The Blameless West
Belfagor da Dog
against
Iraqi civilians:
"I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes." He
described it as "scientific expedient."
1920. British Wing-Commander Sir Arthur Harris (aka Bomber Harris) flies
over
Afghanistan and stops a twenty-pound bomb directly on the palace of the
Afghan
king
1924. Arthur "Bomber" Harris describing aerial campaigns against Iraqi
civilians: "The Arab and Kurd... now know what real bombing means in
casualties
and damage; they now know that within 45 minutes a full-sized village can be
practically wiped out and a third of its inhabitants killed or injured by
four
or five machines." He emphasized the need for a "a real as opposed to a
purely
moral effect".
Belfagor da Dog (former nom de plume: Bouncing Baby)
Cl.Massé
PcdN9.14234$xp4.5...@news1.telusplanet.net...
So Iraq is a traditional target of the US? From when and why? It would
help to understand the today's real issue by the old worlder.
--
~~~~ %20cl...@free.fr%20 LPF
To have your rejected posts appear at http://clmasse.free.fr/mtm/
email them to me with the full header.
Gistak
<clm...@online.fr> wrote:
I found it incredible when Claude mentioned that attacks in Indonesia (on
Indonesians and Australians) were actually attacks made because people hated
America. Now I find it incredible that he considers an attack by the British
as an attack by the US.
P
PSmith9626
He is french. They are not given to rational thought.
best
penny
Belf Da Dog
"Gistak" wrote...
> snip
> >
>
>
> I found it incredible when Claude mentioned that attacks in Indonesia (on
> Indonesians and Australians) were actually attacks made because people
hated
> America. Now I find it incredible that he considers an attack by the
British
> as an attack by the US.
>
> P
>
Nothing justifies the bloody massacres of kids from Australia on vacation.
They probably worked two jobs to make enough money to get to Bali. Maybe
they were having a bit of adventure before going to college. Imagine the
anguish of their parents who spent so many years raising and protecting
them. *Understanding* historical causes of rage in the Middle East and
Muslim countries against the West is NOT the same as justifying random
bloody acts of terrorism against civilians who had nothing to do with it.
The inability or unwillingness of frothy-mouthed fanatical terrorists to
differentiate Australians or Swedes from Americans or civilians from
soldiers shows that all Westerners are becoming targets. America's
singularly (and proudly) retarded foreign policy only serves to exacerbate
the situation.
PSmith9626
Winston Churchill was British.
British Wing Commander Harris was British.
What did the US have to do with this?
Wake up.
best
penny
> 1920. Sir Winston Churchill, advocating the use of aerial bombardment
>> against Iraqi civilians:
>> "I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised
>> tribes." He described it as "scientific expedient."
>> 1920. British Wing-Commander
>So Iraq is a traditional target of the US?
Claude, even for a frenchman, your irrational hatred of the USA is over the
top.
Gistak
"BssnRX" <bss...@aol.com> wrote:
>> I found it incredible when Claude mentioned that attacks in Indonesia (on
>> Indonesians and Australians) were actually attacks made because people hated
>> America.
>
> Not that I tend to agree with claude, but the group that took credit for the
> attacks in bali did say they thought the disco was filled with americans, not
> aussies.
>
I just remember the guy pointing at all the foreign (Western) press and
saying that they're who he hates.
I don't remember them saying that bit about Americans, though I'm not
doubting you. But if they really believed it, then they're dumber than they
have any right to be. Bali is practically overrun by Aussies.
P
BssnRX
>Indonesians and Australians) were actually attacks made because people hated
>America.
Not that I tend to agree with claude, but the group that took credit for the
rian
the population now have familymembers of Indonesian descent
(intermarriages)
this year my ex and son did a 3 day march in Djogjakarta stayed on Java
for a week followed by 1 week Bali and 1 week Lombok(they already did
marches in Japan (twice), Vancouver Island and New Zealand). Last year
GF took a sumatra-java-Bali tour with a nature travel comp(12 people in
the hroup).
--
Cole's Axiom: The sum of the intelligence on the planet is a constant.
