On 2001-10-19 08:23, Bob Butler 54 wrote:
Can anyone suggest a good English language source several steps closer to the Arab?s main stream?

Not necessarily Arab mainstream, but I always double-check US news with the following:

http://www.lemonde.fr (in French, but they have a translate feature: "traducteur")

http://www.pravda.ru (or http://www.english.pravda.ru)

http://www.haaretzdaily.com (in english, from Israel)

http://www.ahram.org.eg/weekly/ (in english, from Egypt)

Bear in mind, every news source is biased. The more biased viewpoints you have, the more likely you can puzzle out reality.

Ted Hudson writes? A lot of us are, mentally, in the 4T already. Perhaps a lot of people, idiots mailing flour and talcum powder to scare people and costing outrageous amounts of testing and antidote money, are not. When enough of us have mentally turned, the hoaxes should stop, our purpose in life having turned more serious.

Agreed. Even on this web site, the recent spurt of letters on Clinton feels 3T to me. Even with the anthrax letters as a fairly new thing, our attention is still drifting back to the sex scandals.

Mark Lamb writes? While it is now conventional wisdom, at this website, that we have entered the fourth turn (despite the fact that a certain 'elder' generation retains immense power in order to 'create History'), my 'personal' fear is that this is the ultimate setup for the BIG DISAPPOINTMENT.

While in abstract, the amateur political theorist in me wants to see the world turned upside down, the middle aged engineer finds the status quo quite comfortable. From the latter perspective, a Middle East in turmoil shipping no oil while terrorists wielding weapons of mass destruction wander the US is not desirable. Continued sex scandals, shark attacks and controversies on supply side economics would be disappointing, I suppose, but perhaps better than the alternative. :wink:

The concept of ?big disappointment? has left me wondering about what would happen to cause ?Go to high crisis mode, do not pass go, do not collect $200.? My key would be bin Ladin or his heirs gaining enough support to destabilize Saudi Arabia and the other oil monarchies. Afghanistan, Palestine, Kashmir, and other Middle East hot spots might remain isolated islands. If so, they could no more force a true 4T than Somalia, Bosnia or East Timor did. As isolated trouble spots, a mix of foreign aid, peacekeeping, diplomacy, nation building with occasional ?minor? military intervention might keep the lid on the boiling pot without significantly altering the world order.

I fear the violence is being used not to seek military victory, but as a base of propaganda to unite Islam. Dubya seems content to unite the Arab nation?s establishment, without showing significant concern for popular opinion in the region. Radical revolutions along the model of Iran that threatened the west?s oil supply would put the fat in the fire.

If sufficient support for popular revolutions against the oil monarchy states is the ?best case? situation for those of us wanting to see 4T in the near future, what would be the worse case? The Taliban falls, replaced by a representative government that represents all the tribes. Israel and Palestine agree on a partitioning scheme, cease direct action against one another, and cooperate in hunting down extremists on both sides. Indian and Pakistan agree on a Kashmir partitioning scheme, cease direct action against one another, and cooperate in hunting down extremists on both sides. The FBI and other agencies secures the United States from terrorist attacks.

Now, if all of this happens, I won?t be disappointed. Amazed, but not disappointed. More likely Dubya will win some, lose some, and draw a lot. The various hot spots have notorious traditions. None seem unsolvable, but bin Ladin has people on all fronts who will be throwing monkey wrenches in the process. Israel?s position has been that they will negotiate when the terror stops. With bin Ladin gaining support by making Israel an enemy, does anyone think the terror will stop? So long as handful of homicides a week blocks progress, there will be more homicides than progress.

My sense of irony is twitching. Dubya is allergic to nation building, and one can?t easily force new governments on old peoples, but he needs to go for peace and prosperity. The west has to be perceived as the worldview most apt to lead to a better future. Meanwhile, bin Ladin has to create the impression that the west is the enemy of a better future, that he is the agent for favorable change. It would seem that to do this, he would have to destroy western attempts at peace and prosperity. This sounds like a tricky PR problem.

