On 2001-10-30 16:39, madscientist wrote:
Where did S&H ever say that Millies will follow the old social rules? Actually, they said that Millennials will REDEFINE social rules, and give their stamp on what is right and what is wrong.

Almost every chapter of T4T seems to be bursting with predictions that the Millennial generation is going to follow the old social rules and wipe out the prevelence of breaking them. Millies will eliminate profanity, and will make everything clean again. They'll make dress clean-cut again, run off to go to war almost the second they're drafted and be prudish. S&H say they'll take sex out of everything and represent "modesty" instead. If that isn't the sign of a generation to follow baseless rules, I don't know what is. Plus they say that even today Millennials trust and admire authority a lot. They and Brian can't both be right when they're saying that. How can you rebel in anything when you have it in you never to go against the word of authority? You can't. -Craig

On 2001-11-03 20:37, Craig '84 wrote:

On 2001-10-30 16:39, madscientist wrote:
Where did S&H ever say that Millies will follow the old social rules? Actually, they said that Millennials will REDEFINE social rules, and give their stamp on what is right and what is wrong.

Almost every chapter of T4T seems to be bursting with predictions that the Millennial generation is going to follow the old social rules and wipe out the prevelence of breaking them. Millies will eliminate profanity, and will make everything clean again. They'll make dress clean-cut again, run off to go to war almost the second they're drafted and be prudish. S&H say they'll take sex out of everything and represent "modesty" instead. If that isn't the sign of a generation to follow baseless rules, I don't know what is. Plus they say that even today Millennials trust and admire authority a lot. They and Brian can't both be right when they're saying that. How can you rebel in anything when you have it in you never to go against the word of authority? You can't. -Craig

What does eliminating profanity, dressing nice, and being more sexually modest have to do with anything? That is totally irrevelant to the issue. Well, I'll have to admit that "making profanity as outdated as the backwards cap" was going a little far. Besides, do you think that the GIs actually removed profanity? Nah. :wink: In MR, S&H revised it, saying that there was a difference between Boomers and Millies use it. When Boomers used it, it meant an insult, but when Millies use it, ("You my motherf***er!!") they usually mean it in a more friendly way. As for modesty in sex, you can't win here, especially with the new "virginity is cool" credo, and many teen stars, such as Kirsten Storms, saying that virginity is cool. Plus, Millies are having oral sex in large numbers to keep from having actual intercourse. So the sexual counterrevolution is very real. Besides, teen pregnancy is at the lowest since 1940. As S&H say, teens are having less sex, and the sex they are having is safer. Whatever rules Millies make will not be baseless. There will always be a reason. For instance, they will back off of sex more because they will do it more responsibility. The GIs supposedly became more sexually modest (yeah, right. You don't suppose te baby boom came from thin air :wink, but this was largely a reaction to the 1920s, which they blame everything on.

Are Brian and S&H both right? Yes. Imagine that you live in a 2 dimensional universe, and you cannot perceive a 3D world. Let's say you have a camera looking at a fish tank head on, and another one looking at it from the side. You would see entirely two different things, but would be looking at the exact same thing. Brian is saying that Heroes are very rebellious, while S&H are saying that Millies resemble the Borg. How is it possible that both are right? S&H say that Millies will follow the Gray Champion off the cliff. Brian says that GIs consistently had the largest communist party membership. Is this rebellion? Yes. Another clue can be found in Generations. Here, S&H say that Millies will follow behind a Boomer, as long as it is consistent with their secular blueprint. When people brood over S&H saying that Millies will follow the Gray Champion off of a cliff, they usually miss a VERY important detail, and that is that Millies CHOOSE the Gray Champion. Prophets do not suddenly STEAL power, and expect Millies to follow behind. They have to be "the chosen one" for that to happen. GIs largely supported FDR because his visions conformed largely to the secular blueprint of the GIs. The GIs didn't largely support the others. Heroes rebel against anyone who does not support their secular blueprint. But also, Heroes choose the Gray Champion. This is because the Gray Champion supports the Heroes. With this, the Heroes will follow Prophets off a cliff. But they are rebellious to anything they perceive as a barrier to their ambitions. So while GIs followed FDR like little robots, the same GIs staged massive protests and joined unions against industrialists they perceived as harmful, and staged antiwar movements during the 1930s that was even more consequential than the 1960s movement.

