Kevin writes.. re: USS Liberty. At the time, there were several official inquiries into the attack, some conducted by the U.S., some by Israel. There was a degree of difference among the conclusions -- mostly with regard to whether or not the US Navy inadvertantly strayed too close to Israeli waters during the conflict -- but all of them agreed it was an accident. Only those predisposed to believing in a 'vast Jewish conspiracy' would have to conclude that the US government was willing to blithely ignore and forgive the deaths of all those soldiers. Ergo, a reasonable person would see it as an unfortunate accident (like the bombing of the UN depot in Afghanistan).

Hmmm? OK. Maybe I?m a conspiracy theorist, or I listen to too many of them. Way long ago, I bumped into an anti-establishment account of the incident written by a perpetually angry survivor of the incident. As I?ve heard it, the Liberty was there to monitor the Six Day war, then in progress. Her recordings would prove Israel was implementing a preset war plan, defeat Egypt first, then take the heights, which would spoil the usual line that Israel only conquers enemy territory in self defense. Liberty supposedly intercepted communications from several Israeli scout aircraft reporting the Liberty flying a US flag. Said flag would certainly be visible from the range the patrol boats fired the torpedoes. Also, neither Egypt nor any of the other Arab powers owned ships that large, nor would an Arab warship have that few guns nor that many antennas. Liberty was well out to sea, with no weapon that could conceivably be a threat to any war effort.

The official versions assume that the Liberty crew was too stupid to fly a flag in a war zone, and the Israeli crew was stupid enough to mistake an intelligence ship with more antenna than a Russian fishing trawler for an Egyptian camel transport ship half the Liberty?s size. In this case, the government?s case doesn?t ring true.

My thought is that somebody in Israel made a dumb decision that the ship couldn?t be allowed to record the war. From there, much later, in some back room, somebody decided that a cover up would be more advantageous to both Israel and the US than honesty. The lives of the servicemen were already lost. One takes the path most expedient to the reputations of the assorted politicians and admirals.

Thus, I disagree. I?m not really into conspiracy theories. No, I don?t believe the Jewish Illuminati rule the world. However, government mistakes and cover-ups do occur. I believe this is one example. I think this was stupidity at a high level, not by the crews on the scene.

http://208.56.153.48/jim/ussliberty/

Most of you know that the U.S. was planning to support the Northern alliance and dismantle the Taliban, as of last Spring.
Are you with me so far? After 911, CNN reported that our government was thinking strongly of moving against the Taliban before, and this clinched it. Recall the focus was on the intellegence community awareness then.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sv81 on 2001-12-31 23:57 ]</font>

On 2001-10-23 23:22, sv81 wrote:


Being born in 1958, I too saw enough of the "good old boomer world", to be imprinted for life.

Haha! Just because of your sign-in name, I always assumed you were an Xer/Millie born in 1981.

About your post, though. I was wondering what part of the country you grew up in. I too was born in 1958, and there certainly were punks around my age--and even OLDER! They tended to be more of the new wave skinny-tie persuasion than the more recent blue-hair incarnation, however, or if they were really on the edge, they wore ripped leather jackets, dog collars with studs, and safety pins through their ears, nose or clothing (a forerunner of the body-piercing phenom, I wonder). All of these people were technically late-wave Boomers with only a few early Xers. We are talking about the late 70s here. On weekends, St. Marks Place and vicinity in the East Village was swarming with them. Sometimes I used to attend new wave and punk clubs like Studio 10, CBGBs and The Ritz (which was more new wave and dance-clubby).

Hippies? Hippies were something you laughed at as being hopelessly retro by the time I reached high school, usually treated as the butts of jokes. There was a clique of "hippie wannabes" in my high school--but all they had were the outside trappings of hippieness: long hair, perhaps, and they liked to smoke pot out in the park. But they had none of the utopian visions of the original 60s hippies. They lived with their parents and cared too much about fast cars and money. Being a hippie was something your older brother did back during 'Nam. :smile:

Then again, I was a teen and early-twentysomething in New York, and I tend to think turnings and generations get an earlier start in the big cities. Perhaps things were different for you.

You might want to keep in mind that nearly all of the early punk rock and new wave artists that came out in the late 70s were late Boomers rather than Xers. I agree Xers were the ones who really caught the punk fever and who made it evolve into its many present forms, but it sure as hell didn't *start* with them.