Again, we he have to see how the balance of power settles on the diplomatic, military and propaganda fronts. I believe in watching spirals of violence. When the OKC bomb went off, all rejected violence. BATF and the conservative militias both backed away from use of force. When the twin towers fell, there was a cry for vengeance. Dubya went to use of force, and his popularity soared. When an act of violence occurs, does this create a thirst for more violence going the other way? Or is there revulsion, a desire to end the cycle? It might be prudent to separately track cycles of violence in Palestine, Afghanistan, Kashmir, the United States, but most of all the oil monarchies. While I haven?t heard much from South Russia and the borders of China, the former communist states have also had problems with Muslim extremists. Southeast Asia has sizable Muslim activist populations as well. We might not want to totally forget AIDS and Africa. Regardless of what happens in the current hot spots, whether Dubya or bin Ladin get the upper hand, there are other places with the same sort of economic, political, ethnic-religious and ecological problems. No matter how things change, other peoples will cry ?me too!? After all, if one sends terrorists to the United States, the United States will work hard to bring peace and stability to your region.

It is already getting to the point where it is hard to see things as several isolated trouble spots that might be ignored, a 3T perspective. It is more One Big Problem that will not go away by itself, which pulls towards a 4T perspective. When it is clearly One Big Problem, and the need to act is clear and present, then it will be hard to step back from a fourth turning mindset. Are we there yet? Maybe not. Maybe. Even if we assume One Big Problem, have we got a Final Solution yet? I don?t think so. We are starting to address security issues firmly. We are being dragged reluctantly into nation building. If a continued policy of nation building proves necessary, have we seen all the implications? Nah?

Back to the original questions. Will we have a lull short term before we see the Big Problem and attack it with all our energy? Yes. We have to see the balance of power between Dubya and bin Ladin. This will take months to years. The 2004 elections might be the obvious test. Along the way, some policies will have to come clear. Will Dubya embrace nation building? Will bin Ladin continue to build his popular support? With the pockets of violence escalate or be resolved? Will the oil monarchies remain stable? While these questions are bubbling, will the Americans return their attention to sex scandals, Clinton?s behavior and shark attacks? Time will tell.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Bob Butler 54 on 2001-10-19 10:10 ]</font>

On 2001-10-19 08:23, Bob Butler 54 wrote:
I spent about 30 seconds on the Radio Islam site before encountering a page on how the Jews are planning to destroy Germany, and a copy of the Protocols of Zion. They also print several works showing how Churchill was dominated by the Jewish Conspiracies, written by Adolph Hitler. The first feature article on their lead page is on Jewish Racism, a speech by Farrakhan. Yep, Radio Islam should be taken with more salt than the Dead Sea.

Still, I don?t trust Dubya?s and the American liberal media?s spin on this, either. One has to be aware of both sides of the story. One has to have filters to separate fact from propaganda from worldview. One interesting piece of advice found on Radio Islam was advice to trust Israeli media accounts of what is happening, and not American. American media sources are strongly biased towards the Israeli establishment position. The Israeli people, however, live much closer to the problem. They expect and demand a deeper and more accurate level of coverage.

The problem with personal filters to separate fact, propaganda and worldview is that they are biased towards one?s personal worldview. Many Americans are ready to believe western democracies fight for liberty and equality. Many Arabs are ready to believe Israel is a racist, expansionist state. There is truth in both stereotypes. There are seeds of truth in many racist opinions. However, seeking truth though one?s own filters and the filters of biased medias is tricky business.

I don?t see that a knowledgeable opinion can be formed while one relies entirely on sources biased towards one side of the conflict. The Internet, in theory, should allow one to taste various perspectives. Yes, Radio Islam?s is an extremist position. Can anyone suggest a good English language source several steps closer to the Arab?s main stream? Or is Radio Islam the main stream? Does Radio Islam reflect a significant minority opinion from the Islamic cultures?