The population is growing.
Rian
"Gistak" <gis...@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:BA34B8DC.1318%gis...@hotmail.com...
RoyB
"Gistak" <gis...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:BA34B8DC.1318%gis...@hotmail.com...
I remember reading that, too, that the bombers thought they were blowing up
Americans. Well, Timothy McVeigh wasn't too right on with his target,
either. I guess hate causes a certain blindness.
Roy
gistak
news:aunuk5$9...@chicago.us.mensa.org...
> And Dutchies! We tend to visit our former colony, because at least half
> the population now have familymembers of Indonesian descent
> (intermarriages)
> this year my ex and son did a 3 day march in Djogjakarta stayed on Java
> for a week followed by 1 week Bali and 1 week Lombok(they already did
> marches in Japan (twice), Vancouver Island and New Zealand). Last year
> GF took a sumatra-java-Bali tour with a nature travel comp(12 people in
> the hroup).
> --
I do remember meeting a lot of Dutch while I was there. More Aussies in Bali
than anything else, but the Dutch were to be found all over Indonesia.
P
gistak
"Belf Da Dog" <D...@Sniff.com> wrote in message
news:xubP9.59911$xp4.1...@news1.telusplanet.net...
>
> "Gistak" wrote...
> > snip
> > >
> >
> >
> > I found it incredible when Claude mentioned that attacks in Indonesia
(on
> > Indonesians and Australians) were actually attacks made because people
> hated
> > America. Now I find it incredible that he considers an attack by the
> British
> > as an attack by the US.
> >
> > P
> >
>
> Nothing justifies the bloody massacres of kids from Australia on vacation.
> They probably worked two jobs to make enough money to get to Bali. Maybe
> they were having a bit of adventure before going to college. Imagine the
> anguish of their parents who spent so many years raising and protecting
> them.
I can also imagine myself being there. I spent six months in Indonesia,
though I was mostly with Indonesians, not drunk Aussies in Bali.
> *Understanding* historical causes of rage in the Middle East and
> Muslim countries against the West is NOT the same as justifying random
> bloody acts of terrorism against civilians who had nothing to do with it.
Obviously. Who said differently? Certainly I didn't!
What in the world makes you suggest that I did? I don't even know what
you're talking about. I never accused anyone of JUSTIFYING anything.
Did you even read the conversation in question?
> The inability or unwillingness of frothy-mouthed fanatical terrorists to
> differentiate Australians or Swedes from Americans or civilians from
> soldiers shows that all Westerners are becoming targets.
I have a problem with your under-estimation of these people. They have no
inability to tell the difference between Americans and Swedes, and they can
certainly tell the difference between soldiers and civilians.
The fact that they might be unwilling to make a distinction should tell you
loud and clear that their's is a fight against Westernism, not just the US.
Australia and France both have a history of involvement (interference?) in
the South Pacific and Indonesia respectively. And they're both a big part of
Westernism.
> America's
> singularly (and proudly) retarded foreign policy only serves to exacerbate
> the situation.
>
This silly insult doesn't have anything to do with my point that Claude was
wrong to say that Churchill was American, for crying out loud. HISTORY
doesn't just mean pointing fingers at the US.
P
Belf Da Dog
"gistak" wrote...
> snip
>
> This silly insult doesn't have anything to do with my point....
Who, me? Silly? Moi? The talking dog? However silly my insults towards
the corporate lackeys who, as proxies of their corporate bosses, run the
American government and its foreign policy may be, their silliness ain't
comparable to the foolishness of American foreign policy. Sorry if I
offended you personally. Believe it or not, I didn't mean to. Sorry about
your government.
Belf da Dog
BssnRX
>doubting you. But if they really believed it, then they're dumber than they
>have any right to be. Bali is practically overrun by Aussies.
>
Anybody that would blow up themselves and innocent others at the command of
some religious leader is worse than dumb.
Cl.Massé
20021228063111...@mb-cc.aol.com...
> dear claude,
> Winston Churchill was British.
> British Wing Commander Harris was British.
