can attain anything upon
this island, our home, the common property and heritage of all!"
The tonguester, having gained a great deal of interest among the people, now
"proved" his message by saying:
"If there is any reality in ships and swimming, show us ships which have
made the journey, and swimmers who have come back!"
This was a challenge to the instructors which they could not meet. It was
based upon an assumption of which the bemused herd could not now see the
fallacy. Swimmers, when they did come back, had undergone a fresh adaptation
which made them "invisible" to the crowd.
The mob pressed for demonstrative proof.
"Shipbuilding," said the escapers, in an attempt to reason with the revolt,
"is an art and a craft. The learning and the exercise of this lore depends
upon special techniques. These together make up a total activity, which
cannot be examined piecemeal, as you demand. This activity has an impalpable
element, called baraka, from which the word 'barque' - a ship - is derived.
This word means 'the Subtlety,' and it cannot be shown to you."
"Art, craft, total, baraka, nonsense!" shouted the revolutionaries.
And so they hanged as many shipbuilding craftsmen as they could find.
The new gospel was welcomed on all sides as one of liberation. Man had
discovered that he was already mature! He felt, for the time at least, as if
he had been released from responsibility.
Most other ways of thinking were soon swamped by the simplicity and comfort
of the revolutionary concept. Soon it was considered to be a basic fact
which had never been challenged by any rational person. Rational, of course,
meant anyone who harmonized with the general theory itself, upon which
society was now based.
Ideas which opposed the new one were easily called irrational. Anything
irrational was bad. Therefore, even if he had doubts, the individual had to
suppress them or divert them, because he must at all costs be thought
rational.
It was not very difficult to be rational. One had only to adhere to the
values of society. Further, evidence of the truth of rationality abounded -
provided that one did not think beyond the life of the island . . . .
Continued in The Sufis, Idries Shah, Octagon Press
http://www.octagonpress.com
PaxAmericana
> But to the facts: the picture that Azo paints and that others see fit
> not to examine is a true one. It is a true picture of ONE sect. That
> sect is the Wahabi sect and possibly extend to their offshoots and
> related splinter groups such as Deobandis and Salafis. At a push this
> group would make up about 7% of the Islamic community but probably far
> less.
>
>
> Now it gets interesting and this is where it concerns every one of us
> here and why you should realise you are being played like a violin:
>
>
> The Wahabis are the ones responsible for the terrorism. It's a simple
> as that. The 911 hijackers were Wahabi. Obl is Wahabi. Zarqawi is
> Wahabi. The Taleban were Wahabi related Deobandi. And on and on.
>
>
> This 7% is responsible for almost 100% of the terrorism (if you
> discount Iraqi insurgents who are genuine resistance fighters although
> there are some terrorists active there too). This 7% are the ones who
> have the 'extreme beliefs'. Thus 7% are the ones that the people I am
> addressing take as representing the whole phenomena.
>
>
> I hope I don't need to quote the Elephant and the Blind Men but it may
> repay a re-reading.
>
Yes, Islam is an elephant to the Westerner, who generally has no clue about
its various sects. I've been hearing about the Wahabi from other sources,
and agree that they sound like the people who are causing most of the
problems. I also understand why the Sunnis in Iraq are fighting us. They
want their power to oppress the rest of Iraq back! The Wahabi, then, would
be Islam's "tail"? I wondered why they smelled so bad! :>)
Guys, you have a done a good job of giving me some insight into Islam's many
sects, and I will no longer paint all of you with the same brush. I still
question, though, why the 93% of you who just want live and let live don't
do something about the Ahab? Perhaps I have answered my own question....you
want to live and let live. And yet, there will come a time when our
patience will wear thin. Right now, we need the oil, and so we smile at the
Saudis and others who supply it, and call them our friends. We are not like
the Soviets would have been, to just come and take it. When the need for
the oil passes, though, and the terror continues......well, you must
understand that America has the power to remove Islam from the face of the
Earth. We will not understand or care that only a few of you are doing
this. We will ask, as I do now (and obo as well!), why do you not keep your
own house in order? Do you think that we lack this power? Do you think
that we are too weak and spineless to use it? No, we try to be a good
people, but we do have a boiling point. We would be afraid to do this, you
think, because the radiation would kill us, too? America has the power to
destroy everything from Morocco to Indonesia (skipping India, I hope!)
without raising radiation levels at all, and without using germ warfare or
nerve gas. How? America if one of the few countries on the planet with the
capability of sending a probe to an asteroid. There has been much talk
about sending one or more nuclear weapons to an asteroid to divert it from
hitting the Earth. If this is possible (and we have already "soft-landed" a
probe on the asteroid Eros), then it would also be possible to divert one or
any number of them TOWARDS the Earth. They would of course need to be small
ones, to keep the damage local, and they would need to come down well-spaced
in time, to keep the dust to a minimum, but America could do this. I would
recommend three weapons to each asteroid. A small one for the initial
nudge, a medium one for the mid-course correction, and a large one for a
last minute correction or the destruction of the asteroid if we change our
minds. I would pick an asteroid mostly composed of iron, which we could
then mine. Of course, the big nuke probably wouldn't be able to destroy an
iron asteroid at the last minute. If the big nuke is not used at the end,
it would ride down with the asteroid. Still not much radiation from a
world-wide standpoint. Dropping one in the Persian Gulf, or in the sea near
Indonesia, would cause tsunamis much greater than the one last year caused
by an earthquake. I would drop the Indonesian rock(s) among the islands, to
minimize the destruction elsewhere in the Pacific. Asteroids in the 1-2km
range should be adequate. No 6km dinosaur-killers need apply! But it's
just a matter of applied force and orbital mechanics.
Well, now you guys KNOW I'm crazy, right? :>) Perhaps I have been reading
too much science fiction. Perhaps you guys have not been reading
enough..... This is all quite possible, and in theory within America's
technological reach. When I have spoken of the extermination of Islam, this
is what I have had in mind. I would MUCH prefer to see Islam clean its own
house! We already have people in our government (Rep. Tancredo of Colorado
is one) who would nuke Mecca in response to an Islamic nuclear attack here.
http://www.muslimwakeup.com/bb/viewtopic.php?p=14560 And why not? How does
that differ from our promise to nuke Russia if they nuked us?
Well, that was MY rant this morning! :>) And I can rant with the best of
them......
>
>
> What happens when the US or UK catch a 'terrorist' in Iraq or Iran (I
> use brackets for 'terrorist' because often these suspects are merely
> ordinary Muslims - people like Tahir actually) - they send them to
> Saudi to be tortured, and oif course, being the good ally, Saudi sends
> the information to the US or UK. Handy because Saudi is exempt from
> censure in human rights terms and the US and UK can continue to claim
> they do not torture (Abu Ghraib notwithstanding).
>
Of course. We must keep OUR hands clean! :>) But what is Saudi torture
compared to cutting off a man's head? What, even more so, is Abu Ghriab
compared to that? Those people were lucky not to be sent to the Saudis.
They only had to suffer humiliation. We needed the information, and we
tried to show some compassion while getting it, and for that the world
equates us with Zarqawi.
Pax
"Eric" <er...@anchor92.NOfreeSPAMserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dfh8u5$gqr$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
PaxAmericana
don't
do something about the Ahab?
Ha! My spell checker butchered the word "Wahabi".
Pax
"PaxAmericana" <nosuch...@x.com> wrote in message
news:RpqdnZ2dnZ0cznvrnZ2dn...@bresnan.com...
azo6...@yahoo.co.uk
statement seem to be promising:
We believe in the re-interpretation of Islam for the 21st century where
terrorism is not justified under any circumstances.
We believe in the separation of religion and state.
We believe that democracy is the best form of government.
We believe in the promotion of secularism in all forms of political
activity.
We believe that equality for women is an inalienable right.
We believe that religion is a personal relationship between the
individual and his or her God and is not to be forced on anyone.
for moresee:http://www.freemuslims.org/
now my question is : is the majority of moslms worldwide believe in the
foregoing such as the separation of state and religion and
secualrization??? i know that many (if not all )moslems on this forum
dont for they categorically stated that sharia should be applied in
all areas of life including the political.....
vive!
azo
azo6...@yahoo.co.uk
>is one) who would nuke Mecca in response to an Islamic nuclear attack here.
>http://www.muslimwakeup.com/bb/viewtopic.php?p=14560 And why not? How does
>that differ from our promise to nuke Russia if they nuked us?
sue'm for copyrights.:-) i do believe in nuking mecca and medina but
after evacuating them of course and with conventional weapons ...we
could keep then build instead in them casinos, bars ,nightclubs ...i
know people who had to starve their children or take them off school so
they could save to perfom their crap pilgrimage to mecca ..that won't
happen once the two shrines are truned into sandy dust..nuke mecca and
you save thousands of children from starvation and ignorance.....
vive!
azo, the sharif nuker of mecca!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PaxAmericana
smell of roses (or was that napalm?) in the morning.
I STILL don't know what America has done. What, we supported some corrupt
governments by buying oil from them? They were the governments that ARABS
allowed to be there! We supported OBL in the Islamic struggle against the
Soviets in Afghanistan? Yup. We didn't consider Islam to be our enemy
then, but we sure considered the Soviets to be! How the world has changed!
>
> American (western) capitalistic ventures have been taking advantage and
> killing people for as long as this continent has been remolded into a
> Judeo-Christian killing machine (the last 450 years). The differance
> between our terrorists (people in power) and the current crop of Muslim
> terrorists is that when we chop off a head the people in power who are
> responsible DON"T WANT TO SHOW IT ON TV. Wake up and smell the roses.
>
I don't know where to begin here......are you mad at capitalism? Capitalism
has demonstrated itself to be the most powerful engine for raising the
general standard of living in a civilization that Mankind has ever
conceived. That is, it employs people and usually enriches its
shareholders. Even the Chinese are turning towards it! Mao must be
spinning in his grave! People buy shares in a company in hopes of getting
more money back in time. Sometimes they do, and sometimes they don't, but
that's ALL that capitalism is! It's a machine that employs people, buys,
sells, and/or produces things, and hopefully enriches those who invest in
it. But it doesn't kill people (unless it makes them jump out of windows
when their shares collapse!). Tell me which companies have killed Arabs?
The people in power? Bush? Who has he, or the American government killed?
Well, the Taliban, but now the people of Afghanistan can play soccer and
listen to music again. A woman can no longer be raped by law to pay for the
crimes of her brother. The Taliban were given an opportunity to surrender
OBL.... Hmmmm, Saddam? Saddam's still alive; the present government of
Iraq will decide his fate. Should we have left Saddam in power?
Sniff, sniff.....I can't smell the roses yet.
If you want to talk instead about how America has killed off and imprisioned
its native population, you'd get a more understanding ear from me. But
Muslims? What was Clinton doing in Bosnia? I thought that he was trying to
keep Serbs from killing Muslims! Guess I got it all wrong. Yes, the evil
America.
>
> I'de also like to remind you (as a fellow lover of the Film, "Lawrance
> of Arabia") that the Prince Fisal in that film (I think of the Hannif
> tribe) was overthrown in about 1928 by the Saudi briggians. In the
> thirties our oil companies started making them all rich. Might be
> interesting to know more about that history, perhaps some western power
> was the money at that take over as well. Remember the Shah of Iran?