I completely agree with you bob that you have to have both sides of the story...and most of the time the real truth is indeed somewhere in the middle. But sites like that are filled with such vileness that if there is any truth in them it is buried under a mountain of camel dung!

to say that "radio islam", or at least that site that calls itself that, speaks for the muslim or arab mainstream is an insult to every sane and peace loving arab and muslim who has ever lived. if it speaks for anyone it is for a small, extremely psychologically disturbed, minority possessed by a pervading sense of their own inferiority. and if this kind of evil ever does speak for even a significant minority of the arab or muslim population then God help them!

there are plenty of sites that talk about this subject without filling it with discredited, anti-israeli, neo-nazi, jew hating propaganda. i noticed in justin's post that he listed several sites and i also listed a site with an excellent article on the debate going on between reputable historians in israel over the palestinian question and israel's past in relation to them.

but crap like the lunacy that fills the "radio islam" site has no place in any serious discussion. if it were not so vilely evil it would be laughable.

[quote]

I agree totally with Justin77 and BobButtler that all media is in some part, by nature, biased, (I earlier said that), and weeding through the propaganda is tricky business. It needs to be done though.

As I read and discover more, I will post those results as well, unless there is a consensus that the group wants me to take my ideas somewhere else.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sv81 on 2001-12-31 23:47 ]</font>

He's partially right, but apparently, we don't know it.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sv81 on 2001-12-31 23:47 ]</font>

From ?When Rancor Sours? by Ibrahim Nafie, for Al-Ahram from Egypt.

Full article is at http://www.ahram.org.eg/weekly/2001/555/op1.htm, with compliments to Justin for his link. For educational purposes only.

The US administration's Middle East policies have inflamed anti-American sympathies in the Arab and Islamic world. Its arrogance and one-sidedness on such issues as arms control, environment, trade and globalisation have aroused similar antipathies throughout the third world as well as the in the West itself.

There is no intrinsic aversion to the US or Western values in Arab or Muslim societies, despite what is sometimes put about in the more tendentious American media. That many of these societies have adopted Western models for modernisation and development and have strong cultural relations with Western countries should put paid to such nonsense. Rather, it is the unfathomable hubris with which the US has persisted in policies that defy international opinion and values that engenders the levels of frustration and rancour that can breed the madness that was unleashed against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Such insane violence, it must be stressed, serves no cause. The Palestinians and the Arab and Muslim peoples in general resent their name being used as a cover to perpetrate crimes that have only brought more damage to their causes -- crimes, moreover, that claimed Arab and Muslim lives among the other innocent victims. Yet this is precisely what Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and others have done in their attempt to turn an anti-US climate to the advantage of their personal ambitions or fanatical beliefs.

Because the situation is so readily exploitable by madmen any long-term remedy to terrorism must extend beyond military and economic measures to address the policies that breed such rancour. In which respect, the volatile Middle East is the foremost case in point. By adopting a more equitable stance, recognising the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people and reviving the Arab-Israeli peace process in accordance with its original guiding principles, the US would do much to counter anti-American sentiments. It would be demonstrating its responsiveness to the needs of the region and its commitment to the tenets of international and humanitarian law. Ultimately, this is the best safeguard of US interests and security.

This sounds much closer to a moderate Arab opinion. If so, I have much more sympathy for the moderate Arabs than the ?more tendentious American media.?

[quote]
On 2001-10-19 12:00, sv81 wrote:

...Americans are either stupid for letting a foreign nationality dominate our country, or just asleep. I hope its only sleep, and by reading the extreme positions posted (I didn't create Radio Islam), we might wake up.

As I read and discover more, I will post those results as well, unless there is a consensus that the group wants me to take my ideas somewhere else.

good lord..."letting a foreign nationality dominate our country"?

so sv81, you are apparently implying that jews dominate our government, media, financial system, etc. etc. which would lead a person to believe that you actually buy into the drivel that is posted on the sites you keep listing?

no, i don't think you should take your ideas elsewhere. they are often well reasoned and well thought out. which makes it all the more puzzling to me why you then keep lacing them with quotes like the one you made above and telling people to go to sites which do little but spout unadulterated hate and racism. you should definitely keep posting them, at least on this board. because i don't think there is anyone on here weak minded enough to fall for such long discredited nonsense. but you do yourself a disservice in the process. unless, of course, attempting to give credence to such "ideas" is your intent.

