Plain Dealer November 1 page A14
U. S. TO CRACK DOWN ON IMMIGRANTS
...These provisions:
Broaden INS authority to deny entry to the United States for a variety of reasons...
Require the detention of noncitizens until they are deported if the attorney general certifies he has "reasonable grounds to believe" the person is a terrorist or is affiliated with a terrorist organization.
Triple the number of agents on the US-canada border.

Delsyn:
Based on the times of the postings, I believe we both submitted material at close to the same time. I hope you saw the apology I noted to you and your cohorts, and rest assured, I'm a good person, with ideas that don't need labels like good or bad.
I've said nothing particularly original, and take little credit for the systhesis of ideas. I do agree the forum is the best place to discuss these ideas, and I implore you to open your mind to the tremendous bias on both sides of these issues. For example, I cited the CAMERA website, for your edification, clearly a pro-israeli site.
Enjoy the discourse and accept my (christian) request that you not judge others.

The Fourth Turning page 286-287
"The same Boomers who in youth chanted "Hell no, we won't go!" will emerge as America's most martial elder generation in living memeory...The same Boomers who once chanted "Ho Ho Ho Chi Minh the NLF is gonna win!" will demand not just an enemy's defeat, but it's utter destruction."
Plain Dealer November 1, page B11
EVEN THE PEACENIKS ARE GUNG-HO
By Maureen Dowd
"...Just as some ACLU lawyers now secretly mutter that they want to seal our borders, and some liberals are easily dismissing their concerns about civil liberties abuses and capital punishment, so many old peaceniks are now hawky, less concerned about which group of beards runs post-Taliban Afghanistan than about aggressively going after the villians..."
OK, *NOW* do you think we have turned the corner?

Delsyn, I like your definition of terrorism. It cuts through all the BS and is very clear.

I'm also amazed at some of the rampant conspiracy theories out there. They are all so ludicrous, I'm just stunned that some people actually believe them. I can even make up a better one: Germans are the largest ethnic group in the US. Therefore, in order to get revenge for their loss in WWII, they conspired to set the Jewish-controlled America against the Islamic world so the two would completely destroy each other and Germany could finally take over the world and restore the Reich.

Sound silly? No sillier than any of the others one hears. Yet, if you went to some area where people were isolated, uneducated, and bombarded on a daily basis with that story, they'd swallow it hook, line, and sinker.

"Bob, don't you think that Clinton, and Even Bush Sr. was on that road, years ago? I was as surprised as anyone else to learn that for the past 10 years, the U.S. has flew over Iraqi airspace every day."

Well I wasn't. It was in the European press all along.

What are you not being told? Quoth the raven. Nevermore.
a

On 2001-11-01 21:09, Delsyn wrote:

?Terrorism is any violent act committed against civilians and civilian targets by a non-governmental para-military organization for no military purpose other than the creation of fear in the targeted government?s populace. The hope of terrorism is that a frightened populace will influence their government to acquiesce to the terrorist?s demands in exchange for a cessation of violence.?

So if I understand you correctly, if it is a government that does the same thing, it's not terrorism? See:
http://www.nigelparry.com/flash/may2001.html

How about the Taliban, is that an official government, or just a bunch of students with guns?

Remember, most of the Taliban leadership, and Bin Laden himself, are barely 40 years old. Most of the troups are Gen X age or younger. Is that an established government merely because they wrestled power away from the people and prior faction?

To cover everyone from Timothy McVeigh to foreign states, (as well as so much senseless killing worldwide) I'd submit the proper definition is:

?Terrorism is any violent act committed against civilians and civilian targets for no military purpose other than the creation of fear in the targeted government?s populace. The hope of terrorism is that the frightened populace will suffer, and through that suffering, the perpetrator(s) of the terrorism will benefit.?



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sv81 on 2001-11-02 09:09 ]</font>

On 2001-11-01 21:09, Delsyn wrote:

?Terrorism is any violent act committed against civilians and civilian targets by a non-governmental para-military organization for no military purpose other than the creation of fear in the targeted government?s populace. The hope of terrorism is that a frightened populace will influence their government to acquiesce to the terrorist?s demands in exchange for a cessation of violence.?