> American inteligent behavior created that dilema. We enpowered Osama
> Bin Laden in the 1980's. We even helped build up Sadam Hussien at
> times. There is so much blood on the hands of post W. W. II American
> Capitalism that the level is up over most American's eye brows. If
> Americans weren't so brainwashed our collective grief at the reality of
> our situation would over whelm us. Speaking of films, remember
> "Network" "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore."
> And in that film from thirty years ago the bad guys were our Dream
> walking Consummerist American Masses, maniplative coporate interests
> and the Saudis. Wake up and smell the roses.
>
OK. Prince Fisal was overthrown in 1928 by the Saudi family. Sounds like
an internal Arab squabble to me. THEN we came and bought oil from them, and
the Saudis have been getting rich off of us ever since. The Shah of Iran?
Sure I remember him. Died of cancer. I wish that he was back in power!
Now the people in power want to make their own nukes. If they use them, the
result will be a dead Iran. OK, we helped OBL in the 80's. We were really
helping the Islamic insurgents in Afghanistan fight the Soviets. We were
helping the devout Muslims in their war against the godless commies! We
considered Islam to be a friend, then. How stupid. Yup, we helped Saddam.
We wanted to keep the Soviets out of the Persian Gulf. We wanted to protect
our oil supply. And? You know, no one ever considers what the Middle East,
or Islam, would be like today after 40 or 50 years of Soviet domination.
There would be no rich Arabs, and Mecca would have been turned into a
museum. We did finally remove Saddam.....and we're trying hard to give the
people of Iraq a shot at good government.
Sniff, sniff......those are not very smelly roses you got there,
partner..... Show me the blood. Who, specifically, killed who?
Pax
<obov...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1125926794.1...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
PaxAmericana
> What is ironic is that less than a year ago, during the Dara battles, I
> said the very same thing to the Muslim presence then at alt.sufi.
> People should be responsible for cleaning their own house. Wouldn't it
> be nice if we all woke up and smelled the roses ;-)
>
The Dara battles?? Are you talking about the Iranian alternatives to the
Ken and Barbie dolls? http://www.islamfortoday.com/iran02.htm Cleaning your
own house _is_ a good idea! Others coming to clean it for you may not do it
the way you like......
>
> Are you saying that over a billion Chinese could be wrong? Perhaps we
> all need time with a microscope as well as a telescope to understand
> the marvels of the Universe.
>
I have a lot of respect for Chinese culture and the intelligence of the
Chinese people, but yes, one billion Chinese people CAN be wrong! And
Muslims will not appreciate them turning Mecca into a cultural museum and
coming to indoctrinate their children in the joys of communism. Ah, could a
rose by any other name smell so sweet?
Pax
<obov...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1125927772.7...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
PaxAmericana
partner with the West!
YES! www.freemuslims.org If they're sincere, I support them!
Pax
<azo6...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1125942849....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Eric
Jeez, and I thought it was just *religious* fundamentalists who were
brainwashed!
> Capitalism has demonstrated itself to be the most
powerful engine for raising the general standard of
living in a civilization that Mankind has ever conceived.
More importantly than "standard of living". What about the quality of life?
Eric
<<
I don't know where to begin here......are you mad at
capitalism? Capitalism has demonstrated itself to be the
most powerful engine for raising the general standard of
living in a civilization that Mankind has ever conceived.
That is, it employs people and usually enriches its
shareholders.
>>
Leaving the shareholders and the fat cats aside for now,
on a lighter note, this just came in from the Fuzzball Eater Society:
{{
Evening all,
I came across this in my mailbox. Looks like the Mulla is as relevant as
ever:
Peter Hawkins has updated the Nasrudin stories for
the world of the modern organisation and corporate
advisors in "The Wise Fool's Guide to Leadership", O
Books, 2005. Here is one of his stories:
To What End
--------------
The board of a large company were working on their
mission statement.
"What is your fundamental purpose?" asked Nasrudin.
"Our mission is to create constantly increasing
dividends for our shareholders," they declared.
"To what end?" asked Nasrudin.
"So they make increased profits which they will want to
reinvest in our company," they said.
"To what end?" asked Nasrudin.
"So they make more profits," they said, becoming
somewhat irritated.
'To what end?" asked Nasrudin nonchalantly.
"So they re-invest and make more profits."
Nasrudin pondered this for a while and thanked them
for their explanations.
Later that week they had arranged to visit Nasrudin's
house to work further on the Mission Statement. They
found him in his garden stuffing oats into his donkey.
"What are you doing?" they asked. "You are giving that
poor beast so much food that it will not be able to go
anywhere."
"But it is not meant to go anywhere," Nasrudin replied.
"Its purpose is to produce manure."
"To what end ?" they asked.
"Because without it I can not grow enough oats in my
small allotment to feed this greedy beast."
More information, and another story, at
http://www.nasrudin.org
}}
Best Wishes,
Eric.
conrad linde
God Bless you for sharing that Eric,
that is hilarious,
best wishes
conrad
PaxAmericana
> More importantly than "standard of living". What about the quality of
> life?
>
In America, most people can't distinguish between the two. You would get a
blank look from most Americans to that question. "quality of life" to most
Americans means "how much money do you have". When we think of a spiritual
quality of life at all, it is in terms of our relationship to God or Jesus.
Am I "right with God?", i.e., "saved". But fewer and fewer Americans take
religion seriously anymore. A lot of people go to church because it is
expected of them or for the socialization. And so we acquire wealth and
wonder why we remain unhappy no matter how many "things" we have. I have
just bought myself 36 acres of land in the country, and I walk around on it
when I want to be alone and think. It is pretty rugged, and it takes me a
good 45 minutes to go all the way around it. Has it improved my quality of
life? Well, I have a place to be alone now.....
A high standard of living gives you the POSSIBILITY of having a better
quality of life. Love makes the world go around, we say here, but money
greases the bearings.
And I STILL do not know what America has done to be considered so evil. Had
we let the Soviets have the Middle East, you would have been complaining now
that we should have stepped in and saved you from that. We cannot win....
We came. We bought some oil. We will leave when it is gone or we find
something better. With the Soviets, it would have been We came. We saw.
We conquered. Your children will all be good little communists!
I think that we gave you a better deal.
Pax
"Eric" <er...@anchor92.NOfreeSPAMserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dfi6b2$md0$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> I STILL don't know what America has done.
>
> Jeez, and I thought it was just *religious* fundamentalists who were
> brainwashed!
>
>> Capitalism has demonstrated itself to be the most
> powerful engine for raising the general standard of
> living in a civilization that Mankind has ever conceived.
>
PaxAmericana
And the fat cats invest their money in companies, and people have jobs.
Things are mass produced, and so are cheaper. Everyone has a TV set now.
Were they not mass produced, only the rich would have them, and they would
have few channels to watch. Ditto, computers. Ditto, a lot of other things
that we use and take for granted, courtesy of the evil capitalist
war-mongers like me. :>) The evil robber baron capitalist imperialist
war-mongering pig Henry Ford was the first person to mass-produce the
automobile and make it possible for every man in America to own one. This
in turn made the Saudis rich! See how it works? Of course, in Saudi
Arabia, only men can drive cars. But that might be a good thing. No women
drivers trying to apply makeup at 70 mph! Of course, in San Francisco, you
may find men applying makeup at 70 mph, but let's not talk about them!
Pax
"Eric" <er...@anchor92.NOfreeSPAMserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dfi815$60p$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
obov...@aol.com
many Muslims (till lately) but all those glorious qualities you mention
about capitalism are one sided. After all today is Labor Day in the
USA. Capitalism use of it's workers certainly has created a lot of
wealth. And it is true the over all standart of living on the planet
has risen. But the gap between wealthy and poor has increased
dramaticly. I've never been a communist but wouldn't mind some form of
socialism. Most of my life I've been a worker. Liberal is still not a
dirty word to most of my friends.
My beef with US capitalism mostly boils down to why waste all that
economic energy on creating mostly "trinkets for consumers" Have a
greater vision for the over all good. My beef with US forien policy is
that we've been killing (or having other people do the killing for us)
lots of people post wwII, i.e. central and south America (Granted
they're not Muslim), Viet Nam, ETC.. BTW I was in the US Army 65-67.
And we seem to have no discernable sustainalbe game plan, mostly we
just react to one crises after another, caught up in short term
solutions for our own imediate interests. What a waste of a Super
Power's power, imo.
As you say, the times are a changing.
Take Care,
obo
BTW, the problem with loving the smell of napalm in the morning, is
that it spoils the appetite till way past lunch.
PaxAmericana
<obov...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1125952198....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> The Shah of Iran was a bigger bully than Sadam. True we haven't killed
> many Muslims (till lately) but all those glorious qualities you mention
> about capitalism are one sided. After all today is Labor Day in the
> USA. Capitalism use of it's workers certainly has created a lot of
> wealth. And it is true the over all standart of living on the planet
> has risen. But the gap between wealthy and poor has increased
> dramaticly. I've never been a communist but wouldn't mind some form of
> socialism. Most of my life I've been a worker. Liberal is still not a
> dirty word to most of my friends.
>
Well, I work for a living, too. But I don't know any downtrodden or abused
workers. I _do_ remember when my mother worked in the Ford Cleveland Engine
Plant putting stickers on engines. She made more than I did as a computer
programmer! In fact, American workers have priced themselves out of jobs.
What they are paid now is too much for their productivity. Of course, they
still complain!
> My beef with US capitalism mostly boils down to why waste all that
> economic energy on creating mostly "trinkets for consumers" Have a
> greater vision for the over all good. My beef with US forien policy is
> that we've been killing (or having other people do the killing for us)
> lots of people post wwII, i.e. central and south America (Granted
> they're not Muslim), Viet Nam, ETC.. BTW I was in the US Army 65-67.
> And we seem to have no discernable sustainalbe game plan, mostly we
> just react to one crises after another, caught up in short term
> solutions for our own imediate interests. What a waste of a Super
> Power's power, imo.
>
Capitalism will produce what people want to buy. If people want to buy
trinkets, then capitalism will produce them. If they don't, then it won't.
Consumers vote with their pocketbooks. What "greater vision for the overall
good"? People are getting what they want under our system. Under the
Soviet socialist system, there were often long lines and empty store
shelves. Sorry. I want to be able to go to Wal-Mart and buy what I want
when I want. Socialism is dead. They don't know that yet in Cuba, but it
is. Who have we been having other people kill for us?? Ah, Central
America? Viet Nam? We were fighting socialism. As for no direction in the
60's, look at who was President then.
Pax
G...@volcanomail.com
I would again highly recommend a few books on the history of the West's
relationship with the Middle East:
"Sleeping with the Devil" Baer (former CIA agent)
"Secrets of the Kingdom" Gerald Posner
Another author offhand is David Horowitz (former Berkeley 60's radical)
who also has a book on Islamic politics.
The USA has essentially a trader mentality, not an imperialist one.
Whereas the USSR built facilities in Afghanistan for natural gas, it
was to pump it into the Soviet Union for free and then charge the
Afghans a pretty good sum for their own gas. The USA made a
partnership with the Saudis, and has paid and paid dearly.