From the Congressional Record, Ron Paul D Texas bucks the Republican party line.

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/co...1/cr102501.htm A Sad State of Affairs. Speech is lengthy but ends...

Although this unwise war on drugs generates criminal violence, the violence can never be tolerated. Even if repeal of drug laws would decrease the motivation for drug dealer violence, this can never be an excuse to condone the violence. In the short term, those who kill must be punished, imprisoned, or killed. Long term though, a better understanding of how drug laws have unintended consequences is required if we want to significantly improve the situation and actually reduce the great harms drugs are doing to our society.

???The same is true in dealing with those who so passionately hate us that suicide becomes a just and noble cause in their effort to kill and terrorize us. Without some understanding of what has brought us to the brink of a worldwide conflict, and reconsideration of our policies around the globe, we will be no more successful in making our land secure and free than the drug war has been in removing drug violence from our cities and towns.

???Without an understanding of why terrorism is directed towards the United States, we may well build a prison for ourselves with something called homeland security while doing nothing to combat the root causes of terrorism. Let us hope we figure this out soon.

???We have promoted a foolish and very expensive domestic war on drugs for more than 30 years. It has done no good whatsoever. I doubt our Republic can survive a 30-year period of trying to figure out how to win this guerilla war against terrorism. Hopefully, we will all seek the answers in these trying times with an open mind and understanding.

While Dubya has been trying to keep US world policy off the table, I don't think he will be able to do so forever.

_________________
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 2001-11-04 08:59 ]</font>

Loved and enjoyed read Congressman Ron Paul's speech. I must be largely in agreement that it is our interventionist policies that paved the way (don't wanna say reason, as to justify the attacks)for 911. I hope to God that when the Silent pass away on the scene. the Boomers, Xers, and Mills will listen to reason and not just rush to curtail habeas corpus, print money, interpret the constitution "allegorically", and dump the poor. I agree that the rush to action without logical consideration of the roots of those 5000 deaths can be destructive. Let's not forget that it was the Cold War that set up militarization, demonization of political opponents,inflation, unemployment, and welfare cutbacks for nearly half a century.
The post-Cold War period of (relative) fiscal responsibility, military cutbacks, and (relative) freedom is now clearly over. Fasten your seatbelts.

Loved and enjoyed read Congressman Ron Paul's speech. I must be largely in agreement that it is our interventionist policies that paved the way (don't wanna say reason, as to justify the attacks)for 911. I hope to God that when the Silent pass away on the scene. the Boomers, Xers, and Mills will listen to reason and not just rush to curtail habeas corpus, print money, interpret the constitution "allegorically", and dump the poor. I agree that the rush to action without logical consideration of the roots of those 5000 deaths can be destructive. Let's not forget that it was the Cold War that set up militarization, demonization of political opponents,inflation, unemployment, and welfare cutbacks for nearly half a century.
The post-Cold War period of (relative) fiscal responsibility, military cutbacks, and (relative) freedom is now clearly over. Fasten your seatbelts.

Though I support the war, I found this opinion interesting. Enjoy.
Even Conservatives Need the
Anti-War Movement

by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

American citizens who have doubts ? any doubts ? about the war have been
subjected to an amazing barrage of hate and threats in recent days. But if
you believe the polls that show 90 percent-plus support for this war, it
seems oddly disproportionate to whip up hysteria against a handful of
doubters.

Rather than defend the anti-war position itself, I want to make a different
argument. If you believe in freedom at all, you should hope that there are at
least some doubters and protesters, regardless of the merit of their case.
Even if you think this war is a great and necessary thing to teach the
terrorists a lesson in American resolve, the preservation of liberty at home is
also an important value.

The existence of an opposition movement is evidence that some restraints on
government still exist. The government, which is always looking for reasons
to increase its power, needs to know that there will always be an opposition.