Or perhaps we can just cut out the BS and say that:

"Terrorism is any act (or threats of future actions) of violence perpetrated against the United States, or against any nation Allied with the United States at the time of the act (or threat), by a 'terrorist group'.
"A terrorist group is one which (a)is not recognized as a nation or a nation's 'legitimate' governing body by the United States; and (b)acts, threatens, or intends to act as described above"

That, too, covers the WTC bombings and kids throwing rocks at tanks as acts of Terrorism, while leaving the hands of the US, Israel, Britain, etc.. clean.

That's what we're trying to do here, right?



_________________
"One's food should always be sufficient before one seeks to have it fine tasting. One's clothing should always be warm before one tries to make it beautiful. One's dwelling should always be safe before one tries to make it pleasurable."
- [i]Mo Tzu</i

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Justin '77 on 2001-11-02 09:19 ]</font>

On 2001-11-01 23:00, Tom Mazanec wrote:
The Fourth Turning page 286-287
"The same Boomers who in youth chanted "Hell no, we won't go!" will emerge as America's most martial elder generation in living memeory...The same Boomers who once chanted "Ho Ho Ho Chi Minh the NLF is gonna win!" will demand not just an enemy's defeat, but it's utter destruction."
Plain Dealer November 1, page B11
EVEN THE PEACENIKS ARE GUNG-HO
By Maureen Dowd
"...Just as some ACLU lawyers now secretly mutter that they want to seal our borders, and some liberals are easily dismissing their concerns about civil liberties abuses and capital punishment, so many old peaceniks are now hawky, less concerned about which group of beards runs post-Taliban Afghanistan than about aggressively going after the villians..."
OK, *NOW* do you think we have turned the corner?

Speaking as a former peace chanter, I don't see this as a change in ourselves as much as a change in the situation. After all, there were no Viet Cong attacking Americans at home, and even those Americans that talked about "bringing the war home" ended up just blowing up a few of themselves. The characterization of Boomers you've quoted does seem to ring true, but I'm not sure it proves the 4T has really begun yet. If there are serious threats that maintain the momentum of crisis, then probably 9/11 will be seen as the catalyzing event. But if the sense of threat subsides somewhat, and there is a greater event 3 or 4 years from now, then 9/11 will be seen as a preliminary slowdown to the Unraveling (3T).

On 2001-11-02 08:23, angeli wrote:
"Bob, don't you think that Clinton, and Even Bush Sr. was on that road, years ago? I was as surprised as anyone else to learn that for the past 10 years, the U.S. has flew over Iraqi airspace every day."

Well I wasn't. It was in the European press all along.

What are you not being told? Quoth the raven. Nevermore.
a

One didn't have to be read the European press to know it was going on. One just had to use one's head: There's a "no-fly" zone over both ends of Iraq, yes? We all know this, yes? What, then, would one imagine we'd be enforcing it with?

It's far less that our media doesn't report things than it is that most people simply suffer from too much ennui to care to know them.

Deslyn proposes

Terrorism is any violent act committed against civilians and civilian targets by a non-governmental para-military organization for no military purpose other than the creation of fear in the targeted government?s populace. The hope of terrorism is that a frightened populace will influence their government to acquiesce to the terrorist?s demands in exchange for a cessation of violence.

This definition holds a not so hidden assumption that governments work for true and just cause, while non-governmental para-military organizations do not.

In the early 20th Century, Woodrow Wilson?s state department arranged a treaty in Latin America, such that neither the US nor any of the signatories would recognize any revolutionary government that should seize power in the area. It was presented with glorious trumpeted flourishes as a great step forward in the name of peace. The problem? No problem at all, if one owned stock in the United Fruit Company. At the time, the working conditions were oppressive, the pay negligible, the signatory governments were in United Fruit Company?s pockets, and revolution was the only possible escape for the common people.

Your definition hides (not very well) a simple assumption that the establishment is always the good guys in the white hats because the establishment is always the good guys in the white hats. If we are declaring certain tactics immoral, refusing to examine the underlying causes that lead to use of these tactics, we ought to define the tactics without reference to who is using them.