I completely agree that the september attacks are the catalyst event for the Terror Crisis. On 9/11, the entire country seemed to recognize that a crucial divide had been crossed. The Culture Wars are entirely over. The Great Blame Game has begun and a lot of blame is being placed on Bill Clinton. Americans seem to understand that "war with the Muslims" may be inevitable. The economy is in great danger.
Patriotism and civic pride are strengthening. Pampered athletes and entertainers are only relevant if they are "with the rest of us". Pacifists are already being ignored and will soon be vilified.
But its too soon for this Crisis. Every generation is not yet fully matured into their crisis roles. So the nation's response will be fragmented. We already see more concern with Homeland Security than the War Against Terror. The Anthrax scare has replaced the war as the lead story. Many feel more comfortable that Bush is President rather than Gore. But is he the Lincoln or Roosevelt that we need?
The rest of the Western world seems to be on the same Turning as the US. Is the Islamic world in the same Turning as well? The Islamic world is primed with hatred for the West. But they are not yet fully congealed against us. So this Crisis may indeed stabilize for a year or two. But then something else will occur and the Crisis will seriously deepen.
General William T. Sherman was considered insane when he predicted a long, bloody war in 1861. Both the North and South expected quick victory. We may be sure that events will not proceed as we expect. The West will expect to win "The War Against Terrorism". The Islamic World will expect to defeat the West with a grinding, Vietnam type war. Neither will occur.
The world will divide into two hostile camps: Islam verses the West. The peoples of both sides will feel that the survival of their culture and values are at stake. Neither will care to understand nor negotiate with the other. Both sides will become frustrated when their attacks do not force the other side to back down.
This will create an unstable cascade of events of increasing ferocity. A major world war is highly likely occur with the occasional use of weapons of mass destruction. The loser will not be destroyed, but will see their influence in the world decisively reduced, perhaps permanently.
Both sides are primed, the fuse has been lit, and a major explosion is inevitable. Batten down the hatches, for the Great World Storm is coming! And it all began on September 11, 2001.

ggllaassmmdd:

A prize to the poster for best post of the day!

Totally agree, but not sure nukes inevitable. But it sure will be ugly, and the Middle East could make it uglier.

But at least black & white still defined. I'd hate to see an India/Pakistan gray clash in the middle of all this, it would only hurt our side.

OK, some people here don't understand Generation X. It's not an "Oh, we put 'alternative' pop culture together while we were bored, but now that we have something better to do we're gonna take it all apart" kind of thing. The culture we were raised on and contributed to, be it something ('70s) that just surrounded us or something ('90s) we made on our own, has become a surrogate home to us, own our mythology. All the computer games and anime cards we designed, the alternative foods and drink product names for niche markets, the rock of the '80s, '90s and '00s have become the way we live - they are OUR pastimes, OUR food and drink, OUR music, the stuff of our breathing. Over one month after the tragic events of September 11, I am impressed by how loyal to the culture of the 3T everyone from Gen X has remained. My neighbors who are from Gen X, my coworkers, my Gen-X relatives and Xers I meet in the street almost all continue to have the 3T culture in their minds. What they have NOT done is turned to something traditional or all-American. Susan, you're dead wrong about Xers. Don't try to understand us, because you just wouldn't be able to get it. You're not an Xer yourself. I know two different Xers who actually plan to write books based on the quintessential Gen-X Unravelling experience. I wish them good luck in aiming to be the next Doug Coupland. I have some friends who work in the video-game design industry and want to design 'dystopian' computer games along the lines of Doom and Quake. As Pindiespace has mentioned, there's an urge to preserve the edginess of the '90s in new games, and keep the 3T culture going after the attack - it seems just to prove that the fundamental 3T mindset of Gen X HASN'T changed. That's probably not surprising, what's surprising though is that their friends and their relatives' teenage children said they would be interested in continuing to play such games after the attacks. Xers care about people and life, not about countries and government, and that's why we're doing admirable things - the blood-giving, the charity-funds, the firefighting - that help people no matter what background they're from, rather than appearing admirable by being patriotic. Our 'pop' culture from the 3T is an alternative to living in the spirit-dead, belt-tight culture that GI's created and Boomers now want people to live in, where everyone is expected to get a high-paying job for the purpose of marriage and children, where clothes come out of the 1940s and civic activities are the hub of life. The adult "world", or "Establishment", or "society" in which we never wanted to fit has so much more that's wrong with it than childish behavior from the people in charge or lack of pragmatism in process. I mean, what kind of choice does it really give anyone? The options you get in life really ain't that many, and why waste your life doing what GI's did some sixty years ago?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: voltronx on 2001-10-24 18:44 ]</font>

Battle of the Gray Champions? :wink:

http://www.theonion.com/onion3738/pr..._children.html

On 2001-10-24 16:30, sv81 wrote:

Bob, the measure that the illuminati were and are still in power is the success of the coverup; all at the highest levels of power in the U.S.

When you say "illuminati," who exactly do you mean? Please define what an illuminatus is.