you may not have created "radio islam", but you give it support through your words. most people would recognize it for what it is but then many did not recognize "mein kampf" for what it was either...until it was too late. they bought into it just as i imagine many weak minded people looking for a scapegoat for their woes would buy into the rantings of radio islam, jew watch, david duke, etc.

truth does not need to be cloaked in lies to be heard. but when it is, after a while, the truth that might have once laid within dies leaving nothing but the lies to grow and fester. and that is what so many of the sites you serve up offer....longstanding and discredited lies from which whatever grain of truth has long fled.

if someone was attempting to recruit the young, naive and ignorant to believe in the extremist ravings on these sites then i can certainly see where they would serve a useful purpose. otherwise, if your intention is not to ridicule them, what is your purpose? are there so few sites to recommend that are not populated by blatant racists, jew-haters, and apparent proselytizers for extreme radical hate groups?

sv81, you keep using the Ariel Sharon quote "We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." Have you seen this from any credible source, or only from David Duke?

Sorry, but if Duke's the only source of this quote then I don't believe it happened, and I believe that most members of the forum would agree. If there's a real source for the quote, please cite it. I believe that Duke, like most purveyors of hate speech/conspiracy theories, is happy to twist the truth or lie outright in defense of his positions. Citing him as a sole source on this is like citing the KKK's news analyst as a sole source on African-American motivation and philosophy.

If Sharon did say this, btw, he was fairly quickly proven wrong. Over the last week the Israeli government was extremely upset with a focused American effort to gain Arab support (without consulting the Israelis who "control them") for a peace plan which would have proposed a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as a shared capital with Israel. To Israel's discomfort, Colin Powell and others discussed this with a number of Arab states, but NOT with Israel. The Israeli government loudly protested, then said it would produce its own peace proposal when it became apparent after a few days that America would move forward with its proposal despite Israeli objections. The US, though ostensibly "controlled" by the Jewish people per David Duke, was working in its own interest to throw a bone to the Arab world to keep them on board for the anti-bin Laden campaign, and against the perceived interests of the Israeli government. This promising step was derailed two days ago by the Palestinian assasination of the Israeli tourism minister, which is likely to lead to an escalation of violence in the region instead.

Wonder what Mr. Duke would make of it?

Another pearl from Egypt, ?Operation Enduring Madness? by Hani Shukrallah for Al-Ahram. Full article at http://www.ahram.org.eg/weekly/2001/555/op9.htm. For educational purposes, I hope.

This apocalyptic war of civilisations is a monumental con. People are being killed, homes are being destroyed, lives are being shattered; but all of it is shadow boxing, none of it really matters as far as the protagonists are concerned. The real war is elsewhere.

This is the ultimate post-modern war. The actual theatre of operations is the realm of symbols, and the target is people's minds -- their very innate capacity to reason and question. In every modern war, propaganda has been deployed in the service of military objectives. In this war, military operations are not even in the service of propaganda: they are the propaganda.

And in this sense it is a truly global war, "a sustained, comprehensive and relentless operation" to make blithering and bloodthirsty idiots of the greater part of humanity -- at least that part covered by the three great monotheistic religions.

After apologizing to the people of Latin and South America for the above sentence, and specific examples of how extreme propaganda by both sides are creating a canyon of misunderstanding when we might perhaps be striving to come together, he ends?

The truth is, neither side has any hope, or indeed serious intention, of defeating the other. Meanwhile, as "the allies" go on with their sustained and infinitely roving war against the enemies of "our values," and "the believers" search for new "storms of planes" to unleash against the infidel, the absurd monoliths of Western civilisation and the Islamic nation are solidified. More people die. Reason, and our very humanity, are trodden underfoot. A triumph, indeed, for our values.

What do you think? Military victory is impossible, but killing people leads to favorable public relations opportunities? The real target of both sides is reason? The real objective is anger? Interesting perspective.