We also should not be refusing to look at the underlying causes that lead to poverty and terror.


_________________
We shall not have Freedom from Fear, everywhere in the world, while we forget the other three.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Bob Butler 54 on 2001-11-02 11:59 ]</font>

?Terrorism is any violent act committed against civilians and civilian targets for no military purpose other than the creation of fear in the targeted government?s populace. The hope of terrorism is that the frightened populace will suffer, thus advancing the perpetrator(s) agenda in some way."

That way, be it economic, political, religious etc., need not necesarily make logical sense. (How much terrorism makes sense anyway).

Nor is it necessary that the terrorists be a disenfranchised minority group, or some individual nutcase. A terrorist could be an individual (Timothy McVeigh); could be a group, (Al'Qaida); could be a military leader (General Custer); or even a a legitimate government's military workers, (Israeli solders).

Terrorism = Civilian Casualties. It's that simple.

The Army of the North, during the civil war was accused of those very same tactics: striking fear and damage to the civilian population of the South. To that we must agree.

Don't we?

Sv81 says Terrorism = Civilian Casualties. It's that simple.

I like this one better. I can respect it. Let?s go devil?s advocate for a bit.

War is the continuation of politics by other means. There are three traditional approaches. First, destroy the army in the field. Say, a thousand B17s and B24s carpet bomb the German Panzer Lehr Division to break the allies off the Normandy bridgehead. Oops, a few French civilians are in that part of France, but so sorry. Second, destroy the infrastructure necessary to support the war effort. Say, a thousand B17s and B24s carpet bomb civilian owned and operated petroleum refineries necessary to keep Germany?s tanks rolling and aircraft flying. Oops, a few German civilians in Germany, but so sorry. Third, destroy the enemy?s will to wage war. Say, a thousand B17s and B24s carpet bomb Berlin?s residential districts. No. Not sorry. Eat steel and die. War is hell, mate. There are some things worth fighting for, and this is a just war.

I can respect Terrorism = Civilian Casualties, and an international ban on terrorism if we are ready to live by the same standard we proclaim. We won the Cold War on the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction, and still keep a good deal of Assured Destruction on stand by. Are we really willing to renounce terrorism by this definition? If we renounce civilian casualties, are we also renouncing the possibility of a just war?

On 2001-11-02 09:46, Lis '54 wrote:

On 2001-11-02 08:23, angeli wrote:
"Bob, don't you think that Clinton, and Even Bush Sr. was on that road, years ago? I was as surprised as anyone else to learn that for the past 10 years, the U.S. has flew over Iraqi airspace every day."

Well I wasn't. It was in the European press all along.

What are you not being told? Quoth the raven. Nevermore.
a

One didn't have to be read the European press to know it was going on. One just had to use one's head: There's a "no-fly" zone over both ends of Iraq, yes? We all know this, yes? What, then, would one imagine we'd be enforcing it with?

It's far less that our media doesn't report things than it is that most people simply suffer from too much ennui to care to know them.

Liz 54:

I'm not a foreign correspondent, but let me ask a few journalistic questions:

Because there is a no-fly-zone over Iraq, how, as mister average in America, would I know that means no planes except OURS fly there?

How would I know we fly it every single day, when reports of it aren't even monthly? After all, unless we destroy something, it isn't newsworthy.

What basis would mister average have for believing it was necessary for America to fly over a foreign country every day, for 10 years, and systematically bomb their infrastructure back to the stone age?

How similar does the conduct of repeatedly invading Iraqi airspace, and plinking military and civilian targets over time have with: for example, the Israeli military plinking of the Palestinian people in the occupied lands?

Both conflicts have lasted for years, both have caused countless civilian casualties, and both are no closer to a conclusion than 10 years ago.

You can't have it both ways. Either America is a global empire, with all right to rule the world as we, and our allies, see fit; or perhaps not. If so, what we and Israel do won't be called terrorism. Instead it's (cultural) warfare, to bring the world to our system.