On 2001-10-24 20:18, Stonewall Patton wrote:

On 2001-10-24 16:30, sv81 wrote:

Bob, the measure that the illuminati were and are still in power is the success of the coverup; all at the highest levels of power in the U.S.

When you say "illuminati," who exactly do you mean? Please define what an illuminatus is.

stonewall, i think he is referring to the "global zionist conspiracy". you know, the one that secretly controls the government, the trilateral commission, controls the media, and my jewish masters on wall street too...you know... that kind of stuff.

On 2001-10-24 19:54, choselh wrote:
Wow gglassmd ... nice post. I think I agree also, unfortunately.

Has anyone else thought about the possibility that we might ... dare I say it ... actually LOSE this war? I mean, we have been top dog for some time, and it might just be some other country's turn to dominate the planet for a while.

I am NOT saying that I hope this will happen!!! Just that it might.

Lose this war>? Won't happen. Then again, we might not "win" either-- in the same sense that we won the Second World War.

If it ever came down to the survival of the U.S. as a nation -- suppose that the Islamic Fundamentalists released a genetically engineered smallpox or anthrax germ against us, killing tens of millions of Americans.....

..... America would nuke them, and nuke them hard. If it came down to a struggle for survival, Islam against the West, we would turn the entire Middle East region into a gigantic sheet of radioactive plexiglas. That, of course, would poison our terrestial environment for centuries to come -- for everyone, including us, which is why such would not quite be a "winning" of the war. But I have no doubt that it's the way things will go, if push ever comes to shove.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kevin Parker '59 on 2001-10-24 21:09 ]</font>

With regard to the USS Liberty, Bob is not losing himself to the conspiracy world and sv81 is not picking crumbs from questionable sites. This one has teeth. Whereas I was very sympathetic to the Palestinian cause 10-20 years ago, I find myself increasingly pro-Israel today as I believe the priorities have changed for us and for the Middle East. But Israel really should come clean on this matter and finally close this chapter. It is only right and just.

For amplification on the USS Liberty affair, here is columnist Joseph Farah who is extremely pro-Israel:

(For info and education purposes)


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/pr...TICLE_ID=21665

Friday, February 9, 2001
[between the lines] [Joseph Farah] A new agenda for Israel

By Joseph Farah
? 2001 WorldNetDaily.com

New Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has much on his agenda.

He's got to deal with the continuing violence of the Intifada. He's got to deal with unrealistic expectations of the Arab leaders established by his predecessor. He's got to deal with the omnipresent external military threats. He's got to deal with an over-regulated economy. And he's got to deal with all of this with a deeply divided Knesset.

Of course, he's also got to deal with the pressures of the West -- particularly the United States.

I would like to suggest one bold political stroke for Sharon's consideration -- one I'll bet hasn't been suggested by anyone else.

I'm talking about a festering sore just under the surface affecting relations with Israel's friends in America. I'm talking about doing the right thing -- righting a wrong from Israel's past.

On June 8, 1967, the Israeli military attacked a U.S. ship, the USS Liberty. This unarmed intelligence vessel was sailing in international waters 15 miles off the coast of Israel during the "Six Day War."

French Mirage fighter jets strafed the Liberty with rocket fire and 50 caliber rounds. That initial attack left 10 U.S. sailors dead. When the air attack subsided, Israeli torpedo boats attacked. They fired five torpedoes at the Liberty, only one finding its mark. When U.S. sailors scrambled to the top deck of the listing ship, they were greeted by machine-gun fire from the torpedo boats.

When the two-hour attack was over, the Liberty had a 40-by-40-foot hole in its side, it was on fire and it was riddled with more than 800 holes from machine guns, rockets and cannons. Worse, 34 of the ship's crew were dead and 171 wounded.

Though severely wounded in the attack, Commander William L. Monagle stayed on the Liberty's bridge -? on his back -- and managed to navigate the crippled ship to safety. In 1968, having been promoted to captain, he wept openly when awarded the Medal of Honor for keeping the ship under control for 17 hours after the attack.

The Israeli government has insisted that the attack on the USS Liberty was a case of mistaken identity. And that has never passed the smell test of credibility.

The Liberty's U.S. flag and markings were in full view that day in perfect visibility. Israeli aircraft overflew the ship eight times over a period of nearly eight hours prior to the attack.

It seems reasonable to assume 34 years later that Israel intentionally struck the ship because it knew that the Liberty was capable of intercepting radio messages. Israel was about to seize the Golan Heights from Syria, despite President Lyndon Johnson's known opposition to the move.

It seems reasonable to assume that Israeli Gen. Moshe Dayan concluded that attacking the ship and knocking out its antennas was a calculated and deliberate act.