A third Al-Ahram editorial, "Adrift in Similarity" is worth a read at http://www.ahram.org.eg/weekly/2001/555/op2.htm Edward Said attacks Samuel Huntington's The Clash of Civilizations and US policy as mistaken redirections of Cold War mentality towards Islam rather than Communism.

_________________
http://www.winstonchurchill.org/never.htm

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Bob Butler 54 on 2001-10-19 13:25 ]</font>

On 2001-10-19 12:28, Bob Butler 54 wrote:
From ?When Rancor Sours? by Ibrahim Nafie, for Al-Ahram from Egypt.

Full article is at http://www.ahram.org.eg/weekly/2001/555/op1.htm, with compliments to Justin for his link. For educational purposes only.

The US administration's Middle East policies have inflamed anti-American sympathies in the Arab and Islamic world. Its arrogance and one-sidedness on such issues as arms control, environment, trade and globalisation have aroused similar antipathies throughout the third world as well as the in the West itself.

There is no intrinsic aversion to the US or Western values in Arab or Muslim societies, despite what is sometimes put about in the more tendentious American media. That many of these societies have adopted Western models for modernisation and development and have strong cultural relations with Western countries should put paid to such nonsense. Rather, it is the unfathomable hubris with which the US has persisted in policies that defy international opinion and values that engenders the levels of frustration and rancour that can breed the madness that was unleashed against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Such insane violence, it must be stressed, serves no cause. The Palestinians and the Arab and Muslim peoples in general resent their name being used as a cover to perpetrate crimes that have only brought more damage to their causes -- crimes, moreover, that claimed Arab and Muslim lives among the other innocent victims. Yet this is precisely what Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and others have done in their attempt to turn an anti-US climate to the advantage of their personal ambitions or fanatical beliefs.

This sounds much closer to a moderate Arab opinion. If so, I have much more sympathy for the moderate Arabs than the ?more tendentious American media.?

The quoted source has valid points about America's policies about the environment, arms control, and trade -- lots of world governments feel that way (I won't go into the merits of our policy one way or another here).

However, I'm not sure what to make of his statement about U.S. Middle East policy. Was he refering to Israel or to the Gulf War?

Regarding Israel, US is firmly on record as supporting a Palestinian State living peacefully side-by-side with Israel. Most Israelis supported that and the 1993 Oslo Peace accords, along with Shamir's electoral victory proved that (also Barak's in 1997). However, the continued Palestinian violence, along with the right wing settlers, have squelched any chance of peace, and with the continued violence, Israelis are putting the wagons around their homestead.

Given that, if Arab countries object to US policy there, they are objecting to Israel's existence as a country.

And the issue with the Gulf War is odd to me too because didn't we work in a coalition with the neighboring countries?

About the Ariel Sharon comment, one thing to bear in mind is that Ariel Sharon's place in the spectrum of Israeli politics is similar to that of Pat Robertson in American politics. Did Ariel Sharon make that comment in front of his hard line supporters? Remember what Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson said about the causes of 911 last month. Just because a politician far to the right makes a bone headed comment does not mean that is the mainstream Israeli view.

On 2001-10-19 12:10, sv81 wrote:
"Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." -Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001.


He's partially right, they control us, but apparently, we don't know it.

I don't even think he is saying what you claim he is saying. From the words above, I interpret Sharon to mean that the "Jewish people" control America's foreign policy with respect to Israel since he begins with "Every time we do something" with the "we" being Israel. In other words, the control of the "Jewish people" extends to dictating -- or more likely tempering -- official American reaction to Israeli action. This is hardly control of the entire US government.

No one denies the historic power of the Israeli and/or Jewish lobbies so this measure of control over this one subsection of our foreign policy is entirely possible to the extent that we may never abandon Israel completely as an ally. After all, Washington seems to run on influence peddling so why should Israel be exempt? But this is a damn sight short of total control of the US government as you suggest. Is Israel dictating our tax policy or welfare policy or environmental policy, for example? I don't think so. It is simply not true that Israel or the "Jewish people" control the entire US government and Sharon is not even claiming that this is the case. If it were true, then why is there still a Palestinian "problem" and why does Israel continue to complain that we keep their hands tied?