On the other hand, if we look to our founding fathers, who cautioned us on such a course of action, (as well as British history does the same); then we simply don't belong there. That means no embargos, no weapon sales, no police actions. We leave that part of the world to deal wit its own problems.

Take your pick. Which world should America push for?



_________________

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sv81 on 2001-11-02 13:29 ]</font>

On 2001-11-02 13:00, Bob Butler 54 wrote:
I can respect Terrorism = Civilian Casualties, and an international ban on terrorism if we are ready to live by the same standard we proclaim. We won the Cold War on the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction, and still keep a good deal of Assured Destruction on stand by. Are we really willing to renounce terrorism by this definition? If we renounce civilian casualties, are we also renouncing the possibility of a just war?

Bob, I'll need to crack open my catechism tonight to reply to the phrase "just war". I know it's not an oxymoron, for there are just causes, one's worth taking and laying down life for. But the subject is more complicated than just war. (No pun intended)

My quick answer is that it's somewhat a matter of degree. WTC was so clearly a non military target - that's clearer terrorism, than say flying a plane into the Pentagon.

Do I hear you saying distinction without a difference? Well the pentagon is the brain center for military action, and a first strike on it (by say Libya), would be an act of war, primarily directed to the government, although civilian casualties are in the mix to some extent.

Think of the USS Cole. Was that a military target or a terrorist target? How about a U.S. Embassy? Or a U.N shelter?

Civilians will always be in danger during war, but terrorism, as I interpret it, has its focus on civilian casualties, not solders and war material.

Plinking the Iraqi civilians at 30,000 feet is terrorism, even if done by the mightiest country in the world. Perhaps our culpability is greater because we are the mightiest country in the world. Something to think about.

Hmm... Terrorism= (intentional) Civilian causalties.

Simple, accurate.

I like it.

Some interesting questions arise: What is a civilian? Where is the line defining "intentional"? Need there be casualties?

If we drop a 5-MT nuke on an army air field, which happens to be located near a small city, and wipe out the city as well as the field, are those intentional civilian casualties? What if we aim for the city instead of the airfield, because defenses there are not as good, and the blast will still take out the field anyway? Are we terrorists? Or are the people we''re bombing terrorists for placing their own civilians in potential harm's way?

If we infect soldiers with smallpox, is that terrorism? It will probably spread beyond the soldiers, so how does it matter who is infected first?

Remember "True Lies"? A nuke was set off on an uninhabited island in the Florida Keys. Sufficient warning is given to evacuate the area around before the nuke is set off. Would that be a terrorist act?

Is someone who throws a rock at a fortified position a terrorist? How about two rocks? How about 20 people?



_________________
"One's food should always be sufficient before one seeks to have it fine tasting. One's clothing should always be warm before one tries to make it beautiful. One's dwelling should always be safe before one tries to make it pleasurable."
- [i]Mo Tzu</i

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Justin '77 on 2001-11-02 14:12 ]</font>

"Because there is a no-fly-zone over Iraq, how, as mister average in America, would I know that means no planes except OURS fly there?

How would I know we fly it every single day, when reports of it aren't even monthly? After all, unless we destroy something, it isn't newsworthy."

Well you wouldn't. As I said, it's the job of journalists to put international news into a context that clues people in as to why they might want to know.

You know what creeps me out? In Sept. 1939 the vast majority of German citizens believed that Poland had attacked them. And therefore, it was explained, they had to go to war.

The Nazi government had maintained tight control over the media for a number of years. They even faked a newsreel using political prisoners dressed up in Polish uniforms whom they filmed and then shot. It was the original wagging the dog and produced an over 90% support of the German invasion of Poland.

Now, the way our media has been controlled for the last few years is nowhere near as deliberate or direct.

News companies, pressured by market forces and trying to give the public what it believed it wanted, shut down foreign bureaus and concentrated on sex scandals and feel-good economic boom. They percieved (perhaps rightly) that American citizens did not want to be aware of the morally ambiguous stuff that was being done in our names. We were burned out on guilt.

But the effect is the same.