If the oil fields were destroyed (see Posner's book for an account of
their being rigged with explosives that will make the fields
inaccessible and radioactive for decades) or taken over, the entire
world economy collapses, not just the USA's. However, this may be a
happy day for islamofascists.
As for Bin Laden, I doubt very much that he "only" wants the Western
infidels (the USA) out of *sacred* lands.
As for the USA being all over the globe, it also keeps open the
shipping lanes for the int'l community. Any other nominees for the
job?
Palestinian justice? What about the neglect by fellow Muslims in other
countries (what about Jordan?), if not being used as scapegoats against
the Jews. How much will Arafat's widow be donating to the poor
Palestinians from her Paris penthouse?
Regarding the "USA/capitalism = BAD BAD DOG" theme: there is probably a
very good reason why Shah singled out the USA in at least one book &
his lectures as being the most important in the contemporary focus of
the Work, as well as its being founded with the idea of it being part
of that plan.
Plus Shah was criticized no end for insisting on separating the sufi
tradition from Islam. All for good reason. IMHO, it becomes clearer
every day.
For those who haven't done so, I recommend a lengthy stay in several
Muslim countries, and take a break from everything that seems so
dreadful here.
Equally I think the feedback one can get from emigres, refugees, and
transplants to the US from third world countries, holocausts, and even
other Western countries is very instructive. The majority of these
people haven't become Donald Trumps, slaves to piles of cash, or
chasing dreams of SUV's. When people don't like something, they vote
with their feet... in free countries anyway.
As for 'quality of life', we have a great deal of control simply by the
power of our own choices.
And I'm starting with SOLAR POWER.
Yours,
conrad linde
for anyone interested from a socio-political perspective. Not that any
answers are to be found there
His,
jaye...@my-deja.com
PaxAmericana wrote:
> And I STILL do not know what America has done to be considered so evil. Had
> we let the Soviets have the Middle East, you would have been complaining now
> that we should have stepped in and saved you from that. We cannot win....
> We came. We bought some oil. We will leave when it is gone or we find
> something better. With the Soviets, it would have been We came. We saw.
> We conquered. Your children will all be good little communists!
>
> I think that we gave you a better deal.
>
> Pax
Hi Pax,
This reasoning is like that of a street robber with a knife. He says, I
am a street robber. I have just robbed you, but you should be glad I
did it, because if I hadn't, my colleague down the road would have, and
he shoots people's dicks off. So be grateful you got off lightly with
me!
All true and good, but it doesn't make the robber any less of a violent
thief, and certainly does not make him better than other passers-by,
who have not threatened and robbed anyone.
Busy at work this week ... no time for long posts. Keep it up, and
thanks for the binocular recommendations, will look into it.
J.
jaye...@my-deja.com
G...@volcanomail.com wrote:
> I would again highly recommend a few books on the history of the West's
> relationship with the Middle East:
>
> "Sleeping with the Devil" Baer (former CIA agent)
>
> "Secrets of the Kingdom" Gerald Posner
>
> Another author offhand is David Horowitz (former Berkeley 60's radical)
> who also has a book on Islamic politics.
>
> The USA has essentially a trader mentality, not an imperialist one.
> Whereas the USSR built facilities in Afghanistan for natural gas, it
> was to pump it into the Soviet Union for free and then charge the
> Afghans a pretty good sum for their own gas. The USA made a
> partnership with the Saudis, and has paid and paid dearly.
Hi GV,
Thanks for the book recommendations (amazon reviews below, for those
who are interested).
J.
Amazon.com
According to Robert Baer, the center of the global economy is a
"kingdom built on thievery, one that nurtures terrorism, destroys any
possibility of a middle class based on property rights, and promotes
slavery and prostitution." This kingdom also sits on one quarter of the
world's oil reserves, thus ensuring that it receives the full support
and protection of the U.S. government. Sleeping With the Devil details
the hypocritical and corrupt relationship between the U.S. and Saudi
Arabia and the potentially calamitous economic consequences of
maintaining this Faustian bargain.
As Baer makes clear, the U.S. has been aware of problems within the
bitterly divided Al Sa'ud family for years, but has ignored the facts
in order to keep lucrative business deals afloat. (The amount of money
the royal family spends to influence powerful American politicians and
lobbyists is staggering.) Particularly damning are his details
regarding Saudi Arabia's support of militant Islamic groups, including
al Qaeda. The ruling family funnels millions of dollars to such groups
in order to dissuade them from overthrowing the monarchy--a protection
scheme that is shaky at best, given the hatred most citizens feel for
the ruling family. To prevent economic disaster that could come from
either a local uprising or an interruption in the flow of oil due to
terrorism, Baer raises the possibility of the U.S. seizing the Saudi
oil fields and forcing a regime change on its own terms: "An invasion
and a revolution might be the only things that can save the industrial
West from a prolonged, wrenching depression," he warns.
Baer spent 21 years with the CIA, much of it in the Middle East, so he
is an informed guide to this complex subject. His alarming book
deserves to be read for raising many important and troubling questions.
--Shawn Carkonen
>From Publishers Weekly
In his blustering second book, former CIA officer Baer (See No Evil:
The True Story of a Ground Soldier in the CIA's War on Terrorism)
targets Saudi Arabia's corrupt leadership and cozy relationship with
Washington. He argues that because the Saudis pay vast sums to powerful
Americans, often in the form of lucrative defense contracts, those U.S.
agencies that could help stop terrorism are thwarted by their own side.
For example, CIA superiors tell Baer that they have no operating
directive to look into Islamic fundamentalism in Central Asia in the
early '90s. He is deeply disappointed in both the CIA and the State
Department, which he says looked the other way throughout the '90s as
widespread dissatisfaction with the status quo took root in Saudi
Arabia. While Baer's attacks on Washington's "consent of silence"
sometimes beg for clarification, his many working years in the Middle
East and Central Asia give him great believability, and he makes a
strong case that Saudi Arabia-with skyrocketing birth rates, growing
unemployment, a falling per capita income and a corrupt ruling family
draining the public coffers-is a powder keg waiting to explode. To
prevent being overthrown, Saudi rulers channel money to violent
fundamentalists, including al Qaida, via Islamic charities. Baer's
radical solution is guaranteed to stir debate and make many skittish:
"An invasion and a revolution might be the only things that can save
the industrial West from a prolonged, wrenching depression."
Copyright 2003 Reed Business Information, Inc.
>From The Washington Post's Book World/washingtonpost.com
The dust jacket of Gerald Posner's Secrets of the Kingdom calls it an
"explosive study" of Saudi Arabia. In 14 of its 15 chapters that's not
true, but in chapter 10 it is -- literally.
There Posner reports that Saudi Arabia has wired all of its major oil
facilities with interlocking Semtex explosive charges that can be
detonated from a single control point. Moreover, he says, the Saudis
have blended radioactive materials into the Semtex so that detonation
would not only destroy the facilities but also contaminate them beyond
repair.
Why would the Saudis set off what's essentially a networked dirty bomb
over their oil infrastructure? Because, according to Posner, they want
to make certain that nobody could benefit from invading their country
or taking down the ruling House of Saud. If the al Saud family goes,
Posner writes, the world's petroleum-based economy goes with it.
Posner, the muckraking author of nine previous books, acknowledges that
he cannot be sure this story is true. And indeed a Saudi official has
questioned the credibility of the allegations. Posner attributes the
story to conversations among Saudi officials intercepted by the
National Security Agency and Israeli intelligence and compiled by the
NSA into a file called "Petro SE" -- for "Petroleum Scorched Earth." It
is possible, he concedes, that the Saudis knew their conversations were
being overheard and concocted the doomsday scenario to ensure that the
United States would come to their aid in a crisis. "What better
incentive for Western powers, particularly the United States, to come
to the aid of the House of Saud if it were under external or internal
attack," Posner writes, "than to think that if it fell, like the shah
of Iran did a quarter century ago, they would take the energy
infrastructure of Saudi Arabia with them" and cause worldwide chaos?
The wealth of detail in Posner's account gives it an air of
credibility. Moreover, Saudi Arabia does have a Nuclear Energy Research
Institute, with scientists who are familiar with radioactive materials
such as cesium that could be used in dirty bombs. Because (according to
U.S. intelligence reports) the kingdom financed the development of
nuclear weapons by Pakistan, it would have had access to nuclear
material, if only through the clandestine network of Pakistani nuclear
scientist A.Q. Khan. And while Saudi Arabia is a signatory to the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, it has never agreed to an
international inspection protocol.
On other levels, though, Posner's account defies belief. Hundreds of
Americans work for Saudi Aramco, the state oil company, many in senior
positions and many with intelligence connections. Would none of them
have spotted this mammoth undertaking and reported it? Would the Saudis
really destroy facilities in Medina, a city so sacred that non-Muslims
are prohibited from going there? And who, in a royal family that
operates by consensus and spreads out decision-making power among
several senior princes, would have his finger on the detonation button?
Thinking that the House of Saud would give absolute doomsday power to
one individual runs contrary to Saudi Arabia's history for the past
half century.
Moreover, if the story is true, what should the world do about it?
Posner does not say. Having rolled this grenade under the reader's
chair, so to speak, he just leaves it there. He does note that Semtex
has a shelf-life of about 20 years and that the Saudis allegedly
acquired their supply in the early 1990s -- which means that a few
years from now the explosive network (if it exists) will no longer be
functional. What are the implications of that? Posner says such
questions can usefully be addressed only after the Saudis have been
persuaded to allow international inspectors into the facilities that
supposedly have been wired to see whether, in fact, they have been.
Saudi officials and Americans familiar with Saudi oil installations
have greeted Posner's account with derision. "The idea makes no sense,
and whoever wrote it has no credibility," Saudi Oil Minister Ali Nuaimi
said while in Washington earlier this month.
Aside from the chapter about the oil-field explosives, there isn't much
new in Secrets of the Kingdom. Readers who were persuaded by the
intimations of skullduggery in Craig Unger's House of Bush, House of
Saud, which reached a wide audience via Michael Moore's movie
"Fahrenheit 9/11," will find their suspicions reinforced; those who
take a more nuanced view of Saudi Arabia and U.S.-Saudi relations are
likely to find Posner's book a tendentious rehash of old material,
repackaged to put the kingdom in the worst possible light.
We can stipulate that Saudi Arabia has more than its share of odious,
reprehensible people, some of them with American blood on their hands;
that its social customs are sometimes alien to Western sensibilities;
that its human rights record is deplorable; that business deals there
have been landmarks of corruption; and that a lot of Saudi money has
supported bigotry and funded terrorism. Posner reviews these issues but
adds very little to our knowledge of them. Except for the "Petro SE"
material, he relies almost entirely on secondary sources, drawing
heavily from mainstream news outlets and well-known earlier books. Mike
Ameen, a longtime Aramco executive, and Hermann Eilts, a former U.S.
ambassador to the kingdom, are quoted only from their remarks on a PBS
documentary, even though both men are easy to find.
The result is a briskly written narrative that will shock anyone who
has been marooned on a desert island for 40 years but contains little
new for readers who have been paying attention. Here are stories about
Adnan Khashoggi, Ambassador Bandar bin Sultan, various kings and
princes, and the puritanical Wahhabi religious establishment. The
controversial 1980 public television film "Death of a Princess"
surfaces here, and the 1981 fight over selling AWACS planes, and the
Carlyle Group, and the BCCI bank-fraud scandal and the Arab oil embargo
of 1973-74. These are entertaining tales, but often told.