The view that wartime requires complete unanimity of public opinion is not
an American one ? it is a position more characteristic of Islamic or other
totalitarian states, where differences of opinion are regarded as a threat to
public order, and where the leadership demands 100 percent approval from
the people. These are also states where the head of government requires
that he be treated like a deity, that there be no questioning of his edicts, that
he govern with unquestioned power.

This is the very definition of despotism. Unpopular government is dangerous
enough, popular government far more so. When public officials believe that
there are no limits to their power, no doubters about their pronouncements,
no cynics who question their motives, they are capable of gross abuses. This
is true both in wartime and peacetime. The most beloved governments are
most prone to become the most abusive.

If you think that such despotism is not possible in the United States, you
have not understood the American founding. Thomas Jefferson taught that
American liberty depends on citizen willingness to be skeptical toward the
claims of the central government. "Confidence is everywhere the parent of
despotism," he wrote in his draft of the Kentucky Resolves. "Free
government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence. It is jealousy and
not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those
whom we are obliged to trust with power."

"In questions of power," he concluded, "let no more be heard of confidence in
man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."

Wartime means that government is unleashing weapons of mass destruction
against other human beings and their property. It is the most terrifying of all
the powers of government. The war power, which means the power over life
and death, can create in those who use it a feeling of omnipotence, the belief
that they have absolute power, which gives rise to absolute corruption, as
Lord Acton observed. This is true whether the war actions are popular or
not.

Now, add to that reality an additional element: The population that supports
the war power with its taxes is consumed in nationalistic fervor ? to the
point that nobody believes that government is capable of making a bad
choice or of abusing its power. That is a sure prescription for abuse, and not
only in wartime ? the government enjoys this uncritical attitude, and will
demand it in peacetime as well. Typically, in these cases, the abuse of
peoples' rights is not decried but celebrated.

We have seen this happen in American history. Writing in the Wall Street
Journal, Jay Winik reminds us that wartime abuse of presidential power has
a long history. Lincoln imprisoned anti-war activists, including newspaper
editors, judges and attorneys, and otherwise suspended all civil liberties.
Wilson made it a crime to voice dissent on any aspect of the war, including
the way it was financed. The jails were overrun with independent-minded
people. Franklin Roosevelt did the same, and even set up internment camps
for American citizens of Japanese descent.

Incredibly, even ominously, Winik writes about this in defense of the
emergency powers that wartime provides. This is why we need to trade
liberty for security, he says, and he implies that the Bush administration
needs to go much further to meet the (low) standards set by his
predecessors.

Winik's ultimate defense, however, involves a claim that is just plain wrong:
"despite these previous and numerous extreme measures," writes Winik,
"there was little long-term or corrosive effect on society after the security
threat had subsided. When the crisis ended, normalcy returned, and so too
did civil liberties, invariably stronger than before."

It's true that the despotism subsided after the wars ended, if only because
government has a difficult time trying to maintain the level of public support
it enjoys during wartime once peace has arrived. But does government really
return to normalcy?

In fact, what changes is our definition of normalcy. In no case after a war did
the government return to its prewar size. The postwar government is always
bigger, more intrusive, more draconian, more expensive, than the prewar
government. It feels smaller because the government is no longer arresting
dissidents. But our standard of what constitutes freedom and despotism
changes during wartime. Nothing has been as corrosive of American liberty
as war.

Wartime tyranny also creates an historical precedent for future violations of
liberty. Every president who desires more power cites his predecessors who
enjoyed similar power, just as the bloody legacies of FDR, Wilson and Lincoln
are being invoked on behalf of Bush today (witness Winik's own article).

Jefferson said in his first inaugural address: "If there be any
among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change
its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as
monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be
tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." That's why,
if you hate the anti-war movement and want to see it
suppressed, you are no friend to liberty, even in peacetime.

October 26, 2001

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. [send him mail], is president of the Ludwig
von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, and editor of
LewRockwell.com.

Copyright ? 2001 LewRockwell.com

Lew Rockwell Archives

bump, jayn.

boomers on down will only hear their own words. homeland security prison was a good comment.

they won't hear ron paul which is too bad.

he is a silent.