We have been involved directly and militarily in Iraq and Palestine for over 10 years. We have. It's not anti-American to say so unless telling the truth has become anti-American. And the vast majority of Americans really don't know the extent of what we've been doing over there.

Most Americans believe that Sept. 11th was an unprovoked attack on American civilians by a religious madman and a fanatic population. Well bin Laden may be personally nuttier than a Snickers bar, but the attack was *not* unprovoked. It's a 1000% acceleration in an ongoing war.

Or perhaps we can just cut out the BS and say that:

"Terrorism is any act (or threats of future actions) of violence perpetrated against the United States, or against any nation Allied with the United States at the time of the act (or threat), by a 'terrorist group'.
"A terrorist group is one which (a)is not recognized as a nation or a nation's 'legitimate' governing body by the United States; and (b)acts, threatens, or intends to act as described above"

That, too, covers the WTC bombings and kids throwing rocks at tanks as acts of Terrorism, while leaving the hands of the US, Israel, Britain, etc.. clean.

That's what we're trying to do here, right?

Well, stated unsarcastically, that's probably the practical definition that will end up being applied.

I may be hopeful, but I'm still a cynic.

On 2001-11-02 11:59, Bob Butler 54 wrote:
Deslyn proposes

Terrorism is any violent act committed against civilians and civilian targets by a non-governmental para-military organization for no military purpose other than the creation of fear in the targeted government?s populace. The hope of terrorism is that a frightened populace will influence their government to acquiesce to the terrorist?s demands in exchange for a cessation of violence.

This definition holds a not so hidden assumption that governments work for true and just cause, while non-governmental para-military organizations do not.

---snip---

Your definition hides (not very well) a simple assumption that the establishment is always the good guys in the white hats because the establishment is always the good guys in the white hats. If we are declaring certain tactics immoral, refusing to examine the underlying causes that lead to use of these tactics, we ought to define the tactics without reference to who is using them.

That's untrue - I make no such assumption. If you've read my earlier posts, you know I have no uncritical love of government, ours or anyone else's. I'm inclined to believe in PJ O'Rourke's Libertarian quip that giving power and money to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. My definition is merely a proffered answer to the vexing question "What is terrorism?".

Like it or not, governments have lower restrictions on the use of force than do private citizens or non-governmental organizations. Without this governmental priveledge (supposedly granted by the people whom governement is supposed to serve) no government in the world could carry out what I believe are government's only two legitimate functions - policing the streets and protecting the shores.

So yes - under my definition, a government cannot commit an act of terrorism. However, under that definition a government CAN commit a war crime or a crime against humanity, and may suffer such penalties as the international community sees fit to put upon it - perhaps even being destroyed by having other countries declare war on it.

We also should not be refusing to look at the underlying causes that lead to poverty and terror.

Of course we should, I never said otherwise. Offering a definition such as this is all legalism. Under the American system of jurisprudence, when one person takes the life of another, the circumstances dictate not only whether a crime has occurred, but also the severity and penalty of that crime. Ending a life may be first degree murder, second degree murder, manslaughter, justifiable homicide, self-defense, and other shades of gray.

My definition doesn't give any government a free pass to commit the kinds of acts Al Qaeda did - rather it sets up a legalistic definition under which we could bring terrorists to justice, terrorists being defined as non-governmental organizations. Such definitions and penalties have yet to be worked out or agreed upon, of course.

The penalties for a government that acts in such a hostile manner may be just as severe, but they would not be implemented under the same statutes that define terrorism. We already have a set of conduct standards for warfare that governments are supposed to adhere to (Though they rarely do - including the US), it's called the Geneva Convention.

Delsyn:
Based on the times of the postings, I believe we both submitted material at close to the same time. I hope you saw the apology I noted to you and your cohorts, and rest assured, I'm a good person, with ideas that don't need labels like good or bad.

SV81 - you owe me no apology. As an ardent defender of the First Amendment you have every right to say what you do and believe what you wish, and I'll support that to my dying day. Indeed, I'll go so far as to say that you offer a valuable alternative perspective on recent events that provokes those on my side of the table to think very hard about out own ideas.