President Johnson is dead. Moshe Dayan is dead. Many Israeli and U.S. leaders have come and gone since 1967. Isn't it time for some honesty -- some forthrightness and candor -- with regard to the tragedy of the USS Liberty?

Ariel Sharon may not have the power to make peace in the Middle East. But he does have the power and authority as Israeli prime minister to tell the truth about the attack on the USS Liberty. Who knows what kind of healing that kind of honesty and an accompanying and long-overdue apology might have for the nation of Israel?

Personally, I think it would help create a climate of greater understanding between the two nations. That kind of climate might result in the long-overdue release of Jonathan Pollard -- a pardon promised by Bill Clinton but apparently forgotten among the last-minute rush to clear other criminals with deeper pockets and more to offer the ex-president and his political party.

Israel was just plain wrong to attack the USS Liberty. There are no ifs, ands or buts about it. There was no excuse. There is no rational way of understanding this incident as a tragic mistake.

Just as a Middle East peace can never be built on a foundation of lies, neither can better relations between the U.S. and Israel ever truly be achieved while such deception continues about an incident involving such a tragic loss of American life.

Joseph Farah is editor and chief executive officer of WorldNetDaily.com and writes a daily column.

On 2001-10-24 20:40, enjolras wrote:

stonewall, i think he is referring to the "global zionist conspiracy". you know, the one that secretly controls the government, the trilateral commission, controls the media, and my jewish masters on wall street too...you know... that kind of stuff.

enjolras, I am not certain that he has specified who he thinks is behind the conspiracy yet and I do not want to put words in his mouth based upon the nature of the sites he consults. So I will give him the benefit of the doubt that these "illuminati" may be anybody under the sun. I hear this term from time to time but it is not clear to me that people always mean the same group when they refer to it such that there is agreement as to who they are. So I would appreciate it if sv81 could identify who these people are, in his opinion, and state whether there is universal agreement as to their identity.

I do not have a clue what I am talking about here. I just want to understand what he is talking about.

The "Illuminati" is an international occult conspiracy well known in science fiction and fantasy circles. As far as I know, it does not exist in reality, it is the stuff of pure fiction. In the recent Tomb Raider movie, Lora Croft fought the Illuminati. I used it to imply that the alleged international Jewish conspiracy that is supposedly controlling the world is absolute bunk, should be treated with as much seriusness as Lora Croft. (If there are any Tomb Raider fans out there, sorry I don't take Lora seriously, but that's the way I feel.)

However, I do believe the US and Israeli governments owe an appology and the truth to the Liberty survivors, and the rest of the world.

Susan, -- I totally agree that the more rural ones' upbringing, the more delayed the phases of culture affect youth.

You forgot to mention Talking Heads. Ah, those were the days.

GGlassmd, -- Agree totally with you as well. S&H remind us that the crisis is a PROCESS, not an event. 911 isn't too early or late - it's the next thing. More things will follow, but as I mentioned in a prior posting that asked when we would ID the fourth turning, I predicted no leaa than a couple of years we will look back and say, Yes, 911 was it.

Enjolras, -- What am I going to do with you? It seems that you understand my point, but do violence to its expression.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sv81 on 2001-12-31 23:59 ]</font>

On 2001-10-24 18:44, voltronx wrote:
Xers care about people and life, not about countries and government

approx. 5000 people lost their lives as a result of the 9/11 attacks. i thank my lucky stars (whatever the hell they are) that none of the people who lost their lives were ones that i knew (which is rather amazing as i have many friends and family there). and many more people have had their lives threatened with anthrax, simply by opening the mail. now yes, i don't particulary care about nations or governments, but i'd be lying if i said that the attacks did not change me at all. and i'd also be lying if i said i haven't noticed a change in most of the folks in my age group.


TK

I have been reading all the posts with great interest, even the off-topic, irrelevant ones. I have posted many times here in the past, but I have concealed my real name to give myself a fresh start, and to stave off the ad-hominem attacks for a time.

Personally I believe we have entered the 4T. The transformation may not be complete, but people must realize that the worst is likely yet to come. A smallpox epidemic or a "dirty bomb" spewing radioactive waste over the Mall area in DC would make the twin towers disaster look like child's play. Personally I have acquired a dosimeter to monitor for ionizing radiation. Such an attack would render the DC area uninhabitable for decades, and poison the Chesapeake bay and anything downwind. Anything like the scenarios above would certainly complete the transition to a 4T, and I think these attacks will continue and worsen over the coming years.

I am amazed that many still do not understand that the Taliban would incinerate us all if they could. They need to be exterminated like roaches. They have nothing good whatsoever to offer the world, and their treatment of women is criminal. We need to do whatever it takes to get rid of them and anyone like them. Period.