Ron Paul's a Libertarian. Has been for years, so he's not bucking the Republican party.

He's a really nice man, who unfortunately doesn't have the sense to get out of the road when a car's coming. I know. I've nearly run over him a zillion times when he jogs out into the blind intersection in our subdivision every morning without looking. Good thing he wears a bright purple jogging suit!

This site is getting too weird. First Tristan goes off on the bad part is the end of colonialism and now sv81 is off on the International Jewish conspiracy?

Let's do the time warp again. :razz:

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: angeli on 2001-11-05 13:14 ]</font>

A definition of terrorism follows: There are two components:

1. Terrorism is performed by people who are not members of a formally recognized military organization operating under orders from a recognized government.

2. Terrorism involves acts destructive to people and property that if carried out by military personal could be considered acts of war.

3. It is the victim of the act that makes the recognition mentioned above and it does so 8after* the attack. Thus, terrorism is in the eyes of the victim and is defined based on the *response* of the victim.

For example, the Oklahoma City bombing was carried out by an American civilian not operating under the orders of the US government. It's pretty easy to see that the US would consider this as a terrorist attack.

The Pearl Harbor attack was carried out by the formal armed forces of the Empire of Japan, and acknowledged by that government in a formal declaration of war. It cannot credibly be considered as anything by an act of war.

These two cases are pretty clear cut. This one isn't.

The hijacking of flight 103 *could* be considered by the US as an act of war by Libya (the War of Jenkin's ear comes to mind), or as a terrorist attack. We decided to consider it as a terrorist attack.

The WTC attack was carried out by an element (al Qaeda) allied with one of the factions fighting a Civil War in Afghanistan. A formal decaration of war was issued by al Qaeda. Is the Taliban a government? Does there informal alliance with al Qaeda give this status to al Qaeda for the purposes of this definition? Maybe. Does the declaration from al Qaeda matter? It does if we want it to. Are the al-Qaeda forces military forces? Maybe, maybe not.

We can certainly make the argument that the WTC attack was a terrorist attack. On the other hand we could also make the argument that is was a military attack directed at disrupting the US economy (which it has succeeded in doing). A financial center like the WTC would certainly be targeted in a war.

Since the US has not declared war we have made the declaration that we consider this attack as a terrorist action. This does *not* mean that we will decide the same for an exactly analogous attack in future. The final determination is made by the victim--and only a victim that has means to strike back.

Strong countries like the US cannot carry out terrorism since we can make war and so use our military to perform acts of war. What the "war on terrorism" is trying to do is outlaw aggressive responses by the weak to acts of war commited by the strong.

Mike Alexander presented a well thought out post on defining terrorism, centered on the following.

1. Terrorism is performed by people who are not members of a formally recognized military organization operating under orders from a recognized government.

2. Terrorism involves acts destructive to people and property that if carried out by military personal could be considered acts of war.

3. It is the victim of the act that makes the recognition mentioned above and it does so 8after* the attack. Thus, terrorism is in the eyes of the victim and is defined based on the *response* of the victim.

I would suggest that a government has three options on how to respond to an attack. One could treat it as a criminal act by individuals, and respond through established police powers. One could treat it as to an act of war by a foreign government, and respond by diplomatic, sanction and/or military means. Either of the above would be a fairly traditional approach, would follow relatively established protocols.

The September 11th attack is arguably unique, a full scale act of war but not committed by a clearly identified national government. As weapons of mass destruction and the possibility of sabotage increase with a high technology civilization, similar incidents are entirely plausible. Thus, Dubya is responding with a mixture of both responses, committing acts of war against selected countries backing the terrorists, while also pursuing criminal investigations against individuals belonging to terrorist groups. The terrorists have crossed some new lines. Quite arguably the establishment is justified in blurring established polite rules in response.