As I mentioned before - I do not judge you as a person. How can I? We've never met. If you tell me you are a good person, I'll take you at your word. Your ideas on the other hand, do require labels, as do mine (note that my "defenition of terrorism" wasn't accepted as holy writ by all of the posters here - I never expected it would be).

All ideas require value definitions. To say that all ideas have equal merit is liberal moral equivalency at best, moral apology for monstrous behavior at worst. The Aztecs, for example thought it was a peachy keen idea to eat the hearts of their enemies and slaughter neighboring tribes. Many white Americans once thought it was great idea to keep those with darker skin tones in miserable servitude. Both of those ideas are just plain BAD and deserve their fate - as discarded theories on the ash heap of history.

In the same way, while you may not be a bad person, some of the ideas you are acting as a spokesperson for (like the Global Jewish Conspiracy, the Zionist Occupational Government, that Israel is a terrorist nation) are just plain BAD. These are ideas that deserve to be killed - not by supressing them which would only make them stronger, but by exposing them to the light of honest debate.

That those ideas are bad is just my opinion, of course, but isn't that the basis of all debate, different opinions? Eventually they all get thrashed out in the marketplace of ideas.

I've said nothing particularly original, and take little credit for the systhesis of ideas. I do agree the forum is the best place to discuss these ideas, and I implore you to open your mind to the tremendous bias on both sides of these issues. For example, I cited the CAMERA website, for your edification, clearly a pro-israeli site.
Enjoy the discourse and accept my (christian) request that you not judge others.

That you've given voice to nothing particularly original is nothing to be ashamed of. Many ideas like "Indiscriminate killing is a bad thing" and "The tribe over the hill deserve to die" are as old as humanity. Debating their "goodness" and "badness" is still valuable. If you felt I was judging and attacking you personally - for that I apolgize, but I reserve the right to continue to both judge and attack your ideas.

The beauty of living in a land where Freedom of Speech is cherished is you're also free to attack mine.

(And for whatever it's worth - it's a lot more pleasant talking with you than Edgar A. Howard. Four years of my life - what was I thinking?)


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Delsyn on 2001-11-02 20:49 ]</font>

On 2001-11-02 13:47, sv81 wrote:
Think of the USS Cole. Was that a military target or a terrorist target? How about a U.S. Embassy? Or a U.N shelter?

USS Cole - Not a terrorist act, this was a legitimate military target.

A US Embassy - Difficult question. Who attacked it? What was happening between the two countries at the time? By international law, an embassy is considered the home soil of it's country.

A UN Shelter - what was it sheltering? Peacekeeper troops? That's a military target, not a terrorist act. Ammunition stockpile? Same answer. Red Cross hospital? Depends on who's attacking it whether it's a war crime or an act of terrorism.

On 2001-11-02 14:16, angeli wrote:

"Because there is a no-fly-zone over Iraq, how, as mister average in America, would I know that means no planes except OURS fly there?

Possibly because during the Gulf War, the vast bulk of all the planes flying then were also American (with a small percentage of British and almost nobody else). Why would that have changed?

How would I know we fly it every single day, when reports of it aren't even monthly? After all, unless we destroy something, it isn't newsworthy."

Well you wouldn't. As I said, it's the job of journalists to put international news into a context that clues people in as to why they might want to know.

You know what creeps me out? In Sept. 1939 the vast majority of German citizens believed that Poland had attacked them. And therefore, it was explained, they had to go to war.

The Nazi government had maintained tight control over the media for a number of years. They even faked a newsreel using political prisoners dressed up in Polish uniforms whom they filmed and then shot. It was the original wagging the dog and produced an over 90% support of the German invasion of Poland.

Now, the way our media has been controlled for the last few years is nowhere near as deliberate or direct.

News companies, pressured by market forces and trying to give the public what it believed it wanted, shut down foreign bureaus and concentrated on sex scandals and feel-good economic boom. They percieved (perhaps rightly) that American citizens did not want to be aware of the morally ambiguous stuff that was being done in our names. We were burned out on guilt.

Certainly rightly, but don't blame the sex scandals. Sex sells. And the scandals were legitimate news (at lease some of them were) because they directly affected public policy and American domestic and international action.