Some of the supposedly new material is also flimsy. "The 9/11
Commission gave the Saudis a free pass," Posner asserts in his opening
chapter. "This book shows why." But he neither establishes that a
whitewash took place nor explains why it allegedly occurred. To support
his charge, he offers an entire chapter about the extravagance of
Prince Mohammed bin Fahd and another about the global business dealings
of Prince al Waleed bin Talal. But the former's excesses are well
known, as are the latter's business ventures, and Posner does not even
suggest that this information has anything to do with the work of the
9/11 Commission. Relying mostly on news reports, Posner assembles a
coherent narrative of Saudi funding of terrorist groups, but he
acknowledges that on this issue the 9/11 Commission did indeed go after
the Saudis, noting in its final report that "al Qaeda found fertile
fund-raising ground in Saudi Arabia." Posner includes a hair-raising
account of how the Saudis fund the distribution of extremist literature
and ideas inside the United States, but that ground, too, has been
extensively plowed, most notably in a long report last December by
Freedom House, a nonprofit group that supports democracy abroad.
It is understandable that Posner wanted to keep his manuscript secret
in hope of making news upon its release, but it would have benefited
from a good vetting by a reader more knowledgeable about Saudi Arabia
and the region. Such a reader would have caught the obvious errors that
pockmark the text. Posner writes that in 1957 King Saud "was still
smarting over the U.S.'s support of Israel in its 1956 war with Arab
countries," when all Arabs know that Suez was the one Arab-Israeli war
in which Washington stood with them against Israel. The Shatt al Arab
is a waterway, not "a disputed region of land." The Bedouin are not a
single clan. And Aramco's Mike Ameen would never have said of King
Abdul Aziz ibn Saud, the kingdom's founder, that "people who dealt with
him never considered him bright," as Posner reports. Ameen was talking
about Abdul Aziz's dimwitted son, Saud -- as he confirmed when I called
him, which Posner never did.
Posner's best chapter is his last one, entitled "The Future?". The
question mark is apt. Posner gives a compelling summary of the
economic, social, educational and political choices facing Saudi Arabia
and its rulers and notes that there are "no easy choices." As he
observes, Saudi Arabia must make major changes to satisfy the
aspirations of its restless younger generation, but "if it moves too
quickly, it will destabilize the peace within the fractious monarchy
itself, especially when King Fahd dies and succession again confronts
the country." Well put. It's regrettable that Posner didn't put his
powers of observation to more productive use in the rest of the book.
Reviewed by Thomas W. Lippman
Copyright 2005, The Washington Post Co. All Rights Reserved.
Review
Praise for Why America Slept: The Failure to Prevent 9/11
"Smart and evocatively written . . . a narrative that takes on the
frenetic pace of a spy thriller."
-The New York Times Book Review
"A godsend . . . Posner has done an amazing job . . . laying out a
complicated situation through dramatic narrative."
-St. Louis Post-Dispatch
"An explosive scoop . . . No question, 9/11 could and should have
been prevented."
-Austin American-Statesman
"Riveting and disquieting."
-The New York Times
jaye...@my-deja.com
PaxAmericana wrote:
> > My beef with US capitalism mostly boils down to why waste all that
> > economic energy on creating mostly "trinkets for consumers" Have a
> > greater vision for the over all good. My beef with US forien policy is
> > that we've been killing (or having other people do the killing for us)
> > lots of people post wwII, i.e. central and south America (Granted
> > they're not Muslim), Viet Nam, ETC.. BTW I was in the US Army 65-67.
> > And we seem to have no discernable sustainalbe game plan, mostly we
> > just react to one crises after another, caught up in short term
> > solutions for our own imediate interests. What a waste of a Super
> > Power's power, imo.
> >
>
> Capitalism will produce what people want to buy. If people want to buy
> trinkets, then capitalism will produce them. If they don't, then it won't.
> Consumers vote with their pocketbooks. What "greater vision for the overall
> good"? People are getting what they want under our system. Under the
> Soviet socialist system, there were often long lines and empty store
> shelves. Sorry. I want to be able to go to Wal-Mart and buy what I want
> when I want. Socialism is dead.
I agree. Communism was born out of envy and died of it. However, there
are capitalist systems whose social security system does not consist in
private hand guns, but in measures to provide some basic housing and
healthcare to the poor and ill. Call it social democrat or whatever --
I think I prefer that type of system as a place to live.
J.
PaxAmericana
Pax
<jaye...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1126003705.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
PaxAmericana
need to assume personal responsibility for their own futures. Look at the
idiots who refused to leave New Orleans, but are now whining that the
government is failing to care for them properly! They are the victims of
their own stupidity, but it is easier for them to blame others. If I had
lived in New Orleans, knew that a cat 5 hurricane was coming, and knew that
my levies would only withstand a cat 3 storm, I'd have been out of there in
a heartbeat. Screw the house. Screw the possessions. That's what
insurance is for.
America was made great by those willing to take risks, not by those on our
welfare rolls!
Pax
<jaye...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1126011157.7...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
jaye...@my-deja.com
PaxAmericana wrote:
> Are we theives because we buy something from someone at the price they set?
>
> Pax
Look at it from the point of view of the ordinary Saudi.
America aids, does business with (and may even have established, for
all I know), a criminal regime which terrorises your people, violates
human rights and keeps all your country's oil profits to itself. (It
was much the same with Saddam in Iraq, by the way.)
This regime is led by religious nutcases who have forced you to convert
to their form of religion. Like the Taliban, they preach poverty and
tell you that pictures, photographs, musical instruments, singing and
video are evil (see http://www.answers.com/topic/wahhabism for more),
yet they themselves, like true hypocrites, lead billionaire lifestyles,
buy palaces with golden bathtubs and 6-ft videoscreens in the West, and
at home use their money to force their cranky beliefs down your throat
even further.
Yet on TV you see smiling American politicians shake hands with them,
just so the US can continue to enjoy the privilege of consuming 45% of
the world's gasoline all by itself. The Americans even have military in
your country to ensure that these people will stay in power. There is
no hope of things ever changing. So, how does that make you feel about
America?
Again, do a SciFi thought experiment and turn it round ... imagine
Saudis buy so much of the States with their oil money that they can
install an Islamo-communist regime, which stays in power by military
force.
Henceforth, every American gets a "fair" standard salary of $1200 a
month, regardless of qualification. 90% of US-produced consumer goods
are sold to the middle east, almost none remains in the US; the little
part that does goes to the aparatchiks, who live in billionaire
splendour. People in the middle east are happy, their culture and
quality of life blossom. Meanwhile, queues are forming in your local
mall.
When you complain to people in the Middle East about what they have
done to your country, they say, What is your problem? We simply buy
your products at the prices your leaders set. And anyway, before we
came, you had millions of people below the poverty line, people who
could not even afford healthcare, or went in debt when they got ill.
Now there is free healthcare for everyone! You have a just system now,
thanks to us! You should say thank you! To which you can only feebly
reply, Yes, but I did not want _that_ kind of justice.
It's all points of view. They're all relative, all limited, all
partial. But until you have the mental flexibility to see and
understand them all, without judgement, you cannot hope to be
objective.
J.
obov...@aol.com
> > More importantly than "standard of living". What about the quality of
> > life?
Pax replied:
> In America, most people can't distinguish between the two. You would get a
> blank look from most Americans to that question. "quality of life" to most
> Americans means "how much money do you have".
(snip)
> And so we acquire wealth and wonder why we remain unhappy no matter how many "things" we have.
>I have just bought myself 36 acres of land in the country, and I walk around >on it when I want to be alone and think. It is pretty rugged, and it takes >me a good 45 minutes to go all the way around it. Has it improved my >quality of
> life? Well, I have a place to be alone now.....
Well here we are finally. It's great to speak about things and our
respective world views, but mostly all we can really talk about with
much authority is ourselves. Thanks for shareing pax, that being
alone, walking in contact with nature, filling the time with some
conscious activity worked thru/by the brain (it would be another whole
topic thread line to get to know what we all think "thinking" to be).
One of my three great teachers has been contact with nature.
It would probably be safe to say that the diversity amongst those who
identify themselves as "SUFI" is as great as is found in any
subgrouping of Mankind, such as Muslim, Republican, Indiginous People,
Rotarian. One specific school of Sufi Practice developed 11 "secrets"
or techniques more than 700 years ago. They are not quite mental
gymnastics, and not quite meditation. I'm no authority, but one of them
(Khilwat Dar Anjuman-Retirement in Company) to my limited experience
creates a posture of mind which is similar to that as a walk in the
woods alone. A clearity, grounded to Earth. Alone but still
connected.
Pax wrote
> A high standard of living gives you the POSSIBILITY of having a better
> quality of life.
True. I supose the relationship between Capitalism and Consumerism is
like the chicken and the egg. Which came first? And the reality is,
we (USA) are currently stuck with it.
I personally don't think we in America are necessarily all that free.
We have a preaty good set of civil laws. But as we need to be taught
to hate, we are also taught many other things by our times and culture.
The car companies will plead, We make big SUVs and Trucks because
people want big Trucks and SUVs. (no one is looking to see which
model's have the majority of advertizing done by the car companies).
Bush has been lying to the American people, as president, for five
years, and getting away with it because of the power of advertizing
slogans and mass media. True we have some things better than others
(I've traveled in Japan, I admire much about the Japanese, but I could
never live as a Japanese). As to the non-industrialized world
inhabitants, some of them have a better quality of life, than many
Americans. I'm not advocating poverty, but sometimes, Less is More. I
am as much a slave to the tube (and I only have broadcast TV- no cable
or satilite) as the next man, but I say,
God dam the TV man.
How far a drive is it to your 36 acre walk about?
And,BTW, just for cohearancy to this sub topic, practical techniques,
the first secret (as with many "spiritual traditions") is Hush Dar Dam,
Awareness of Breathing. Every thing begins with breath.
My best to all,
obo
Eric
<<
I want to be able to go to Wal-Mart and buy what I want
when I want. Socialism is dead.
>>
Hi Pax,
I just did a google search on PaxAmericana and found that the domain names
http://pa... and http://www.pa... are on the market at $5.1million. Jeez, if
only you'd got in there first ....
Speaking of the employees of Wal-Mart and other poor folks flipping burgers
for MacDonalds. Don't you have an eentzy-weentzy twinge of conscience for
their plight, which leaves many of them struggling with debt to maintain
even a modest standard of living and horrendous health care bills?
Just to redress my own socially-democratic bias, here's a piece from The
Intellectual Activist about recent events: I'll reproduce it here as their
server seems to be up and down.
http://www.intellectualactivist.com/php-bin/news/showArticle.php?id=1026
An Unnatural Disaster: A Hurricane Exposes the Man-Made Disaster of the
Welfare State
by Robert Tracinski
Sep 02, 2005
It took four long days for state and federal officials to figure out how to
deal with the disaster in New Orleans. I can't blame them, because it also
took me four long days to figure out what was going on there. The reason is
that the events there make no sense if you think that we are confronting a
natural disaster.