There are two not entirely unrelated questions. What oppressive acts of war justify acts of war committed in response? The September 11th attacks are intuitively at a scale sufficient to be judged an act of war by the US population. Arabs perceiving colonial imperialism, racial cleansing, racism and terrorism in the policies of Israel and/or the United States might argue they too have sufficient cause for a ?just war.? We could debate indefinitely on what acts to or do not justify war. In practice, if a significant part of the population is ready to risk their lives and take lives, philosophical and legal debates become mute. We have a war in progress, perceived as just or cost effective by both parties. We have reached this point. This does not mean we should drop the debate on when violence is justified, but when a spiral of violence reaches a certain point, the issue becomes very difficult to resolve with words.

The second question is whether war should be fought under certain rules. For example, biological warfare, assassination, massively lethal strikes against civilian targets of no military value whatsoever and organized rape might be considered crimes against humanity. Crimes against humanity are by definition never justified by a claim of a ?just war? no matter how serious the provocation. When any war ends, trials of both victor and vanquished should commence with both factions judged by the same rules with equally severe punishments. If leniency is granted to victors, then equal leniency must be granted vanquished.

Arguably, what Israel has been doing recently might arguably be crimes against humanity. So might be the World Trade Center attacks. If so, civilian perpetrators ought to be hunted as criminals, and states involved should be confronted with every diplomatic, economic and military means necessary to prevent repeats.

However, if an act is truly a crime against humanity, civilized nations should not immunize themselves from prosecution by declaring it is all right for recognized nations to commit them. If it is not OK to bomb New York, it is also not OK to bomb Arab villages. The privileges of wealth and power should not extend to granting a license to kill. Any attempt to define crimes against humanity in such a way that we can commit atrocities but our enemies cannot is not of value as a principle of international law, nor as a propaganda ploy. Any enemy who believes he is fighting a just war will see through such legalistic pretensions, or worse yet reject international law entirely.

At a more subtle level, ordinary criminals have the protections of a Bill of Rights while soldiers have the protection of the Geneva Convention. With civilians fighting terrorist wars, it is not always clear what set of rules will apply, if any, and under what circumstances. I suspect some new traditions and legal principles will fall out of this, but it is too soon to guess what these principles might be. The security conscious and the civil liberties people will have to fight this out.

The next question is whether an act of war against a civilian target in peace time is by definition a crime against humanity. I would like to say yes. I would like to say September 11 was an abomination, not justified by recent US policy towards the Middle East, not possibly justified by any argument. However, if I hold my enemies to this standard, if I am going to use the full power and might of Western Civilization against those who commit crimes against humanity, then I am going to hold Western Civilization responsible to abide by its own rules.

Any definition of ?terrorism? that allows and encourages crimes against humanity in response to crimes against humanity seems problematic.

On 2001-11-05 13:13, angeli wrote:
This site is getting too weird. First Tristan goes off on the bad part is the end of colonialism and now sv81 is off on the International Jewish conspiracy?

Let's do the time warp again. :razz:

Sv81 has also claimed that racial integration is evil. He has even gone so far to suggest that African-Americans of means should live in the ghetto (where they'd be sitting-duck targets for black-on-black crime and persecution), to serve as "role models" to the underclass and preserve "black culture".

Oh, wow. Does that mean that sv81 would be willing to sacrifice his childrens' safety, self-esteem, education and future by living in a rusting-away trailer park or rural Appalachian shack? I think not!

It would seem, Angeli, that we have a fascist in our midst. This is my first and last response to any of his ramblings. From now on, we should all simply ignore him-- if we do, eventually he'll go away just like Delsyn's old buddy Edgar Howard.

SV81, you obviously dedicated a bit of time to formulating a response to me. So I owe you an acknowledgment that I read it. There is so much I could say in response but I really do not know what to say that would make any difference to either of us. It is as if we live in two entirely different universes and I am not certain that effective communication is even possible between them.

This conversation evolved from discussion of resolution of the Israeli/Palestinian dispute which is highly relevant to the topic of this thread -- and the future of this country. The Palestinian point of view must be represented. After reading your comments, I am not at all certain that you are an ideal representative for the Palestinian cause -- but this is certainly not for me alone to determine. I will tell you honestly that I find many of your expressed opinions far-fetched and even repugnant. But I am pretty much a First Amendment absolutist and I join Delsyn in defending your right to voice your opinions, and I firmly believe that these views need to be out in the open where they can be confronted, rather than hidden where they threaten to expand unchecked.