As far as Israel goes, I think we will need to take a long hard look at our relationship. I used to admire their spirit and resourcefulness. But of late they have become a liability, and we should really start turning down the screws hard on their government. They are arrogant and recalcitrant, and Israel would not exist were it not for the United States. We have the power to make Israel cease to exist, and if their present behavior continues, I think we should pull the flush handle and be done with it. The 4T may provide just the will needed to do it. My attitude has nothing to do with antisemitism and everything to do with maintaining US interests and security.

Obtained off of Canoe News.

Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tenn., a surgeon before becoming a senator, warned Thursday that the nation's food supply may be the next target of terrorists.
"What bothers me is these terrorists are trying to take down our infrastructure one by one," he said on NBC's "Today" show. "First it was the World Trade Center and airplanes where our transportation system was paralyzed for a while. Second they've been using biological weapons to try to take down our postal system. And if you look ahead, we know that food has been used successfully in the past."

Frist noted only about 1 percent of food imports are inspected and that the roughly 1,000 federal food inspectors are responsible for 53,000 sites. "It is clear that we need to do more in terms of prevention and preparedness," he said.

SV81 posts...

Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tenn., a surgeon before becoming a senator, warned Thursday that the nation's food supply may be the next target of terrorists.

"What bothers me is these terrorists are trying to take down our infrastructure one by one," he said on NBC's "Today" show. "First it was the World Trade Center and airplanes where our transportation system was paralyzed for a while. Second they've been using biological weapons to try to take down our postal system. And if you look ahead, we know that food has been used successfully in the past."

Food distribution wasn't on my list of infrastructure targets, but it is now. Yes, we are guarding the 100+ nuke plants, but can we guard every bridge, refinery, aqueduct, high-tension line and grain silo?

The defender in a guerrilla war has huge headaches. To get complete coverage of USA?s infrastructure, we?d have to call every fit adult into an active Militia, build a nation wide Big Brother style surveillance system covering everything necessary to the public good, or perhaps both.
_________________
http://www.winstonchurchill.org/never.htm

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Bob Butler 54 on 2001-10-25 09:06 ]</font>

What the...? Is this acceptable to ANYBODY on this site? Is this our silent "leadership" caving in already? How does this equate to Bush's words of refusing to fail?

From USAToday this morning:

Rumsfeld: U.S. may never get bin Laden

By Jonathan Weisman and Andrea Stone, USA TODAY


WASHINGTON ? After 18 days of U.S. airstrikes on Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Wednesday that American forces might not catch terrorist Osama bin Laden. But he predicted that the Taliban regime harboring bin Laden will be toppled.

"Yes, I think there will be a post-Taliban Afghanistan," Rumsfeld said during a meeting with the USA TODAY editorial board. "That is easier than finding a single person." He added that the United States should not be responsible for forming a new government.

Since the bombing began on Oct. 7, President Bush has described the U.S. military campaign as only one part of an international effort to root out terrorists. Bush said Wednesday that the military "was slowly but surely encircling the terrorists."

Bush said on Sept. 18 that he wants bin Laden "dead or alive." But recently he has played down the importance of capturing bin Laden, the alleged mastermind behind the Sept. 11 attacks, and stressed a less specific goal of smashing terrorism. For his part, Rumsfeld has tried to lower expectations for the military campaign by comparing it to the Cold War, which lasted a half-century.

In a 50-minute interview, Rumsfeld cautioned repeatedly that it would be "very difficult" to capture or kill bin Laden: "It's a big world. There are lots of countries. He's got a lot of money, he's got a lot of people who support him, and I just don't know whether we'll be successful. Clearly, it would be highly desirable to find him."

Even if bin Laden were killed, his terrorist network would carry on, Rumsfeld said. "If he were gone tomorrow, the same problem would exist."

He added that the Taliban is proving to be a formidable foe: "These are very tough people. ... They've made careers out of fighting, and they're not going to roll over."

sv81, you still have not identified these "Illuminati" whom you say control the earth (or just this country?). As such, your theory still cannot be subjected to critical analysis. Some of your points have merit as, for example, some of the organizations you name clearly have great power and influence. But what remains unclear is the degree to which these organizations, etc., fall under any sort of central control, if at all. You earlier implied that all these organizations, etc., fall under the control of an "Illuminati." Until you define or identify your Illuminati, your theory carries no weight as it cannot be evaluated. Let me respond to a few points:

Without any hatred in my heart, I maintain that the United States is a occupied country. We are occupied by a nationality who operates under a subterfuge that to insure its homeland in Jerusalem, U.S. foreign policy must be manipulated to advance its agenda.