If this is just a natural disaster, the response for public officials is
obvious: you bring in food, water, and doctors; you send transportation to
evacuate refugees to temporary shelters; you send engineers to stop the
flooding and rebuild the city's infrastructure. For journalists, natural
disasters also have a familiar pattern: the heroism of ordinary people
pulling together to survive; the hard work and dedication of doctors,
nurses, and rescue workers; the steps being taken to clean up and rebuild.
Public officials did not expect that the first thing they would have to do
is to send thousands of armed troops in armored vehicle, as if they are
suppressing an enemy insurgency. And journalists-myself included-did not
expect that the story would not be about rain, wind, and flooding, but about
rape, murder, and looting.
But this is not a natural disaster. It is a man-made disaster.
The man-made disaster is not an inadequate or incompetent response by
federal relief agencies, and it was not directly caused by Hurricane
Katrina. This is where just about every newspaper and television channel has
gotten the story wrong.
The man-made disaster we are now witnessing in New Orleans did not happen
over four days last week. It happened over the past four decades. Hurricane
Katrina merely exposed it to public view.
The man-made disaster is the welfare state.
For the past few days, I have found the news from New Orleans to be
confusing. People were not behaving as you would expect them to behave in an
emergency-indeed, they were not behaving as they have behaved in other
emergencies. That is what has shocked so many people: they have been saying
that this is not what we expect from America. In fact, it is not even what
we expect from a Third World country.
When confronted with a disaster, people usually rise to the occasion. They
work together to rescue people in danger, and they spontaneously organize to
keep order and solve problems. This is especially true in America. We are an
enterprising people, used to relying on our own initiative rather than
waiting around for the government to take care of us. I have seen this a
hundred times, in small examples (a small town whose main traffic light had
gone out, causing ordinary citizens to get out of their cars and serve as
impromptu traffic cops, directing cars through the intersection) and large
ones (the spontaneous response of New Yorkers to September 11).
So what explains the chaos in New Orleans?
To give you an idea of the magnitude of what is going on, here is a
description from a Washington Times story:
"Storm victims are raped and beaten; fights erupt with flying fists, knives
and guns; fires are breaking out; corpses litter the streets; and police and
rescue helicopters are repeatedly fired on.
"The plea from Mayor C. Ray Nagin came even as National Guardsmen poured in
to restore order and stop the looting, carjackings and gunfire....
"Last night, Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco said 300 Iraq-hardened Arkansas
National Guard members were inside New Orleans with shoot-to-kill orders.
" 'These troops are...under my orders to restore order in the streets,' she
said. 'They have M-16s, and they are locked and loaded. These troops know
how to shoot and kill and they are more than willing to do so if necessary
and I expect they will.' "
The reference to Iraq is eerie. The photo that accompanies this article
shows a SWAT team with rifles and armored vests riding on an armored vehicle
through trash-strewn streets lined by a rabble of squalid, listless people,
one of whom appears to be yelling at them. It looks exactly like a scene
from Sadr City in Baghdad.
What explains bands of thugs using a natural disaster as an excuse for an
orgy of looting, armed robbery, and rape? What causes unruly mobs to storm
the very buses that have arrived to evacuate them, causing the drivers to
speed away, frightened for their lives? What causes people to attack the
doctors trying to treat patients at the Superdome?
Why are people responding to natural destruction by causing further
destruction? Why are they attacking the people who are trying to help them?
My wife, Sherri, figured it out first, and she figured it out on a
sense-of-life level. While watching the coverage one night on Fox News
Channel, she told me that she was getting a familiar feeling. She studied
architecture at the Illinois Institute of Chicago, which is located in the
South Side of Chicago just blocks away from the Robert Taylor Homes, one of
the largest high-rise public housing projects in America. "The projects," as
they were known, were infamous for uncontrollable crime and irremediable
squalor. (They have since, mercifully, been demolished.)
What Sherri was getting from last night's television coverage was a whiff of
the sense of life of "the projects." Then the "crawl"-the informational
phrases flashed at the bottom of the screen on most news channels-gave some
vital statistics to confirm this sense: 75% of the residents of New Orleans
had already evacuated before the hurricane, and of those who remained, a
large number were from the city's public housing projects. Jack Wakeland
then told me that early reports from CNN and Fox indicated that the city had
no plan for evacuating all of the prisoners in the city's jails-so they just
let many of them loose. [Update: I have been searching for news reports on
this last story, but I have not been able to confirm it. Instead, I have
found numerous reports about the collapse of the corrupt and incompetent New
Orleans Police Department; see here and here.]
There is no doubt a significant overlap between these two populations--that
is, a large number of people in the jails used to live in the housing
projects, and vice versa.
There were many decent, innocent people trapped in New Orleans when the
deluge hit-but they were trapped alongside large numbers of people from two
groups: criminals-and wards of the welfare state, people selected, over
decades, for their lack of initiative and self-induced helplessness. The
welfare wards were a mass of sheep-on whom the incompetent administration of
New Orleans unleashed a pack of wolves.
All of this is related, incidentally, to the incompetence of the city
government, which failed to plan for a total evacuation of the city, despite
the knowledge that this might be necessary. In a city corrupted by the
welfare state, the job of city officials is to ensure the flow of handouts
to welfare recipients and patronage to political supporters-not to ensure a
lawful, orderly evacuation in case of emergency.
No one has really reported this story, as far as I can tell. In fact, some
are already actively distorting it, blaming President Bush, for example, for
failing to personally ensure that the Mayor of New Orleans had drafted an
adequate evacuation plan. The worst example is an execrable piece from the
Toronto Globe and Mail, by a supercilious Canadian who blames the chaos on
American "individualism." But the truth is precisely the opposite: the chaos
was caused by a system that was the exact opposite of individualism.
What Hurricane Katrina exposed was the psychological consequences of the
welfare state. What we consider "normal" behavior in an emergency is
behavior that is normal for people who have values and take the
responsibility to pursue and protect them. People with values respond to a
disaster by fighting against it and doing whatever it takes to overcome the
difficulties they face. They don't sit around and complain that the
government hasn't taken care of them. And they don't use the chaos of a
disaster as an opportunity to prey on their fellow men.
But what about criminals and welfare parasites? Do they worry about saving
their houses and property? They don't, because they don't own anything. Do
they worry about what is going to happen to their businesses or how they are
going to make a living? They never worried about those things before. Do
they worry about crime and looting? But living off of stolen wealth is a way
of life for them.
People living in piles of their own trash, while petulantly complaining that
other people aren't doing enough to take care of them and then shooting at
those who come to rescue them-this is not just a description of the chaos at
the Superdome. It is a perfect summary of the 40-year history of the welfare
state and its public housing projects.
The welfare state-and the brutish, uncivilized mentality it sustains and
encourages-is the man-made disaster that explains the moral ugliness that
has swamped New Orleans. And that is the story that no one is reporting.
Source: TIA Daily -- September 2, 2005
http://www.intellectualactivist.com/php-bin/news/showArticle.php?id=1026
obov...@aol.com
> America was made great by those willing to take risks, not by those on our
> welfare rolls!
The canoe designer I worked for at Lotus Canoes (Tampa,Fl) had what I
called a working knowledge of sterotypes. In his own way a remarkable
man, I learned a lot from him. He would say: "Anybody who starves to
death in America, deserves to." The situation may be different today
for folks in Africa and other poor regions. But not in America, I
would agree.
America certainly is the crown jewel of modernism. Blessed freedom,
blessed freedom to be as smart or as stupid as you can be. Blessed
freedom. Some have said that a philospher-king is the most enlightened
form of govenment. I have no idea, really.
The fact that nobody should go to bed hungry has nothing to do with
communism, socialism, or welfare states. It is simply good manners.
One world, one people, and all that.
And since I'm somewhat radical, I'd like to see a better way to provide
health care. We have a tradition of public education. With todays
"standard of living", why can't we also provide some level of public
health care? Other than giving tax breaks to pharmaceutical companies.
Just for the sake of argument, what would you have done if you lived in
New Orleans and had no insurance and no car and not much cash. Nothing
but some stuff filling the cheapest place you could rent. It is a
jungle out there. Survival of the fittest even in the concrete
canyons. What is the measuring stick of success?
Take Care,
obo
PaxAmericana
> Look at it from the point of view of the ordinary Saudi.
>
> America aids, does business with (and may even have established, for
> all I know), a criminal regime which terrorises your people, violates
> human rights and keeps all your country's oil profits to itself. (It
> was much the same with Saddam in Iraq, by the way.)
>
The Saudi family came to power in 1928. We began buying from them in the
30's. Look, when I go to Wal-Mart for something, I don't ask how Sam (when
he was alive) treated his children or his employees. It's none of my
business, and I don't care anyway. Wal-Mart has what I want at a
satisfactory price, and so I buy it. Buying something from someone is not a
"social consciousness" (whatever that means) activity. It's business. If
the Arabian people don't like the Saudi family, that's their problem, and
they need to solve it. All that we do is buy from them. If someone
replaces them, then we'll buy from THEM. They've pretty much cornered the
market. I suppose that we could conquer Saudi Arabia and (try to) establish
a democracy there. Is that what you're advocating?
>
> This regime is led by religious nutcases who have forced you to convert
> to their form of religion. Like the Taliban, they preach poverty and
> tell you that pictures, photographs, musical instruments, singing and
> video are evil (see http://www.answers.com/topic/wahhabism for more),
> yet they themselves, like true hypocrites, lead billionaire lifestyles,
> buy palaces with golden bathtubs and 6-ft videoscreens in the West, and
> at home use their money to force their cranky beliefs down your throat
> even further.
>
That's an internal problem which has nothing to do with America. We are not
the world's policeman. We take action when it is in our interest to do so.
Again, are you advocating regime-change in Saudi Arabia?
>
> Yet on TV you see smiling American politicians shake hands with them,
> just so the US can continue to enjoy the privilege of consuming 45% of
> the world's gasoline all by itself. The Americans even have military in
> your country to ensure that these people will stay in power. There is
> no hope of things ever changing. So, how does that make you feel about
> America?
>
We use 25% of the world's oil. I would work hard to overthrow my government
if that happened.
Pax
<jaye...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1126015929....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
PaxAmericana
> America certainly is the crown jewel of modernism. Blessed freedom,
> blessed freedom to be as smart or as stupid as you can be. Blessed
> freedom. Some have said that a philospher-king is the most enlightened
> form of govenment. I have no idea, really.
>
I wouldn't mind having Marcus Aurelius back.....the last of the Five Good
Emperors! Commodus was his only serious error in judgement. :>)
>
> The fact that nobody should go to bed hungry has nothing to do with
> communism, socialism, or welfare states. It is simply good manners.
>
> One world, one people, and all that.
>
Ah, from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!
Nobody SHOULD go hungry in the world! But parents shouldn't have more
children than they can feed, but they do. People shouldn't tolerate corrupt
governments, but they do. People shouldn't drop out of school, but they do.
People shouldn't buy things on credit that they can't afford, but they do.
People shouldn't gamble, dope-up, or drink away their paychecks, but they
do. Good manners is when you take care of yourself and your children, and
not go begging to your neighbor.