However in the interest of retaining some semblance of order here, I will try to direct the conversation back to one which is at least marginally consistent with the topic of this thread. Let me address a few of your points and I will also take the liberty of illustrating the nature of our irreconcilable perceptions:

On another matter, true there are a lot of Irish cops and Italians who run barbershops. But none have the historical connection with banking, lending, financing governments, publications, etc, and even fewer irish or italians own media in this country. In contrast, (and I have held off from cut and paste volumes of data) jews dominate the majority of print and broadcast media. If you want, I can list literally hundreds of sources that, although sensational in presentation, nontheless speak the truth.

Thank you, I finally understand where you are coming from. Yes, as has been discussed, there is heavy Jewish representation in banking and finance and other fields. You do realize that Jews entered these fields centuries ago as they were generally forbidden to own land? They were not permitted to prosper on agriculture in an agricultural economy so they had to choose among the few other available pursuits. And let us not forget that the old usury laws forbade Christians from engaging in money lending. Hindus, Buddhists, and Muslims simply were in short supply in Europe in the Middle Ages and immediately after. It naturally fell to Jews to fill that void. Yet you would attach some sort of Jewish conspiracy to this.

Here is the crux of our disagreement: I see bankers who oftentimes happen to be Jewish. You see Jews who oftentimes happen to be bankers. I will attribute any funny business coming out of the banking and financial sector to bankers and financiers whereas you will attribute it to Jews. Our perceptions of the universe are irreconcilable.

The origin of my vigor to raise this most unpopular of issues is that as a taxpayer and voter in this country, my support was given away (God knows why) to a foreign state, so that they could in turn, purchase military armements, to subdue a culture that now has declared war on my country, and kills my neighbors. If that doesn't suck, what does?

Now this is a completely valid statement relevant to this thread.

Watch T.V. See the ads on CNN. They have a surreal flavor to them. Constantly concerning improving your position, opening new markets, moving your 401(k), expanding your horizions, etc. What the hell happened to actually "working" to make something.

I somewhat share your sentiment. But again there is nothing uniquely Jewish about all this. I see bankers and financiers while you see Jews. Our perceptions are irreconcilable.

You asked about the BobButtler54 term "Illuminati" that I repeated. Well, I looked and did find, from all places:

Thank you for providing the detail. It parallels my familiarity with the subject which suggests that such a group may have existed in the late-1700s. But you have in no way demonstrated that such a group continues to exist today much less named its members. However you did respond to Bob Butler in a manner which suggests that you firmly believe that the "Illuminati" exist today. You cannot have it both ways. Either they exist today or they do not. And if you are certain that they do exist, then please identify them so that I and others can assess your theory.

Note that your bit about the Illuminati centered upon the Rothschild family and detailed how they set up a banking empire throughout the nations of Europe. This is historical fact and it is fact that the Rothschilds are Jewish. It is also fact that the major impetus toward one world government is coming from the banking and financial sector. The Rothschild family does control the European central banks and logically they are the engine behind minimally the European drive for world government. And again, the Rothschilds are of course Jewish.

But this is where our two different universes come into play. I see bankers who coincidentally are often Jews. You see Jews who coincidentally are often bankers. I see the push for one world government as at bottom a bankers' plot, consistent with human nature, irrespective of the various ethnicities of the bankers. You see the push for one world government as at bottom a Jewish plot, consistent with Jewish nature, irrespective of the various occupations of the Jews. Our perceptions are clearly irreconcilable.

On 2001-11-05 15:44, Stonewall Patton wrote:

SV81 Wrote:

The origin of my vigor to raise this most unpopular of issues is that as a taxpayer and voter in this country, my support was given away (God knows why) to a foreign state, so that they could in turn, purchase military armaments, to subdue a culture that now has declared war on my country, and kills my neighbors. If that doesn't suck, what does?