> What did the US have to do with this?
> Wake up.
> best
> penny
That doesn't answer the question.
Belf Da Dog
"gistak" wrote...
> snip
> > *Understanding* historical causes of rage in the Middle East and
> > Muslim countries against the West is NOT the same as justifying random
> > bloody acts of terrorism against civilians who had nothing to do with
it.
>
> Obviously. Who said differently? Certainly I didn't!
>
All sorts of people discussing the historical causes of hostility in the
Middle East have received bizarre accusations of this sort. In fact,
correct me if I'm wrong (hey, I'm just a dumb dog), academic freedom in the
USA, in particular in the area of Middle Eastern studies, is facing a major
assault.
Perhaps I do set-up straw men from time to time to acquire some arrows, so
to speak, if there are any, and see where they're coming from. Sorry if I
seemed to insinuate anything about you, but thanks for the arrows (so to
speak, heh heh)
"General Zhuge Liang of ancient China was short of arrows for an upcoming
battle. One misty morning, to acquire arrows, he sent a flotilla of empty
straw boats with straw men on them sailing towards the enemy. The foe
attacked the straw boats with a huge rain of arrows, losing their own
ammunition in the process. The general then retrieved the arrows for his
own use."
Belf da Dog
Gistak
97cQ9.62513$Zv4.4...@news2.telusplanet.net, "Belf Da Dog" <D...@Sniff.com>
wrote:
I'm not the slightest bit offended by your characterization. (In fact, I
couldn't care less what you think about it.)
I'm saying that it has nothing to do with what I was talking about. Again.
P
Gistak
"Belf Da Dog" <D...@Sniff.com> wrote:
> Sor
> "gistak" wrote...
>> snip
>>> *Understanding* historical causes of rage in the Middle East and
>>> Muslim countries against the West is NOT the same as justifying random
>>> bloody acts of terrorism against civilians who had nothing to do with
> it.
>>
>> Obviously. Who said differently? Certainly I didn't!
>>
>
> All sorts of people discussing the historical causes of hostility in the
> Middle East have received bizarre accusations of this sort.
Oh, so you were talking to THEM when you responded to my post in that way.
Should I always assume that you're doing so?
> In fact,
> correct me if I'm wrong (hey, I'm just a dumb dog), academic freedom in the
> USA, in particular in the area of Middle Eastern studies, is facing a major
> assault.
>
I haven't noticed anything of the sort.
> Perhaps I do set-up straw men from time to time to acquire some arrows, so
> to speak, if there are any, and see where they're coming from. Sorry if I
> seemed to insinuate anything about you, but thanks for the arrows (so to
> speak, heh heh)
>
You set up the straw man, then shot your own arrows at it as if it was the
argument *I* had set up. It was not.
P
Belf da Dog
"Gistak" wrote...
> snip
>
> Belf da Dog wrote..
>
> academic freedom in the
> > USA, in particular in the area of Middle Eastern studies, is facing a
major
> > assault.
> >
>
> I haven't noticed anything of the sort.
>
Well, then, here you go, start with this article entitled, "The War On
Academic Freedom" by Kristine McNeil:
www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20021125&s=mcneil
Belf da Dog
Gistak
You think that article highlights a "major assault" on academic freedom in
the US?
Well, I suppose it boils down to a definition of a "major assault" of
academic freedom. Yes, it's true that there are people in America who react
badly and stupidly against professors who disagree with them. They do what
they can to hurt those professors.
[Note that the Web site in question is a private effort, and that the
Universities have apparently not asked the professors to change their public
stance or syllabi.]
So, I agree that there are those who would undermine academic freedom in the
US, but if this Web site is an indication of their success, then I think the
US is doing as well as anyone else. It ain't perfect, and I'm not claiming
that it is.
I doubt that there's a Westernized country around that isn't facing assaults
like this one on academic freedom.
P
Gistak
<gis...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I will say that I'm upset about the obvious and well-founded fear in our
society of mentioning non-PC viewpoints. I can't really say how this is in
other countries, but I do think that there's an over-sensitivity to the
possibility of a comment being racist, sexist, or prejudiced.