[quote]
On 2001-10-15 11:24, cbailey wrote:
Speaking of Hollywood celebrities...Arnold Schwarzenegger on some morning show telling the interviewer that the American public would NOT reject violence and mayhem in their movies. He insisted that those adventure blockbusters would be as popular as ever, despite September 11th.

In Hollywood, 10-17 01, Robert Redford said, "September 11 is either going to be a storm that passes and the business returns to business-as-usual, or there's going to be some permanence to what has happened that's going to affect the film business--maybe bring a certain moral tone, a certain obligation to explore other issues than explosions and fantasy violence. I don't think that will be all bad...

Arnold=3T
Bob=4T

It occurs to me that living and working right here in Arlington Virginia, 2 miles from the Pentagon, that I'm smack in the middle of a new 4T type mood. Today, a colleague of mine who is midway through a year-long detail to Senator Lugar's office stopped by. She's on Cipro. She wryly remarked that she never imagined her detail would be as "exciting" as it is turning out to be.

Also, Chris O'Connor is firmly in 4T-land, having lost his cousin to the Pentagon attack.

However, might people in the great big mid-section of our country be less shook up by recent events? Maybe that has something to do with the disagreement on this site on whether we are in 3T still or starting 4T.

Of course, the other alternative explanation is that there are no Ts; history and events are too messy to slap labels on and anything could happen.

:???:

[quote]
On 2001-10-19 13:58, Jenny Genser wrote:

However, might people in the great big mid-section of our country be less shook up by recent events? Maybe that has something to do with the disagreement on this site on whether we are in 3T still or starting 4T.

Well, so far we haven't had any anthrax cases in the MW, for one thing.

But there are flags everywhere. Flags on mailboxes. Flags on cars. Flag stickers and decals on windshields. Flag t-shirts. "God Bless America" on marquees everywhere -- schools, movie theaters, restaurants, gas stations, etc.

Volunteerism is up locally:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/attack/...s19101801a.asp

The mood has changed. Whether it stays that way, we'll have to see.

Kiff '61

[quote]
On 2001-10-19 13:48, cbailey wrote:

On 2001-10-15 11:24, cbailey wrote:
Speaking of Hollywood celebrities...Arnold Schwarzenegger on some morning show telling the interviewer that the American public would NOT reject violence and mayhem in their movies. He insisted that those adventure blockbusters would be as popular as ever, despite September 11th.

In Hollywood, 10-17 01, Robert Redford said, "September 11 is either going to be a storm that passes and the business returns to business-as-usual, or there's going to be some permanence to what has happened that's going to affect the film business--maybe bring a certain moral tone, a certain obligation to explore other issues than explosions and fantasy violence. I don't think that will be all bad...

Arnold=3T
Bob=4T

It takes a while for people to get used to the new mood. Means do not be discouraged in your beliefs North Americia is now in a 4T. :wink:

On 2001-10-19 18:06, choselh wrote:
Also, can people really decide for themselves whether they are in 3T or 4T? I thought turnings were something that have to happen to everyone at the same time. If each person gets to pick which "T" he or she is in, I'm going back to the Awakening!!

I don't think it works that way. During every turning, there is a borderline period which has features of both the previous and the coming turning. For instance, people on this forum have picked the year that the last (current? waning?) unraveling began. People have posited dates between 1981 and 1986. Obviously, that whole period was a transition. However, no one disputes that by the nineties, we were solidly in 3T and that back in the seventies, we were in the thick of 2T (except for those who are skeptical of the theory itself).

I'm pretty convinced that we're in that gray period now, although the horrific and deadly nature of the 911 attack certainly shook everyone out of the 3T complacency.

About anthrax, I see people as very jittery right now, wondering when the next shoe will drop. We don't know where are enemies are -- indeed, we can't even be sure its El Qasa (I'm sure I've completely mangled the spelling). That is what is so spooky about the anthrax. I see a parallel to 1929 and the immediate aftermath, when people were clueless about how to get the country back to prosperity.