Wow! I had no idea who this Edgar A. Howard guy was, but after finding him on the forum, and reading his posts, I'd like not to be characterized in his camp. Further I don't want to be sequestered from the discussion, by either the webmaster OR the readers.

Unlike Mr. Howard, I haven't threatened anybody, haven't alleged damnation on any reader, haven't taunted you good people by name calling, or pseudonyms, (like del sin for Delsyn), etc.

I'd also like to think my viewpoint is much more flexible than Mr. Howards. In fully disclosing to the forum that the above quote is the impetus for speaking aloud, I would want you all to: (1) listen, (2) judge the content of the idea, and (3) not castigate the author. Is that too much to ask?

It's not from a blind religious fervor, or lack of taking my medication that I raise the viewpoints so far. Further, there may exist only one Mr. Howard (let's hope), but there are many people advancing the uncomfortable ideas I posit.

I have disclosed several times neither any pride of authorship for my position - instead attempting to fully document my resources with websites and books. That doesn't make the idea correct at all; but does make it more difficult to dispose of me as a solitary nut. Lots of nuts on the west coast.

I have no hidden agenda, and unlike Mr. Howard, no hatred toward any particular individual(s).

Perhaps Stonewall Patton is correct: our perceptions of world events are "clearly irreconcilable." But does that end our ability to communicate? Does that mean my ideas are to be consigned to oblivion? Sure I'll tone down the position - for you see where I'm coming from, and don't need more. But my world view on this was solicited in great measure to explain earlier ideas raised. I think differently than you. That's all. I didn't want to anger anybody, and have expressly apologized more than once for my comments sounding evil or in ill will toward groups I have mentioned.

I have said nothing to this forum that I would not freely say to a friend or acquaintance. As friends, we act at times like a mirror to each other. Mr. Howard painted a delusional and distorted picture, based on his religious intolerance of the very people he was speaking to. No wonder you ignored him. I however voice a position that might be lacking in the comfort scale of chatting, but is there zero benefit in talking to someone that thinks differently?

Mine is a voice you are free to ignore, but in another time and place, when someone other than me says the same thing, will you discount them as well?

To SV81:
While I disagree with your attempts to paint Jews as being the primary reason for attacks on the United States, I must respect your convictions and thank God that we live in a country where we can debate these things in a civil manner.
http://www.janes.com/security/intern...0919_1_n.shtml
To everyone else:
There may be other motives beside Israel. Like our bombing Iraq and decimating half of Iraq's army in the Gulf War. Saddam is pissed at the US. So is Hizbullah, the Lebanese group. They want an Islamic state in Lebanon. They don't need a reason. It is enough that we are in their way and their dreams of global power. Yet, they're not stupid. They attack but make sure their fingerprints aren't on the attack so they don't get hit back. Our good buddy Assad, our Syrian "ally" in the war on terror, is Hizballuh's landlord (since his army is the one that controls Lebanon to begin with, contrary to stated UN resolutions on the subject). Syria protects and nurtures Hizbullah and we look the other way. Kinda like the way we dealt with our current enemy until Sept. 11. Judge for yourself.

On 2001-11-02 23:16, Stonewall Patton wrote:

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?

You and I often disagree, but on this subject we see eye to eye. This is some evidence that FDR had started to see through Stalin toward the very end, but it was almost too late by that point.

Chris Patton notes that Jews are in the media and have made a point to have their tragedies recalled.