Merely discussing affirmative action can get you branded a racist. Merely
discussing Israeli politics can get you branded anti-Semitic (or
anti-Arabic, though that's a newer and MUCH smaller problem). Discussing
whether women should be in certain combat situations can get you branded a
sexist.
Whether you've made up your mind or not doesn't matter. It only matters that
you're willing to DISCUSS the issue. In fact, you're supposed to have made
up your mind long before the issue ever comes up.
So in that sense, I'd agree that Academic freedom is facing a watershed era.
P
PSmith9626
No, but it does address your post.
I guess you can say that these Brits you mentioned were on our side in WWII.
France doesn't share the guilt for their words as France was on the side of the
....NAZI's.
best
penny
Sending shipments of jews to death camps, for example.
>Message-id: <aupuo5$r...@chicago.us.mensa.org>
America is no worse than any other empire. French people resent us because we
displaced their empire.
Which was brutal and responsible for a thousand years of unending war and
suffering. ( Now, it's our turn!)
Frenchman are educated to be arrogant and you hate america for pushing against
the illusion that your country is the greatest thing going.
( And don't forget that I love France. I loved living in France.)
What I don't love is arrogance and unreasoning hatred.
Gistak
xubP9.59911$xp4.1...@news1.telusplanet.net, "Belf Da Dog" <D...@Sniff.com>
wrote:
>
> "Gistak" wrote...
>> snip
>>>
>>
>>
>> I found it incredible when Claude mentioned that attacks in Indonesia (on
>> Indonesians and Australians) were actually attacks made because people
> hated
>> America. Now I find it incredible that he considers an attack by the
> British
>> as an attack by the US.
>>
>> P
>>
>
> Nothing justifies the bloody massacres of kids from Australia on vacation.
> They probably worked two jobs to make enough money to get to Bali. Maybe
> they were having a bit of adventure before going to college. Imagine the
> anguish of their parents who spent so many years raising and protecting
> them.
Yeah.... And I can also picture myself there, since I spent 6 months in
Indonesia, though only a little while in Bali.
> *Understanding* historical causes of rage in the Middle East and
> Muslim countries against the West is NOT the same as justifying random
> bloody acts of terrorism against civilians who had nothing to do with it.
No, and I never said that it was.
> The inability or unwillingness of frothy-mouthed fanatical terrorists to
> differentiate Australians or Swedes from Americans or civilians from
> soldiers shows that all Westerners are becoming targets.
Surely the Indonesians in Bali know good and damn well that it's mostly
Aussie kids there. EVERYone there knows that. They're not confused and
thinking that they're hitting American soldiers. They know the difference.
But, in any case, I certainly agree that the attack was motivated by
anti-Western feeling, rather than purely anti-Australian feeling. Nor have I
ever said anything different.
> America's
> singularly (and proudly) retarded foreign policy only serves to exacerbate
> the situation.
>
Your third grade put-down doesn't have anything to do with what I was saying
about Claude. Claude sees a British bomb as an American bomb. He sees an
explosion in Indonesia as an anti-American explosion.
*I* know and you seem to know that it was inspired by hatred of Westernism.
HE seems to think that it's always about the US and nothing but the US.
I'm assuming that you didn't bother going back to read the conversation that
I was referring to.
P
zookumar
America, in theory, is a far different beast from freedom of speech in
America, in practice. I'd extend that statement to freedom of the
press, as well. What you formally have and what you functionally have
(in each of those freedoms) are two different things. And the sooner
we understand that, the better we will appreciate the threat of
fascism that marches around and about us.
-zookumar-
Gistak
<psmit...@aol.com> wrote:
Sooner or later, I'll stop thinking it's incredible. Sooner or later, I'll
just expect it.
P
Henry Chang
BssnRX is right, the terrorists thought they were Americans.
Bali is an Indonesian Hindu enclave, the terrorists were Muslims, not
familiar with either the physical victims of the bombing (Aussie tourists)
or the economic victims (the Balian Hindus). The hotel occupancy rate of
tourist-dependent Bali, typically around 70% is currently at 9%.