This seems a little strong (and that is an understatement). You begin by saying that the US is an "occupied country" and end with the obvious truth that the Israeli lobby manipulates our relationship with Israel. This is what lobbies do after all. They apply pressure or provide incentive to politicians in order to affect policy. But how you equate a measure of control over a subsection of our foreign policy with occupation of the United States is beyond me. Is it not obvious that the Chinese have a very great influence in our government today? Why do you exclude the Chinese from your analysis? If competing nations such as Israel and China all exert influence over our government, then not a one of them is hegemonic. If no foreign nation exercises hegemony here at home, then we simply are not an "occupied nation."

Israel is a totalitarian state...

Israel is a representative democracy as we are. It has a parliament, regular elections, and competing political parties. And the leadership does in fact change when the votes warrant it. Try meeting all these criteria with any of Israel's Arab neighbors. Ultimately the Israeli government may not respect individual rights to a degree which you or I would find acceptable. But the government of the United States no longer does either. As everything is relative, it is curious that you would label Israel as totalitarian when all of Israel's Arab neighbors are decidedly more so. I do not know about you but if I had to live in the Middle East, being a freedom-lover I would much rather live in Israel before any Arab nation. I take it that you would differ and abide by the draconian laws in an Arab nation which reflect an imposed fundamentalist interpretation of the Koran of dubious legitimacy.

...the most racist place on earth...

Are you saying by extension that Jews are the most racist people on earth? Actually in my personal experience I have found Jews to be less inclined toward racism than other ethnic groups. True, many Jews work hard to preserve their traditional culture. But this does not necessarily equate to racism, does it? Note how they keep that traditional culture in the home and in private. They are not forcing it on me or you or anyone else. And that is as it should be.

...the only nation to legally allow torture of prisoners (remember that in-custody palestinian guy that died a couple of days ago). The U.N is always on their case, and for good reason. It's a police state that kills dissenters.

You raise some good points here. But again are you under the impression that Israel's Arab neighbors are more tolerant and less-inclined toward brutality? I believe you really ought to consider the relative scale of things. And I do not attach much weight to anything the UN says and I am surprised that you do.

Now, you may disagree, or even go so far as to label me. However, it's in both of our best interests that you stop and analyze the point I raise. If it's false, you need not throw dirt on it, for it will fail on its own accord. On the other hand, the thread of truth I suggested before still needs to be recognized for what it is, the truth.

OK, I just presented my analysis. However I am still looking for the "thread of truth [you] suggested." About the only truth I have seen is your observation about the power of certain organizations in this country to affect our policy, both foreign and domestic. I imagine that you wish to tie these organizations to Israel or even more broadly to Jews. But I do not see the linkage and you really have not even attempted to explain it. Again, it might help tremendously if you would identify who these "Illuminati" are.

First, Bush and others describe the hijack bombers as cowards. But stop and think. Anyone that is willing to die for his beliefs isn't a coward. He needs to be heard, and some of the sites I have provided are that voice (Radio Islam).

No, he is not a coward. But he most certainly does NOT have to be heard. And so help me God, if he holds me or my family or other common American citizens somehow responsible for the historic manipulations and potentially criminal actions of establishment cretins high in our government, then I will do everything in my power to ensure that he gets to see Allah sooner than he expects. He needs to properly direct his anger at those establishment cretins, NOT at regular Americans. And he does NOT have to be heard.

Third, the media bias is so real that even you, perhaps, must sense it. There is a tremendous concentration of jews in the media industry, and on this planet, we don't get the same version of the facts as people in other countries.

You are absolutely correct that our media is to some extent manipulated by somebody. But you have not made any sort of case that it is being done specifically by Jews, and I do not see it either. So what if there is a tremendous concentration of Jews in the media? I believe they make a strong showing in the medical field as well. Also in physics and other sciences. The common thread is that Jews excel and achieve such that there are probably very few Jewish janitors. I suspect this has a whole lot to do with the group as a whole valuing education and hard work. Asians hold similar values and excel and achieve in similar manner. There is no necessity that a conspiracy be present.

I challenge you, look on the official news broadcasts of other countries on the web - I guarantee you will experience a huge shock. Seems that media sources don't always spin clockwise.

The fact is that if you really want to know what is going on in the US government today, you need to consult the foreign media in order to learn what news the American media is burying. I have heard it also stated that the English, for example, need to consult the US media if they really want to know what is going on in their own government. There seems to be a pattern here. Logically, it would involve people with a lot of money, power, and influence protecting their interests. This is fully in accordance with human nature. There is absolutely no necessity that such people also be Jewish.