One world, one people. Yes, someday, but we must put aside the entitlement
mentality first. Otherwise, we're just the Roman mob screaming for bread
and circuses.
>
> And since I'm somewhat radical, I'd like to see a better way to provide
> health care. We have a tradition of public education. With todays
> "standard of living", why can't we also provide some level of public
> health care? Other than giving tax breaks to pharmaceutical companies.
>
Why can't people provide these things for themselves? I do. Our health
care system IS broken, but government is not the answer. If it WERE the
answer, we wouldn't have well-to-do Canadians coming here for heart surgery.
>
> Just for the sake of argument, what would you have done if you lived in
> New Orleans and had no insurance and no car and not much cash. Nothing
> but some stuff filling the cheapest place you could rent. It is a
> jungle out there. Survival of the fittest even in the concrete
> canyons. What is the measuring stick of success?
>
Buy a bicycle ASAP, get on US 61, and peddle my ass out of there! It's 80
miles to Baton Rouge, but far less to get out of the flood zone. Better,
why didn't the Mayor provide buses for the poor? You see, government isn't
aways the answer. Government broke down on all three levels - local, state,
and federal - in this situation. God help us when Yellowstone blows (you
know about that, I hope?)!
Pax
<obov...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1126052215....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
PaxAmericana
Pax
"Eric" <er...@anchor92.NOfreeSPAMserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dfkr2b$qgb$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
Eric
<<
Look, when I go to Wal-Mart for something, I don't ask how Sam
(when he was alive) treated his children or his employees. It's none
of my business, and I don't care anyway. Wal-Mart has what I want
at a satisfactory price, and so I buy it. Buying something from someone
is not a "social consciousness" (whatever that means) activity.
It's business.
>>
So what difference is there between a person lacking in social conscience
and a social psychopath?
There's little wonder, is there, that Shah should have suggested that the
future of our humankind would be, at best, a bee-hive; at worst, an
ant-heap?
Eric
<<
Look, when I go to Wal-Mart for something, I don't ask how Sam (when
he was alive) treated his children or his employees. It's none of my
business, and I don't care anyway. Wal-Mart has what I want at a
satisfactory price, and so I buy it. Buying something from someone is not a
"social consciousness" (whatever that means) activity. It's business.
>>
As part of Jayen's on-going SciFi thought experiment, maybe you'd like to
put yourself in the shoes of a terrorist and see how you feel about the
following attitude:
<<
Look, when I go to Wal-Mart to bomb it, I don't ask how Uncle Sam (when he
was alive) treated his children or his employees. It's none of my business,
and I don't care anyway. Wal-Mart is an icon of the infidel , and so I bomb
it. Bombing people is not a matter for "social conscience" (whatever that
means). It's God's Work.
>>
And the common denominator of pandemic proportions? LACK OF CONSCIENCE.
And conscience is the first thing that the Sufis seek to activate in order
to begin to tackle the complex of conditioning, egotism, hypocrisy and base
desires we've built around ourselves, which they call "The Commanding Self",
so that instead of it commanding us, we may learn how to command it, in a
more enlightened and fruitful way..
Best Wishes,
Eric.
PaxAmericana
Arabia? I ask this because our choices seem pretty limited, here. We can:
a) Continue to buy from the Saudis as we have been since FDR.
b) Invade Saudi Arabia and attempt to install a democratic government.
c) Invade Saudi Arabia and place it under the rule of a military governor
(we can let them have Gov. Blanco of Louisiana!).
d) Just clear Saudi Arabia of people and pump the oil ourselves.
e) Buy more heavily from others and boycott Saudi Arabia. But then, others
would continue to buy from the Saudis.....
I happily admit to being a social psychopath if that means that I believe in
keeping my nose out of other people's internal affairs. I also believe that
a people get the government that they deserve. It seems that in the Islamic
wolrd, only Turkey and Lebanon (and now Afghanistan and Iraq, thanks to us)
seem to have SOME form of representative government. It is certainly not in
America's interest to see Islamic theocracies (which will probably happen in
Iraq) spring up all over the place, and so we support secular governments.
So again, are you advocating regime change in Saudi Arabia?
Pax
"Eric" <er...@anchor92.NOfreeSPAMserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dfmj66$7om$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
jaye...@my-deja.com
> The Saudi family came to power in 1928. We began buying from them in the
> 30's. Look, when I go to Wal-Mart for something, I don't ask how Sam (when
> he was alive) treated his children or his employees. It's none of my
> business, and I don't care anyway. Wal-Mart has what I want at a
> satisfactory price, and so I buy it. Buying something from someone is not a
> "social consciousness" (whatever that means) activity. It's business. If
> the Arabian people don't like the Saudi family, that's their problem, and
> they need to solve it. All that we do is buy from them.
Not so, the US is also manipulating the political process in the region
to its advantage (and to the West's general advantage, from one
perspective), using military threat. Have a look at the following ...
Shifting American Strategy In The Gulf
By Yoginder Sikand
19 March, 2004
countercurrents.org
The American invasion and occupation of Iraq has set the stage for a
major transformation in America's policy vis-à-vis the Gulf states,
particularly with Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has consistently been a
major US ally in the region, and especially after the Iranian
revolution in 1979 it has worked closely with America on several
fronts, most notably to counter anti-monarchical and democratic forces
in the region. Saudi Arabia is the largest market for American products
in the region, and also enjoys the dubious distinction of being the
largest importer of American arms. American troops stationed in Saudi
Arabia guard the country, providing the Wahhabi regime with solid
defence against both internal as well as external opponents. In turn,
America has access to Saudi oil, said to account for a fourth of the
world's known reserves.
That cosy relationship between the Saudis and the Americans is now
being seriously reconsidered by policy makers in Washington. This is
strikingly illustrated in a recent report brought out by the Brookings
Institute, a major American think-tank. Titled 'The Approaching Turning
Point: The Future of US relations with the Gulf States', it is authored
by F. Gregory Gause III, director of the Middle East Studies Programme
at the University of Vermont.
Gause argues that owing to numerous domestic and international factors
American policy in the Gulf is today in the midst of a 'sea change'.
Within Saudi Arabia, he notes, there is growing opposition to the
presence of US troops stationed in the country, which, in turn, has
resulted in a major challenge to the ruling family, a key American
ally. On the American side, the events of 11 September have led to a
growing opposition to America's alliance with the Wahhabi regime, which
many have accused of sponsoring radical Islamist groups abroad. Given
these developments, he argues, America must reconsider its close
alliance with the Saudi regime, and look for other partners in the
region. This does not mean, however, that America should consider the
Saudi regime as an opponent, for that would not, he says, be in
America's own interests. 'It is simply not sensible for the United
States', Gause writes, 'to make an enemy of a government which sits on
25 % of all the known oil reserves in the world, which controls the
Muslim holy cities of Mecca and Medina, and which seeks to cooperate
with the United States on a number of key issues'. Hence, while
resisting the temptation of branding Saudi Arabia as an enemy, he
suggests that America should continue to cooperate with the Saudis on
issues of 'common interest', but at the same time must also realise
that the Saudi are not going to toe the American line on every issue or
even on every aspect of America's 'war on terrorism'. The
Saudi-American relationship must be restructured, Gause argues, to
reflect the new realisation that the interests of both countries
'overlap, but are not identical'. Washington should aim for a 'normal'
relationship with Riyadh to take the place of the 'special'
relationship of the recent past. On issues such as oil and economic
affairs the two should closely cooperate, while America must no longer
see Saudi Arabia as 'a useful base' for American forces.
With America now occupying Iraq and busy setting about installing a
pro-American regime in the country, the usefulness of American military
bases in Saudi Arabia is being seriously reconsidered in Washington.
Removing American troops from Saudi soil and relocating them elsewhere,
Gause suggests, would undermine anti-American forces in the region who
have been using the presence of American soldiers in Saudi Arabia to
argue the case that America is engaged in a war against Islam. At the
same time, he says, America must 'push' the Saudis to 'use their
prestige and their networks in the wider Muslim world to take a more
active role in the "war on terrorism"'. For this purpose he advises the
US to get the Saudis to clamp down on funding to Islamist groups, and
to encourage the Saudi regime to assume a greater role in 'the war of
ideas', to promote 'more tolerant and less "jihadist" interpretations
of Islam' in order to combat 'bin Ladinist ideas'.
At the same time as America has justified its invasion and occupation
of Iraq in 'democratic' 'liberationist' terms, as delivering
'democracy' to the Iraqis long suffering under the rule of a ruthless
dictator, it shows no signs of being seriously concerned with promoting
real democracy in countries in the region that are closely allied with
it, most of whom are ruled by dictators or monarchs. Gause has an
ingenious argument to counter the call for democracy in these American
client states. He insists that the suggestion that the US must push the
Saudis for substantial changes in their political and social system is
'flawed', because it might provoke domestic opposition, being seen as a
western imposition. More importantly, from the American point of view,
is the obvious fact that real democracy in Saudi Arabia would, at least
in the short term, 'inevitably produce a political system even more in
thrall to the religious establishment, and less open to American
pressures, than the one that exists now'. Further, given the mounting
anti-American wave among the Saudi people, democratic elections, Gause
argues, would obviously result in clear victories of anti-American
parties or candidates. As Guase clearly recognises, such elections
would 'not produce the kinds of changes that American critics of Saudi
Arabia would like to see'. Hence, keeping the present Saudi rulers in
power is, Gause says, in America's own interests, because, he argues,
the 'only group in a position to replace them' would then be even more
committed to Wahhabi radicalism than the ruling regime. Put simply,
Gause dismisses arguments for democracy in Saudi Arabia as this would
not be in America's own interests. So much, then, for American rhetoric
of democracy and human rights.
A major aspect of America's changing relationship with Saudi Arabia
concerns its military presence in the region. Gause writes that as
America's military links with the Saudis contract its reliance on
smaller Gulf monarchies must expand. This, in fact, has already been
underway for several years now. Since 1991 America has developed an
extensive network of military bases in these countries, which Gause
sees as taking on the role played by American bases in Saudi Arabia.
Kuwait today hosts American troops on a regular basis, and nearly a
third of the country has been declared a closed military zone. The
headquarters of the vastly expanded American naval presence in the Gulf
are now located in Bahrain. Qatar has recently signed an agreement with
the US to upgrade American facilities in the country, which include a
major airfield and control centre. Oman now provides access to US
forces at three bases on its territory, while the UAE's port and
airport facilities provide logistical support for American forces in
the region.
These small monarchical states, none of which is a democracy in any
sense, are now poised to replace Saudi Arabia as the linchpin of
American military policy in the Gulf region. Gause presents this nexus
as being in the interests of both the Americans as well as the ruling
regimes of these states. America needs their oil as well as bases in
their territories in order to control access to oil reserves in the
region. For their part, these regimes are dependent on American troops
to defend them from what they see as external threats, particularly,
Gause says, from Iran. Consequently, they are said to consider 'their
American security tie as their ultimate insurance policy'. 'These
governments', Gause writes, 'see a greater and more immediate need for
American protection than the Saudi government does, and are willing to
pay a greater price for it'.