Henry
Gistak
<gis...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/28/02 12:50 PM, in article
> xubP9.59911$xp4.1...@news1.telusplanet.net, "Belf Da Dog" <D...@Sniff.com>
> wrote:
>
Please note that all the stuff below was written a while back, but for
whatever reason only made it through to the newsgroup now. We've already
been through this. I'm not trying to go through it again
P
Gistak
"zookumar" <zook...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Great. You're finally recognizing that freedom of speech in
> America, in theory, is a far different beast from freedom of speech in
> America, in practice. I'd extend that statement to freedom of the
> press, as well.
First, I have posted very similar sorts of things as the post you're
responding to, many times and for a long time. I'm not "finally realizing"
anything.
Second, I still say that we have freedom of the press and of speech in the
US. Unlike others, I never said that freedom of the press or speech had to
mean absolutely perfect freedom. I always noted happily that certain speech
is NOT allowed and should not BE allowed.
On the subject of it not having to be perfect, I also didn't and don't agree
that "freedom of speech" means that there are no consequences to speaking.
Being disliked for your speech, and even being fired from a university
position for teaching unpopular ideas, does not mean that you don't have
"freedom of speech" by MY definition of the term. You have the freedom to
say that X people are evil and stupid, and I have the freedom to fire you
from my school.
Same goes for the press. As I thought we had sorted out, your definitions of
the terms are much different from mine. I really don't want to get into all
that again, but please don't think that I've changed my mind just because
you finally understand that I'm not quite as one-dimensional as you have
often suggested.
P
Feek O'Hanrahan
> On 1/2/03 5:45 PM, in article FSXQ9.233306$C8.7...@nnrp1.uunet.ca,
> "zookumar" <zook...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Great. You're finally recognizing that freedom of speech in
>> America, in theory, is a far different beast from freedom of speech
>> in America, in practice. I'd extend that statement to freedom of the
>> press, as well.
>
> First, I have posted very similar sorts of things as the post you're
> responding to, many times and for a long time. I'm not "finally
> realizing" anything.
FWIW, I agree. I was going to post a reply to zook saying basically what you
did, but I decided it better to let you handle it for yourself.
> Second, I still say that we have freedom of the press and of speech
> in the US. Unlike others, I never said that freedom of the press or
> speech had to mean absolutely perfect freedom. I always noted happily
> that certain speech is NOT allowed and should not BE allowed.
>
> On the subject of it not having to be perfect, I also didn't and
> don't agree that "freedom of speech" means that there are no
> consequences to speaking. Being disliked for your speech, and even
> being fired from a university position for teaching unpopular ideas,
> does not mean that you don't have "freedom of speech" by MY
> definition of the term. You have the freedom to say that X people are
> evil and stupid, and I have the freedom to fire you from my school.
>
> Same goes for the press. As I thought we had sorted out, your
> definitions of the terms are much different from mine. I really don't
> want to get into all that again, but please don't think that I've
> changed my mind just because you finally understand that I'm not
> quite as one-dimensional as you have often suggested.
Please, *PLEASE* don't start the "freedom of press/speech" discussion again.
I wasn't even involved, and it wore me out! :)
--
Left to themselves, thoughts will merely spin in circles, racing
themselves down a path they've already beaten.
- Tyler Trafford
james
I love your comment about the Brits being on our side in the 1941-45
war.
Were would Britain have been without the unstinting help of the US.
Your President's grandfather and Joseph Kennedy were particularly
helpful to Britain, IIRC.
James
psmit...@aol.com (PSmith9626) wrote in message news:<20030102090004...@mb-cs.aol.com>...
gistak
P
"james" <jame...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e5870d4.03010...@posting.google.com...
Cl.Massé
"PSmith9626" <psmit...@aol.com> a écrit dans le message news:
20030102090004...@mb-cs.aol.com...
> dear claude,
> No, but it does address your post.
> I guess you can say that these Brits you mentioned were on our side
> in WWII. France doesn't share the guilt for their words as France was
> on the side of the ....NAZI's.