Dave Updegrove asks? What the...? Is this acceptable to ANYBODY on this site? Is this our silent "leadership" caving in already? How does this equate to Bush's words of refusing to fail?

I think Dubya has had a reality check. He mistook September 11 for the equivalent of a Pearl Harbor, when it was really closer to a 29 Crash. He used Pearl Harbor style language to unite the country, and made Pearl Harbor sized promises without understanding the scale of the problem. Unfortunately, what he promised was to maintain the current world order using brute force. This was the goal of King George and Jefferson Davis. To my mind, this is the proper time to address basic issues like oil, economics, nation building, religious freedom, gender equality, mutual security, global government, etc? Dubya has shied away from all of the above. Any hint that US policy under his or prior administrations might in some way be responsible for Middle Eastern problems is rejected with force. It is currently unpatriotic to question Dubya. He is trying to keep it this way. I don?t anticipate he will succeed. He is already perilously close to admitting failure.

Dubya backing off his initial blind stupid patriotic optimism might actually be a good sign. An early recognition by the establishment powers that the old world order has to shift before peace will be restored could be a good thing. This might be a step in that direction. I wouldn?t believe this to be likely. Dubya and company are military and oil men. I think if they could force the status quo on the Middle East, they would. However, Dubya seems to be growing. He might even get that ?vision thing.?

Perhaps that is why stereotypically, asking a Gen-X to put the "shoe on the other foot" is met with an antonished look. Try it some time, you'll see what I mean.

I honestly think that the reason you receive that look is because the "other foot" is already considered by us automatically. It's a very hard thing to explain, but I think that we have an innate ability to understand the "other foot."

Perhaps we learned too well from what your generation *had* to learn as it grew up, it was something we didn't lack in our youth by any means. My eduation was full of "write a differing viewpoint, what is the flip side to this message," and the ilk.

So for us the "other foot" has already been considered and weighed. The difference, I think, is that once we gauge that other foot (to drag this analogy to it's death), we decide to keep it or dismiss it.

And I think the difference is, once we dimiss or keep it, we're done with it. We're not the type of generation that likes mulling over things too long, we like acting on things.

Jen

You might want to keep in mind that nearly all of the early punk rock and new wave artists that came out in the late 70s were late Boomers rather than Xers. I agree Xers were the ones who really caught the punk fever and who made it evolve into its many present forms, but it sure as hell didn't *start* with them.

Oh I agree wholeheartedly on that one. I've alwas found it interesting that that musical style that is often attributed to a generation is often created and founded by the previous generation.

Woodstock prolly contained more Silents onstage than Boomers. Most early Punk bands were all Boomer -- especially the ground-breaking ones like the Ramones and the Sex Pistols. 90s pop (certainly attributed to the millies) still contains a whole lot of Xers.

I guess from a generational perspective, the listener is more important than the artist.

Jen

Stonewall writes? No, he is not a coward. But he most certainly does NOT have to be heard. And so help me God, if he holds me or my family or other common American citizens somehow responsible for the historic manipulations and potentially criminal actions of establishment cretins high in our government, then I will do everything in my power to ensure that he gets to see Allah sooner than he expects. He needs to properly direct his anger at those establishment cretins, NOT at regular Americans. And he does NOT have to be heard.

Beware, getting caught in the crossfire between sv81 and enjolras isn?t fun. Nice post, though. I was considering covering many of the same points. For the most part, excepting the above paragraph, I?m with you. That one paragraph tempts me to rant a bit, even if I can appreciate what you say, and in many ways feel the same way.

The American Revolution bred legends of how the Redcoats wanted the Minutemen to come out of the woods and stand in neat formations. Using cover and stealth was unfair and unsporting. Union opinions of Confederate militia irregulars and German opinions of the French Resistance were somewhat similar. Most any war, the establishment has an advantage in regular army formal battles. Not infrequently, the anti-establishment force resorts to irregular methods. If one feels strongly for one?s cause, if one is willing to take lives, one will do whatever is necessary to take the fight to the enemy with success.

So, the Minutemen and French Resistance are heroes, while the September 11 hijackers are terrorists. I would expect Dubya and company to state firmly that dropping bombs from 30,000 feet upon a Taliban barracks is ever so much more moral and just than parking a truck next to the Marine barracks in Lebanon or parking a boat next to the USS Cole. Somehow, if one has more money to afford more expensive weapons system, one is more moral? I am highly dubious about such arguments. This is a war. War is not moral. War is not just. War is the business of forcing one?s will upon another using lethal force. It is going to be a major war. When Britain and Germany started bombing each other?s capitols, when the US and USSR built ICBMs by the hundreds, the notion of soldiers harming only other soldiers became a PR tool, not a rule of war.