While this is true, it's not true that the broader public is ignorant or unaware of Stalinist slaughter. The extent of the Communist genocides (or classicide, a word I just made up since Marxism is not theoretically racist, only classist)was well known, even as early as the 1940's. It was US policy during the War to downplay the Soviet slaughters and forced labor because they sided with the "good" Communists against the evil Nazis who were doing the same thing. After the War the US did a 180 and employed former Nazi generals in NATO as well as Nazi scientists in our scientific military experiments (von Braun comes to mind, though he wasn't exactly a Nazi). Suddenly, the need to downplay Nazi atrocities superseded the need to remember and not withstanding the emotional, but highly symbolic, trials at Nuremberg few war criminals were ever prosecuted for their war crimes. In fact, this was the McCarthy era when American Jews were swept up in fears that they would be accused of being "red" since a disproportionate number of "reds" in the 30's and 40's had been Jewish by birth, though not faith. They were, if anything, afraid to publicize the atrocities so as to appear as "good" American citizens. Holocaust victims, at the urging of the United States, were given a small pittance of compensation by West Germany and the Holocaust was a topic not to be brought up again amongst polite circles in the West until the 1960's. The word Holocaust, if my research is correct, was not even used until the late 1960's. Stalin's and Mao's atrocities, in the meanwhile, were given full publicity in the anti-Communist hysteria of the McCarthy and Kennedy eras.

My apologies, I said Chris and I meant Stonewall Patton.

JayN cited us:
http://www.janes.com/security/intern...0919_1_n.shtml
It Said:
"Our Israeli sources claim to see Mughniyeh?s signature
on the wreckage in New York and Washington. How to
counter this kind of terrorism? "To fight these bastards
you don?t need a military attack," said an experienced
Israeli commando officer. "You only need to adopt
Israel?s assassination policy."

Since the United States has in effect an Executive Order, adopted during the Gerry Ford years of prohibiting assassinations, we technically cannot target Osama Bin Laden directly for death. He might be killed in the process of apprehending him for arrest and trial, but currently we cannot kill him by smoking him out. Saying "dead or alive" runs close to violating this Order as well. This came up 10 years ago with Saddam.

Question: Should we withdraw this Order, and legitimately seek to kill him outright? Should we follow the lead of other countries, and use spys to kill him? Does time passing since the attack, but before the capture/killing advance our position, or that of the terrorists?

On 2001-11-05 19:56, JayN wrote:

Chris Patton notes that Jews are in the media and have made a point to have their tragedies recalled.

Excuse me? Do you mean to say that Stonewall Patton "notes that Jews are in the media"? I can assure you that Stonewall Patton is oblivious to who is in the media. SV81 is the one who "notes" these things. Stonewall Patton has gone to great lengths on this thread to challenge the conclusions which SV81 has drawn from his observations.

I trust this was an honest misreading on your part but please do not confuse me with SV81.

On 2001-11-05 20:02, JayN wrote:
My apologies, I said Chris and I meant Stonewall Patton.

I see you clarified and you did mean me. You better get your facts straight. Stonewall Patton "noted" no such thing.

On 2001-11-05 20:05, sv81 wrote:
Since the United States has in effect an Executive Order, adopted during the Gerry Ford years of prohibiting assassinations, we technically cannot target Osama Bin Laden directly for death. He might be killed in the process of apprehending him for arrest and trial, but currently we cannot kill him by smoking him out. Saying "dead or alive" runs close to violating this Order as well. This came up 10 years ago with Saddam.

Question: Should we withdraw this Order, and legitimately seek to kill him outright? Should we follow the lead of other countries, and use spys to kill him? Does time passing since the attack, but before the capture/killing advance our position, or that of the terrorists?

actually, the executive order which you are referring only applies to "heads of state". and since osama bin laden is not head of any officially recognized state he can very easily be made the target of an assasination attempt without violating that order.

Someone writes, "Chris Patton notes that..."

:lol: My apologies, but this is an error caused by the so-called 'Information [overload] Age.

For some reason, I too get you, Mr. Patton, and Mr. O'Conor mixed up (if indeed that is the 'Chris' in question here). While you two are worlds apart in many ways, perhaps perception, or slight of 'generation', gives you away? Hence, despite beliefs, you are nonetheless so very closely bound by the 'unseen hand.'


:smile:

Of course, I realize that Marc Lamb may mean, to some, Marc Alexander... or perhaps, Brian Lamb... or perhaps :smile: :grin:

But, like 911 suggests, it is only when we really pay attention do we get it right. :smile:

Please forgive Mr. Patton.
I have not been reading all the posts on here.
I rather misread a post by SV81 mentioning you and have gone back to reread some of these. I wil be more careful in the future about this.