> best
> penny
Anyone who isn't against Iraq is on the side of the nazis.
Then, I will answer myself.
For a long time, there is OIL in Iraq. The creation of Kuwait wait made
by Grand-Britain (it bears an English name), well before Hussein's
regime, which has nothing to do with that long story. Only, the borders
of Kuwait contain the region the richest of OIL, to please some rich
Emirs. All that story have been only a story of OIL, from the
beginning. It's ok to kill more than one million women and children in
order that OIL continue to flow and to enrich the western citizens. We
call it: "international morality".
Prigator
>Your President's grandfather and Joseph Kennedy were particularly
>helpful to Britain, IIRC.
Joe Kennedy was the American ambassador to Britain from the late 1930's to the
beginning of the war. He encouraged Chamberlain, the PM at the time, to try
to appease Hitler, to do nothing while the Germans advanced through Europe,
believing that Hitler would be satisfied with occupying France and stop there.
Churchill, at the Admiralty at the time, having intelligence to the contrary
which the PM rejected, set up clandestine communications with Roosevelt, who
agreed to bypass both Chamberlain and Kennedy. Kennedy's advice to both
Roosevelt and Chamberlain was decidedly pro-German up until the time the bombs
started to fall on London.
Doug Chandler
PSmith9626
>It's ok to kill more than one million women and children in
>order that OIL continue to flow and to enrich the western citizens.
Sure. That is what an empire is. Surely, you recall imperial France?
best
penn
But, the terrorism is deeper than oil. It is about cultural conflict.
james
I think Claude should be reminded of the terrible Norman conquest.That
is his fault as well.
James
Cl.Massé
> But, the terrorism is deeper than oil. It is about cultural conflict.
Not the war in Iraq.
zookumar
>dear claude,
>>It's ok to kill more than one million women and children in
>>order that OIL continue to flow and to enrich the western citizens.
>Sure. That is what an empire is. Surely, you recall imperial France?
IOW, all empires are unjust. And any person with a sense of
justice and morality should oppose empires, every single last one of
'em, as a matter of breathing air.
> best
> penn
>But, the terrorism is deeper than oil. It is about cultural conflict.
True enough (eg. that it's a cultural conflict). But OIL is a
very large part of this contrived "cultural" conflict. Indeed, it
may well be argued that OIL is at the root of the schism between
moderate and extremist Muslims (eg. modern palatial oil sheiks vs.
stone age mullahs who resent the material excesses); with the latter
porting the schism onto the larger international stage in order to
create a "panIslamist power organization" (ostensibly, to rival the
power of the sheiks and their puppetmasters). After all, the local
stage appears to be well *subdued and managed* by the shieks. Of
course, the global stage is replete with cultures and cultural
differences, and that aspect (eg. cultural conflict) is naturally
going to be played out as part in parcel of the amplification of the
original local schism.
Also, with so many Bush operatives mixed up in the oil
business [Bush: Harken Energy; Cheney: Haliburton; Condaleeza Rice:
Chevron; James Baker III: British Petroleum connection; Rumsfeld:
advisor on pipelines; etc.]; it is silly to argue that the proposed
war on Iraq (and the circumstances of terrorism in general leading up
to the proposed WarOnIraq) is anything *but* primarily about OIL.
Culture has much less to do with it than surface perusal of the facts
deems, although it makes for a good Shakespearean plot. No doubt, the
self-appointed fascists holding the reins of American power, want to
make this a theatrical event. After all, theatre always tugs the
heartstrings harder than cold hard facts.
A somewhat illuminating URL:
"http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j122500.html"
(You'll have to buy the book to dine on the details, tho'.)
Two more URLs (the second one talks about the corporate media
and its complicity through silence):
"http://afr.com/perspective/2002/09/21/FFXADXIZA6D.html"
"http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jan2002/oil-j03.shtml"
Indeed, type keywords "oil [Bush crony name here]" in Google,
Copernic, or any other search engine ... and be prepared for alarm.
-zookumar-