No, the public was not interested in foreign policy, unfortunately. I recall a relative of mine saying, about two years ago: "I don't CARE what happens in some foreign country!"

She spoke for a huge percentage of the public, sad to say. The press did cover the Middle Eastern situation, not always at convenient times or proper depth, but the information was there for those who cared enough to seek it out.

But the effect is the same.

We have been involved directly and militarily in Iraq and Palestine for over 10 years. We have. It's not anti-American to say so unless telling the truth has become anti-American. And the vast majority of Americans really don't know the extent of what we've been doing over there.

If some polls can be believed, large percentages of Americans think that a working missile defense system is already in place , that the government could always print more money to solve financial shortfalls, and that it would be fairer for the government to pay for social services rather than the taxpayers (yes, I said that correctly, and I've seen statements to that precise effect).

On 2001-11-02 14:16, angeli wrote:
We have been involved directly and militarily in Iraq and Palestine for over 10 years. We have. It's not anti-American to say so unless telling the truth has become anti-American.

Telling the truth isn't desired in Pleasantville, and the media has wanted to wrap us up in a coccoon of trivial stuff. Picking the color of our next blender, not viewing the redness of the blood our tax dollars sheds.

What I say today is in the spirit of America, but it isn't welcome by many, it's uncomfortable, to say the least.

She also wrote:
News companies, pressured by market forces and trying to give the public what it believed it wanted, shut down foreign bureaus and concentrated on sex scandals and feel-good economic boom. They percieved (perhaps rightly) that American citizens did not want to be aware of the morally ambiguous stuff that was being done in our names.

Probably true that the public at large shares some blame for wanting the "feel-good-sex-scandals, (and who personally wouldn't feel good with a sex scandal right now?).

However, there is that invisible hand again, steering us away from the conscienceness that we, as a people need to face.

We need to face the truth.

Time to wake up America. This 1958 Boomer will never sleep his life away again.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sv81 on 2002-01-01 00:11 ]</font>

[quote]
On 2001-11-02 21:07, sv81 wrote:

Jews in our society have raised the Holocaust to an icon, a beacon to identify the tremendous inhumanity leveled against them as a nationality. And I agree that the "final solution" was very evil. The perpetators, the nazis, were evil incarnate. However, the "never forget" of the holocaust, blinds them to the "never remember" of the thousands of people suffering in the world today.

You offer your "never forget" and "never remember" as an either/or proposition. There is no logical reason why a Jew with with a "never forget" attitude cannot also be conscious of the suffering of others. These two attitudes are not mutually exclusive.

It's as if jews, through their de facto control of the media, believe that they are the only ones that face oppression in the world today.

There are a lot of Irish cops (or there apparently were at the time when the Irish cop stereotype surfaced). Your line of reasoning would seem to implicate all these cops in a conspiracy of sorts, possibly as an arm of the Irish Republican Army.

There are a lot of Italians who run barbershops -- in the East anyway. Your line of reasoning would seem to implicate all these barbers in a conspiracy of sorts, perhaps as members of the Mafia.

Their sensitivity to being singled out deafens then to the cries of other nationalities.

There is no logical reason why all cries cannot be heard. It is not necessary that one cry drown out any other.

The invisible hand of the media steers every cry for justice (if not a jewish cry), toward the dustbin of journalism.

Apart from Arab cries for justice, who's cries are being drowned out by the Jews? Are there any such cries from the Far East or Africa, for example?

Some think there is a global conspiracy, others think not. But as a nationality, the agenda is toward a focus on their past injuries, and a blindness toward ongoing injury of others. It isn't choriographed, it just happens.

As I recall, Jews were very prominent as leaders early on in the civil rights movement for blacks. Where was this blindness then? And why were they not drowning out the cries of Rosa Parks, Eldridge Cleaver, Martin Luther King, etc.? How about those three civil rights workers murdered in Philadelphia, Mississippi in 1964? I believe most or all of them were Jewish. They certainly had a lot of courage at that time to go that far south and that far into the sticks firstly as Jews and secondly as advocates of black equality. Why didn't they just stay up north and cry for themselves and cry loud enough to drown out the cries of blacks?