Gause recognises that while the ruling regimes of these states are
heavily dependent on America, large sections of their own people might
be opposed to American military presence in their countries. But where
American interests are paramount, democratic scruples must be thrown to
the wind! Gause acknowledges the growing anti-American feelings in
these states, owing principally to America's support for Israel and the
way it has pursued its 'war on terrorism'. Yet, he refuses to seriously
engage with this question, evading it by claiming that the people of
these states are more likely to accept an American military presence
than in Saudi Arabia because '[i]t was not so long ago that Great
Britain had a formal protectorate in these states, within the living
memory of their elites'. Furthermore, since foreign workers outnumber
citizens in Kuwait, Qatar and the UAE, the sort of 'social disruptions'
that an American military presence would cause are 'not nearly as
unusual' as they are in Saudi Arabia. Equally importantly, since these
states are relatively small in terms of area and population, potential
opposition, Gause suggests, can be 'mitigated' through 'rulers'
patronage systems', 'personal connections' and 'intelligence
gathering'. Overall, then, these states are, from the American point of
view, 'simply easier to manage politically', and hence 'better suited
to sustain a long term American military presence' as compared to Saudi
Arabia. Given this, Gause says, the presence of American forces in
these countries is now being seen both by Washington as well as the
rulers of these states as 'permanent'.
With the smaller Gulf states replacing Saudi Arabia as hosts of
American forces in the region, Gause warns that America should be
circumspect about demands for democracy in these countries. He suggests
that greater democratisation in these countries is likely to strengthen
anti-American forces, given the widespread anti-American sentiment
among the local population. '[G]reater political openness', he
stresses, 'will not necessarily make the conduct of American foreign
policy in these states any easier'. Elections in the Gulf states, he
notes, would, at least in the short term, 'yield parliaments composed
of groups who are less likely to be supportive of American foreign
policy objectives in the region that the ruling regimes are now'.
Hence, he implicitly critiques the demand for real democracy in these
states by suggesting that 'Washington should be modest and realistic
about what electoral openings in the smaller Gulf States will mean',
and must not 'hinge its policy toward those states on demands for fully
democratic elections'. Put in plain words what Gause seems to argue is
that democracy in the Gulf region should be clearly subordinated to
American interests. If democracy is likely to produce regimes that
interfere with America's hegemonic designs, he appears to be saying, it
must be effectively countered or at least not be allowed to flourish.
The shift in America's imperialist strategy in the Gulf seems in many
respects a return to the British model of control over the states in
the region in the late colonial period. Gause himself admits that
'Washington increasingly finds itself in a position in the Gulf that
bears many similarities to that of Great Britain, the previous "keeper
of the peace" in the region'. He writes that Britain sought to maintain
its dominance in the region by supporting 'friendly' local rulers while
avoiding military action further inland in Arabia. He sees the shift in
America's military policy as today moving in that direction, 'more
closely mimic[ing] the British strategy'. He suggests that America
could 'learn much' from the British colonial policy in the region of
ruling through local elites and doing 'little to try to reform local
political systems in their own image'. This policy is said to have
'mitigated the inevitable friction between the British and the local
populations', thus ensuring overall British hegemony. In other words,
he appears to argue, America must not seek to promote genuine democracy
in the region but, instead, serve as 'the guarantor of the particular
political order there'. He cautions that America should resist the
'temptation' of getting involved in the domestic affairs of these
states. Such 'temptations' that must be carefully guarded against could
even be for the 'best of reasons', such as promoting 'reform,
democratisation, human rights, etc.'. Rather than directly intervening
in these countries' affairs, he advises that America should support
'those reform efforts that emerge from the ruling elites themselves'.
Needless to say, the ruling elites in these countries are fiercely
opposed to genuine democracy, and hence, Gause's recommendations appear
to amount simply to a plea for the preservation of the status quo.
The Palestinian issue is central to the way America is perceived in the
Arab world, and anti-American feelings in the region owe much to
America's support for Israel. Gause, however, has no suggestions at all
to make for a reconsideration of American stance on the question, and
conveniently glosses over the issue. This, as well as his implicit
opposition to genuine democratisation in the region, clearly show the
hollowness of American rhetoric of promoting 'democracy', which is used
only very selectively in order to pursue American designs in the area,
as in the case of Iraq today. Likewise, Gause offers no critique
whatsoever of America's use in the past of Saudi-style Wahhabism as a
tool to promote its interests to counter secular, leftist, nationalist
and democratic forces in the Muslim world. Indeed, echoing the views of
other influential American policy makers, his opposition to Wahhabism
is far from consistent, and is guided simply by a narrow conception of
American interests. Thus, while he acknowledges that the official Saudi
Wahhabi brand of Islam 'undoubtedly encourages intolerance' towards
other Muslim groups, particularly but not only the Shias, he argues
that 'as long as official "Wahhabism" is not a direct source of
terrorism against the United States, this is an issue that must be left
for Saudis themselves'.
Reflecting the voices of an influential section of America's policy
making elite, Gause's report promises little to those who had hoped for
the emergence of a genuine dialogue between America and the Muslim
world. In the wake of the events of 11 September 2001 many had expected
that the American establishment would recognise the crucial need for
genuine democracy in the region and a solution to the Palestinian issue
as essential in order to undermine the influence of radical Islamists.
However, as Gause's report suggests, there appears to be no significant
shift in American policy in this regard. The military solution that
America is now pursuing, and which Gause himself appears to support,
can only promise to further complicate the situation, and do nothing at
all to remedy the root causes of instability in the Gulf.
Yoginder Sikand is the editor of Qalandar
http://www.countercurrents.org/us-sikand190304.htm
> That's an internal problem which has nothing to do with America. We are not
> the world's policeman. We take action when it is in our interest to do so.
> Again, are you advocating regime-change in Saudi Arabia?
No, and certainly not a violent one. The ideal solution would probably
be a gradual liberalisation of society, increased access to public life
for women, increasing availability of the country's wealth to the
general population, and the creation of a healthy job market that
offers career perspectives to young people.
More dialogue between the Western world and muslims would also be
helpful. At present, the lack of respectful and _informed_
communication seems almost as total as that achieved by the Iron
Curtain.
The work of people like Idries Shah could have a major role in
promoting a change of attitude on our side of the equation.
> We use 25% of the world's oil. I would work hard to overthrow my government
> if that happened.
Correct, 25% of the world's oil, but 45% of the world's gasoline. (This
is partly due to the US market's rejection of diesel engines, which are
more fuel-efficient.)
J.
jaye...@my-deja.com
PaxAmericana wrote:
> Sniff, sniff......those are not very smelly roses you got there,
> partner..... Show me the blood. Who, specifically, killed who?
Well, let's not forget the obvious. The Americans and Brits recently
killed large, uncounted numbers of Iraqi conscripts, as well as many
Iraqi civilians.
I am always amazed how we count each individual fatality on "our side",
while on the other side, we do not even bother to count or guess the
thousands.
J.
jaye...@my-deja.com
article) has a website
http://www.brook.edu/index/research.htm
that seems to offer a wealth of interesting articles and publications,
some of them authored by muslims, e.g.
http://www.brook.edu/press/books/fightingradicalismwithhumandevelopment.htm
J.
PaxAmericana
Pax
<jaye...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1126175301.7...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
PaxAmericana
> Well, let's not forget the obvious. The Americans and Brits recently
> killed large, uncounted numbers of Iraqi conscripts, as well as many
> Iraqi civilians.
>
> I am always amazed how we count each individual fatality on "our side",
> while on the other side, we do not even bother to count or guess the
> thousands.
>
So, how many civilians have we SAVED in the last two years from Saddam and
his goons? How many will we save next year without Saddam in the future,
and the year after, and the year after? How many Muslims have the
insurgents killed in the last two years? Maybe more than we have, but
you've forgotten about that, haven't you? No. It's always all about what
America does, right?
Pax Americana
<jaye...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1126177018.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
conrad linde
>
> So, how many civilians have we SAVED in the last two years from Saddam and
> his goons? How many will we save next year without Saddam in the future,
> and the year after, and the year after? How many Muslims have the
> insurgents killed in the last two years? Maybe more than we have, but
> you've forgotten about that, haven't you? No. It's always all about what
> America does, right?
>
It wasn't long ago that Tony Blair publicly announced that Saddam Hussain
was a, i quote, "a force of stability in the region" He was sold arms to
the hilt and a blind eye was turned on the atrocities he committed in the
region to his people, presumably out of the convenience of self-serving
interests.
No. It's always all about what
> America does, right?
Does seem to me that America is a hysterical sort on the whole and
paranoid too. As long as there is a common enemy on the 'outside' that
unifies and hold people together inside. Do you remember McCarthyism? When
the communist 'threat' (woo woo, woo woo) was over, another one had to
found/created. Whoops comes along the axis of evil! how convenient.
What about the displacement of the island people of Diego Garcia?
Supporting and putting in place Pinochet (undemocratically) who has the
innocent blood of thousands of people on his hands - well done. If one was
to make a list, this thread would be very very long indeed. Why don't you
rather read some of the books that have been suggested?
Where is the moral fortitude when China abuses human rights? or invades
Tibet? or Israel's violations of UN sanctions. Not lets give 'em more arms
that will help the cause of Peace we have helped destabilise in the region
(have a look at the history of the middle-east. When i say 'we' i mean
Britain also)
What you are proving here, Pax, is that intelligence when in service of
the mind can be used to justify, and rationalise just about anything the
ego does (ego read, false and self-centred self, opposed to truth-centred
self in which self is a lovely part of the whole)
Such intelligence is totally blind to reality and is a misuse of one's
power of faculty. Only through core honesty does intelligence have a true
function in the world.
Erik mentioned here that conscience is the first thing a sufi develops on
the path. This is the awakening of 'knowing' (seeing of the heart) The
development of a return to an authenticity of being, from which all else
arises.
Otherwise, it is distortion creating more distortion. Fear creating fear
and terror. A valuable book i found that illustrates this is Idries Shah's
children's story the Lion Who Saw Himself in the Water.I have had the
privilege and joy of reading and re-reading to my son over and over.
Isn't it amazing how as children we can get so absorbed in one thing to
want to do it or read it, again and again.
The moral? we need to sort our own houses out first.
Eric
HarperSanFrancisco, 1997
http://www.katinkahesselink.net/sufi/sufi.htm
Transforming the Self
Robert Frager
note: [...] indicates my additions from Idries Shah. Try to read it minus
the religionist accretions, in the light of "modern" scientific knowledge of
psychological states and processes. Eric.
The goal of all mysticism is to cleanse the heart, to educate, or transform,
the self, and to find God. The lowest level of the self is dominated by
pride, egotism, and totally self-centered greed and lust. This level is the
part within each person that leads away from Truth. The highest level is the
pure self, and at this level there is no duality, no separation from God.
The self is actually a living process rather than a static structure in the
psyche. The self is not a thing. The Arabic term is related to words for
"breath," "soul," "essence," "self," and "nature." It refers to a process
that comes about from the interaction of body and soul. When the soul
becomes embodied, it forgets its original nature and becomes enmeshed in
material creation. This creates the self.
The lowest level of the self, the ego or lower personality, is made up of
impulses, or drives, to satisfy desires. These drives dominate reason or
judgment and are defined as the forces in one's nature that must be brought
under control. The self is a product of the self-centered consciousness -
the ego, the "I." The self must be transformed - this is the ideal. The self
is like a wild horse; it is powerful and virtually uncontrollable. As the
self becomes trained, or transformed, it becomes capable of serving the
individual.