We, the voters of the United States of America, have allowed our government to become what it has become. We are collectively as guilty as a people can be. We are responsible for the acts of our government, as are all people living in a democracy. If this makes us targets, so let it be.

Assume this will be a fourth turning all out war. Forget polite rules. Don?t object to the enemy?s tactics, because he is going all out to win, as will we, and he will scoff at your opinions of how polite wars ought to be fought. That is the way it is going to be. Watch Mrs. Minerva. Decide if you are ready to fight on the front lines. Like it or not, you had best be ready, as the front lines are heading your way.

You are perilously close to the idea that criticizing Dubya is unpatriotic. We are not in a Post Pearl Harbor mode. We should still be debating and building a consensus on what the new world order ought to be, and how to build it. Dubya would like it to be held, as a self-evident truth, that the old world order is just fine. Any Democrat who hints otherwise gets flamed as being un-American, as breaking the Unity. It is currently very unfashionable to suggest the Islamic world might have reason to be displeased with US policy, or suggest that we might consider altering said policies. Well, free speech is not un-American. Dubya will have to deliver on rash promises, or he will get free speeched out of office in 2004. September 11 did not give him a permanent mandate. It gave him a second honeymoon.

Voices of all sorts will be heard. Attempts to silence won?t work. No one can force anyone to listen. Somebody had better listen.

On 2001-10-25 11:52, Bob Butler 54 wrote:
Stonewall writes? No, he is not a coward. But he most certainly does NOT have to be heard. And so help me God, if he holds me or my family or other common American citizens somehow responsible for the historic manipulations and potentially criminal actions of establishment cretins high in our government, then I will do everything in my power to ensure that he gets to see Allah sooner than he expects. He needs to properly direct his anger at those establishment cretins, NOT at regular Americans. And he does NOT have to be heard.

Beware, getting caught in the crossfire between sv81 and enjolras isn?t fun. Nice post, though. I was considering covering many of the same points. For the most part, excepting the above paragraph, I?m with you. That one paragraph tempts me to rant a bit, even if I can appreciate what you say, and in many ways feel the same way.

The American Revolution bred legends of how the Redcoats wanted the Minutemen to come out of the woods and stand in neat formations. Using cover and stealth was unfair and unsporting. Union opinions of Confederate militia irregulars and German opinions of the French Resistance were somewhat similar. Most any war, the establishment has an advantage in regular army formal battles. Not infrequently, the anti-establishment force resorts to irregular methods. If one feels strongly for one?s cause, if one is willing to take lives, one will do whatever is necessary to take the fight to the enemy with success.

So, the Minutemen and French Resistance are heroes, while the September 11 hijackers are terrorists. I would expect Dubya and company to state firmly that dropping bombs from 30,000 feet upon a Taliban barracks is ever so much more moral and just than parking a truck next to the Marine barracks in Lebanon or parking a boat next to the USS Cole. Somehow, if one has more money to afford more expensive weapons system, one is more moral? I am highly dubious about such arguments. This is a war. War is not moral. War is not just. War is the business of forcing one?s will upon another using lethal force. It is going to be a major war. When Britain and Germany started bombing each other?s capitols, when the US and USSR built ICBMs by the hundreds, the notion of soldiers harming only other soldiers became a PR tool, not a rule of war.

We, the voters of the United States of America, have allowed our government to become what it has become. We are collectively as guilty as a people can be. We are responsible for the acts of our government, as are all people living in a democracy. If this makes us targets, so let it be.

Assume this will be a fourth turning all out war. Forget polite rules. Don?t object to the enemy?s tactics, because he is going all out to win, as will we, and he will scoff at your opinions of how polite wars ought to be fought. That is the way it is going to be. Watch Mrs. Minerva. Decide if you are ready to fight on the front lines. Like it or not, you had best be ready, as the front lines are heading your way.

You are perilously close to the idea that criticizing Dubya is unpatriotic. We are not in a Post Pearl Harbor mode. We should still be debating and building a consensus on what the new world order ought to be, and how to build it. Dubya would like it to be held, as a self-evident truth, that the old world order is just fine. Any Democrat who hints otherwise gets flamed as being un-American, as breaking the Unity. It is currently very unfashionable to suggest the Islamic world might have reason to be displeased with US policy, or suggest that we might consider altering said policies. Well, free speech is not un-American. Dubya will have to deliver on rash promises, or he will get free speeched out of office in 2004. September 11 did not give him a permanent mandate. It gave him a second honeymoon.

Voices of all sorts will be heard. Attempts to silence won?t work. No one can force anyone to listen. Somebody had better listen.

VERY excellent post, Mr. Butler.