Better believe that if 10 years of overflight bombing touched jewish citizens, the hue and cry would be sounded quickly and nonstop.

And if by some bizarre twist Israel were somehow our enemy such that we enforced a no-fly zone over them for ten years, then the American people would likely support our military even if the media continued to take the Israeli line.

But since the Iraqi, Palistinian and Afghan people are nobody to the jews, they, as a media force, couldn't give a damn.

It can also be stated that our closest friend in the Middle East is Israel. Naturally we would pay closer attention to what is happening to a close friend than to a mere "acquaintance." You can argue that Israel has historically only been so close a friend due to the power of the Israeli lobby. But can you see how unfair it is to lump together all Jews in a conspiracy when it is only a lobby which happens to be peopled by Jews which has perhaps created the state of affairs?

Jewish media bias, although not orchestrated by the "Illuminati" or any central brain, nonetheless has an impact on the non jewish population throughout the world.

Again, does it not make sense to look to the Israeli lobby as the source of our historic "closeness" to Israel? Note that this closeness is in government policy. It does not automatically follow that the media must parrot the government line. Even if a significant number of media bigwigs are Jewish, it does not automatically follow that they have dictatorial control over content nor that they are willing to enforce it if they do. You are stereotyping an entire ethnic group for the actions of a few of its members.

Yesterday, I watched Iri Fletcher, the press secretary for Bush spin the most eloquent B.S. I have ever seen. He kept perfect composure - until a reporter said the word Israel.

Ari Fleischer is a spinmeister and an idiot. It is his job. What does his being Jewish have to do with anything?

Upwards of 6 million jews were slaughtered in World War II., but 30 million other people were slaughtered by the Soviet Union since World War II. Who heard their voices? Who repeated their cries?

So you are saying that we never hear about the 30 million+ killed in the Soviet Union because the Jews do not want anybody "cutting in on their action." Let me give you a much simpler explanation. The media has historically (through most of this century) had a "liberal" bias. They loved FDR and FDR just loved Uncle Joe Stalin. He loved Uncle Joe so much that he gave him the lives, liberties and fortunes of all Eastern Europeans as a gift of affection and a gesture of thanks.

The loudest '60s Boomers also loved FDR and too many also loved Uncle Joe. Even when they did not necessarily love Uncle Joe, they were still sympathetic to the great Soviet experiment. And to this day, many of them still understate the horrors and tyranny inherent in communism in much the same way that individuals will often overlook the flaws in a loved one.

News reporters are drawn overwhelmingly from this political pool to the extent that 85% tend to vote Democratic. Can you see where this might explain why no one in the media ever bothers to tout the 30 million+ that died in their beloved Soviet Union? What on earth does this have to do with Jews?

SV, some of your observations about possible media control arguably have merit. But there would seem to be much simpler explanations consistent with human nature which are in no way tied to anyone's genetic inheritance. Jews are human beings. We all are human beings. There are good people and bad people in every ethnic group and no ethnic group holds a monopoly on either good or bad people. Jews are no more genetically predisposed to conspiracy than Germans are genetically predisposed to genocide. It all comes down to human nature. And human nature knows no racial or ethnic boundaries.

Many of your points have merit. But the way in which you connect the dots has more holes than swiss cheese. The power which a lobby has with respect to a subsection of foreign policy does not equate to national much less global control. Please reconsider and reevaluate. You run a serious risk of scapegoating a whole mass of people without warrant. And I trust that you are good enough that you would never deliberately do that.

I believe the E2K thread on the old web site lasted about 7 months and had about 1600 postings. This thread has lasted about 7 weeks and already has about 1400 postings...

Perhaps I am less than hopeful, and more cynical, particularly of government and media.

I follow your rebuttal and believe you carry merit to your points individually, but not perhaps collectively.

I'll try better in the future.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sv81 on 2002-01-01 00:13 ]</font>

Why are we arguing with our favorite trollmeister? It's like wrestling with a pig - we just get dirty and the pig just enjoys it.

Just my $0.02 ;}