Sheikh Muzaffer has written:
The self is not bad in itself. Never blame your self. Part of the work of
Sufism is to change the state of your self. The lowest state is that of
being completely dominated by your wants and desires. The next state is to
struggle with yourself, to seek to act according to reason and higher ideals
and to criticize yourself when you fail. A much higher state is to be
satisfied with whatever God provides for you, whether it means comfort or
discomfort, fulfillment of physical needs or not.According to many Sufi
teachers, there are seven levels of the self. They are seven levels of
development, ranging from absolutely self-centered and egotistical to purely
spiritual.
[1] The Commanding, [Depraved] Self.
[The individual out of personal control, believes himself to be a coherent
personality, starts to learn that he, like all undeveloped individuals, has
a multiple and changing personality.]
The first level has also been described as the domineering self or the self
that incites to evil. The commanding self seeks to dominate and to control
each individual. At this level there is unbridled selfishness and no sense
of morality or compassion.
Descriptions of this level are similar to descriptions of the id in
psychoanalytic theory; it is closely linked to lust and aggression. These
have been called the swine and the dogs of the self - the sensual traits are
like swine, the ferocious ones like fierce dogs or wolves. Wrath, greed,
sensual appetites, passion, and envy are examples of traits at this level of
the self. This is the realm of physical and egoistic desires.
At this level people are like addicts who are in denial. Their lives are
dominated by uncontrollable addictions to negative traits and habits, yet
they refuse to believe they have a problem. They have no hope of change at
this level, because they do not acknowledge any need to change.
[2] The Regretful [Accusing] Self. [The dawning of personal conscience.]
[The dawn of self-awareness and "accusation", in which automatic thoughts
are seen for what they are].
People who have not developed beyond the first level are unaware and
unconscious. As the light of faith grows, insight dawns, perhaps for the
first time. The negative effects of a habitually self-centered approach to
the world become apparent to the regretful self.
At this level, wants and desires still dominate, but now the person repents
from time to time and tries to follow higher impulses. As Sheikh Muzaffer
points out:
There is a battle between the self, the lower self, and the soul. This
battle will continue through life. The question is, Who will educate whom?
Who will become the master of whom? If the soul becomes the master, then you
will be a believer, one who embraces Truth. If the lower self becomes master
of the soul, you will be one who denies Truth.
At this second level, people do not yet have the ability to change their way
of life in a significant way. However, as they see their faults more
clearly, their regret and desire for change grow. At this level, people are
like addicts who are beginning to understand the pain they have caused
themselves and others. The addiction is still far too strong to change. That
requires far stronger medicine.
[3] The Inspired Self.
[The beginning of real mental integration, when the mind is becoming capable
of operating on a higher level than was its previous futile custom.]
At the next level, the seeker begins to take genuine pleasure in prayer,
meditation, and other spiritual activities. Only now does the individual
taste the joys of spiritual experience. Now the seeker is truly motivated by
ideals such as compassion, service, and moral values. This is the beginning
of the real practice of Sufism. Before this stage, the best anyone can
accomplish is superficial outer understanding and mechanical outer worship.
Though one is not free from desires and ego, this new level of motivation
and spiritual experience significantly reduces the power of these forces for
the first time. What is essential here is to live in terms of higher values.
Unless these new motivations become part of a way of life, they will wither
and die away.
Behaviors common to the inspired self include gentleness, compassion,
creative acts, and moral action. Overall, a person who is at the stage of
the inspired self seems to be emotionally mature, respectable, and
respected.
[4] The Contented, [Serene] Self
[Serene balance, equilibrium of the individuality.]
The seeker is now at peace. The struggles of the earlier stages are
basically over. The old desires and attachments are no longer binding. The
ego-self begins to let go, allowing the individual to come more closely in
contact with the Divine.
This level of self predisposes one to be liberal, grateful, trusting, and
adoring. If one accepts difficulties with the same overall sense of security
with which one accepts benefits, it may be said that one has attained the
level of the contented self. Developmentally, this level marks a period of
transition. The self can now begin to "disintegrate" and let go of all
previous concern with self-boundaries and then begin to "reintegrate" as an
aspect of the universal self.
[5] The Pleased, [Fulfilled] Self.
[Power of fulfillment, new ranges of experience not susceptible to
description beyond approximate analogy.]
At this stage the individual is not only content with his or her lot, but
pleased with even the difficulties and trials of life, realizing that these
difficulties come from God. The state of the pleased self is very different
from the way we usually experience the world, focused on seeking pleasure
and avoiding pain.
A Sufi story illustrates this:
Sultan Mahmud of Ghazna once shared a cucumber with Ayaz, his most loyal and
beloved companion. Ayaz happily ate his half of the cucumber, but when the
sultan bit into his half, it was so bitter he immediately spit it out. "How
could you manage to eat something so bitter? the sultan exclaimed, "it
tasted like chalk or like bitter poison!"
"My beloved sultan," answered Ayaz, "I have enjoyed so many favors and
bounties from your hand that whatever you give me tastes sweet." When a
person's love and gratitude to God reach this level, he or she has reached
the stage of the pleased self.
[6] The Self Pleasing to God, [The Fulfilling Self].
[A new activity and function, including extra dimensions of the
individuality.]
Those who have reached the next stage realize that all power to act comes
from God, that they can do nothing by themselves. They no longer fear
anything or ask for anything.
The Sufi sage Ibn 'Arabi described this level as the inner marriage or self
and soul. The self pleasing to God has achieved genuine inner unity and
wholeness. At earlier stages, people struggle with the world because they
experience multiplicity. A broken mirror creates a thousand different
reflections of a single image. If the mirror could be made whole again, it
would then reflect the single, unified image. By healing the multiplicity
within, the Sufi experiences the world as whole and unified.
[7] The Pure Self, [The Purified and Complete Self].
[Completion of the task of reconstitution, possibility of teaching others,
capacity for objective understanding.]
Those few who attain the final level have transcended the self entirely.
There is no ego or separate self left, only union with God. At this stage,
the individual has truly realized the truth, "There is no god but God." The
Sufi now knows that there is nothing but God, that only the Divine exists,
and that any sense of individuality or separateness is an illusion.
Rumi illuminates this state for us:
If you could get rid
Of yourself just once,
The secret of secrets
Would open to you.
The face of the unknown,
Hidden beyond the universe
Would appear on the
Mirror of your perception
http://www.katinkahesselink.net/sufi/sufi.htm
conrad linde
Just awesome, Eric,
I loved reading that. What about the story of Sultan Mahmud of Gazna and
Azaz! lol, lovely.
thank you,
conrad
PaxAmericana
> It wasn't long ago that Tony Blair publicly announced that Saddam Hussain
> was a, i quote, "a force of stability in the region" He was sold arms to
> the hilt and a blind eye was turned on the atrocities he committed in the
> region to his people, presumably out of the convenience of self-serving
> interests.
>
I am not responsible for Tony Blair's opinion of Hussain. Mine has always
been that he was a psychopath. However, he was the lesser of two evils from
our standpoint. Hussain, or see Iraq turn into another Iran. Now we are
trying to see if the Iraqi people are worthy of a free and open government.
Somehow I doubt it.
>
> Does seem to me that America is a hysterical sort on the whole and
> paranoid too. As long as there is a common enemy on the 'outside' that
> unifies and hold people together inside. Do you remember McCarthyism? When
> the communist 'threat' (woo woo, woo woo) was over, another one had to
> found/created. Whoops comes along the axis of evil! how convenient.
>
The truth is that most Americans could care less what goes on outside of the
country. We have our own lives to live. And, yes, I remember Joseph
McCarthy very well. He was right.
>
> What about the displacement of the island people of Diego Garcia?
> Supporting and putting in place Pinochet (undemocratically) who has the
> innocent blood of thousands of people on his hands - well done. If one was
> to make a list, this thread would be very very long indeed. Why don't you
> rather read some of the books that have been suggested?
>
Where in the hell is Diego Garcia? OK, I'll look it up. OK. It belongs to
the British. We have a Naval base there. Ah, it says that between 1967 and
1973 the British government removed some 2000 llois to make way for the
base. Hmmmm, seems that these people weren't native to the island anyway.
Their ancestors only arrived in the 1800's. So, what about it? Sounds like
you should complain to Tony Blair about this one.
And Pinochet? We supported him, I would guess, in preference to the
communists. If Pinochet was killing left-wing insurgents, that's alright
with me. In any case, Pinochet is responsible for his own crimes.
>
> Where is the moral fortitude when China abuses human rights? or invades
> Tibet? or Israel's violations of UN sanctions. Not lets give 'em more arms
> that will help the cause of Peace we have helped destabilise in the region
> (have a look at the history of the middle-east. When i say 'we' i mean
> Britain also)
>
Truman got us started on backing down to the Chinese when he wouldn't let
MacArthur cross the Yalu (I'm too lazy to look up the spelling) River. If
it had been up to me, I'd have taken them down while we still could. We'll
have to face them someday. And so will Islam. Appeasement never works.
You know, China is just sitting there watching Islam and the West wear each
other out.
>
> What you are proving here, Pax, is that intelligence when in service of
> the mind can be used to justify, and rationalise just about anything the
> ego does (ego read, false and self-centred self, opposed to truth-centred
> self in which self is a lovely part of the whole)
>
Did you read what you wrote here? Intelligence should always be in service
of the mind! I will not sit here and try to claim that I am not
self-centered. Every lifeform on the planet is self-centered. And I am
proud to say that I love America and everything - everything - that it
stands for. If we step on some toes from time to time, that is what great
empires do. Accept it.
And what is truth? Your truth is that America is the cause of every evil in
the world, and that even the people who cut off the heads of innocent
contractors do so because America makes them do it. I don't read the books
and articles that you talk about because, to begin with, I don't believe in
God. Also, because mysticism is only another word for superstitution. We
live in a hard, material world - not up in the clouds somewhere. The
problems that all of us face today demand hard, pragmatic answers. You
would do better to look for the answers to the world's problems in the pages
of Machiavelli's "The Prince". He teaches much, but the two things that you
should come away with from him might be:
A. You must look upon the world - and live in it! - as it is, NOT as you
would like for it to be.
B. He asks if it is better for a Prince (or a great nation) to be loved or
respected, and then answers himself that it is best to be both. However, if
you must choose, choose respect.
I don't care if America is loved. The whiners in our country have worried
too much about that, and in the process they have caused us to lose the
world's respect. Bad choice....
Pax Americana
"conrad linde" <conrad...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.09.12...@blueyonder.co.uk...
jaye...@my-deja.com
PaxAmericana wrote:
> So, how many civilians have we SAVED in the last two years from Saddam and
> his goons? How many will we save next year without Saddam in the future,
> and the year after, and the year after? How many Muslims have the
> insurgents killed in the last two years? Maybe more than we have, but
> you've forgotten about that, haven't you? No. It's always all about what
> America does, right?
Fair points. And I admit that even without Saddam, some Iraqis still
seem to have a great, and very deplorable, enthusiasm for murdering
each other.
I am reminded of the simile of churned water ... you can't make it
smooth by pushing the waves down.
J.