On 2001-10-19 08:23, Bob Butler 54 wrote:
Enjolras writes about http://abbc.com/islam/index.htm, Radio Islam? good grief sv81..... how many more outright racist, anti-jewish hate sites are you going to suggest people go to for information???? frankly, i hope everyone does go to that "radio islam" site just to see what evil, moronic, nonsense is being spouted there! sheesh!

I spent about 30 seconds on the Radio Islam site before encountering a page on how the Jews are planning to destroy Germany, and a copy of the Protocols of Zion. They also print several works showing how Churchill was dominated by the Jewish Conspiracies, written by Adolph Hitler. The first feature article on their lead page is on Jewish Racism, a speech by Farrakhan. Yep, Radio Islam should be taken with more salt than the Dead Sea.

Still, I don?t trust Dubya?s and the American liberal media?s spin on this, either. One has to be aware of both sides of the story. One has to have filters to separate fact from propaganda from worldview. One interesting piece of advice found on Radio Islam was advice to trust Israeli media accounts of what is happening, and not American. American media sources are strongly biased towards the Israeli establishment position. The Israeli people, however, live much closer to the problem. They expect and demand a deeper and more accurate level of coverage.

The problem with personal filters to separate fact, propaganda and worldview is that they are biased towards one?s personal worldview. Many Americans are ready to believe western democracies fight for liberty and equality. Many Arabs are ready to believe Israel is a racist, expansionist state. There is truth in both stereotypes. There are seeds of truth in many racist opinions. However, seeking truth though one?s own filters and the filters of biased medias is tricky business.

I don?t see that a knowledgeable opinion can be formed while one relies entirely on sources biased towards one side of the conflict. The Internet, in theory, should allow one to taste various perspectives. Yes, Radio Islam?s is an extremist position. Can anyone suggest a good English language source several steps closer to the Arab?s main stream? Or is Radio Islam the main stream? Does Radio Islam reflect a significant minority opinion from the Islamic cultures?

I have to listen to Radio Islam and get back with a opinion of it.

Bob Butler asks: Can anyone suggest a good English language source several steps closer to the Arab?s main stream?

This guy posts English translations of Al-Jazira:

http://www.abunimah.org/

On 2001-10-19 08:10, oddlystrange wrote:

Can you picture any other U.S. President in living memory, Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, who could plausibly form the target of the sort
of jokes we're still getting about Clinton?

How about Nixon. They were still making jokes about him until he died.

What other president would have the lasting legacy of giving the american cynic phrasebook: "I'm not a crook!"

Jen

True, but the jokes were about his being a crook. Those types of jokes are not unique, they go back to the Founding. As far as I know, the sort of 'dirty smirk' jokes that Clinton inspires are unique in American presidential history.

__________________________________________________ _______________

i n f o p a l - The Independent Palestinian Information Network
__________________________________________________ _______________


(c) IAP News E-mails: iapinfo@iap.org

InfoPal - The Independent Palestinian Information Network
A subsidiary of PalVision Ltd., P.O.Box 25658, Nicosia, Cyprus
Telefax +44-870-131-2672,
Email: info@palvision.net
In Palestine:info@infopal.org

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sv81 on 2001-12-31 23:49 ]</font>

To HopefulCynic68:
"Ma, ma, where's my pa? Gone to the White House, ha, ha, ha". Clinton was not the first.

Hopeful Cynic:


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sv81 on 2001-12-31 23:50 ]</font>

When Warren G. Harding was president, Clarence Darrow remarked, "When I was a boy, I was told that anybody could become president. Now I'm beginning to believe it."
Wasn't he also the president who had an illegitimate child? "Ma! Ma! Who's my Pa?" or something like that. Course he didn't have Leno or Dave Letterman to kick him around.

if i recall correctly, the president with an illegitmate child was grover cleveland.

It was Grover Cleveland, the one who had two nonconsecutive terms and ruined the ennumeration of Presidents by being counted twice, who allegedly had the love child.