Re: Rumsfeld Says He May Drop New Office of Influence

From: Jeremy Bradley (
Date: Fri Mar 01 2002 - 12:50:50 GMT

  • Next message: Jeremy Bradley: "Re: Rumsfeld Says He May Drop New Office of Influence"

    Received: by id NAA12158 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 13:02:37 GMT
    X-Authentication-Warning: Host [] claimed to be green-machine
    Message-Id: <>
    X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
    Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 23:50:50 +1100
    From: Jeremy Bradley <>
    Subject: Re: Rumsfeld Says He May Drop New Office of Influence
    In-Reply-To: <>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
    Precedence: bulk

    At 06:42 PM 27/02/02 -0500, Scott wrote:


    > Maybe our up front
    >"in your face" military approach (coupled with going after the money trail
    >of the al-Qaeda networks) redeced the ability of the terrorists to carry out
    >some other things they may have slated. OTOH trying to go through the
    >process of extradition would have left the training and planning apparati
    >intact within Afghanistan. They may have suffered enough of a setback due to
    >our intense bombing campaign coupled with Afghan friendlies helping us on
    >the ground to have weakened them somewhat. Slaying the hydra will not be an
    >easy objective, but the first step seems to have been in a positive
    >direction IMO. I could be wrong.

    Hi again Scott
    In the light of your admission that you could be wrong, I would like to
    apologise for my somewhat harsh reply to your previous Rumsfeldian diatribe
    and address the underlying subjective memes embedded in your
    non-flag-waving posts. The first is your assumption that anyone violently
    opposed to the US is evil and deserves death, then comes the rights of the
    US to intervene when and where it demes to be good whilst denying such
    rights to others - Who voted you guys Sheriff? Then comes the remarkable
    idea that by killing thousands of innocent civilians in Afghanistan and
    depriving Somalis of their Bank (causing hardship to thousands more) that
    you are winning. Are these notions supportable in fact or only in the
    propagandist's imagination?

    >The terrorists want us out of Saudi and dislike our stance towards Israel.
    >They probably don't like our relationships, however strained, with the
    >leaders in Saudi, Jordan, Egypt, Pakistan, etc. It's hard to have a dialogue
    >with extremists indoctrinated within the world-view that we are evil
    >incarnate and Zionist co-conspirators.

    Then there is the idea that it is only 'terrorists' or 'extremists' who
    want the US out of Saudi and who want a more reasoned approach to
    Palestine. Where did you get that one? That the US is, and was, a
    co-conspiritos in the Zionist project is a matter of history and one must
    not be surprised that this fact makes the dispossessed somewhat disinclined
    to appreciate the 'goodness' perceived by your indoctrinated world view.
    I suggest that you subscribe to the moderate Arab daily news service at for a slightly less filtered version of events than you are
    apparently used to.

    >At least some of the gov't entities in these countries are trying to get the
    >ball towards peace between Israel and the Palestinians rolling. I haven't
    >read up enough on the proposal Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah has been touting
    >to know how much it entails beyond Israel returning to pre-1967 borders in
    >exchange for peace and Arab recognition. Abdullah appears as a moderate in
    >this, which may not go over well with the Islamist extremists, those same
    >people whom we are supposed to be dialoguing with.

    Now here's a novel idea, a US puppet will suggest that the Palestinians
    should be happy with the worst scraps of their ancient homeland while those
    who took their land by force and terror become wealthy on the rest - shades
    of the Indian reservations. These infectious memes are dangerous Scott. In
    my 'world-view' 'good' must be alied to justice.
    >I have my reservations about the house of Saud, but if Abdullah can pull
    off a peace deal, more
    >power to him. I don't see entities like al-Qaeda attempting something such
    >as this and I'm wondering how Hamas and the multitude of anti-Israel
    >Islamist groups will react to the possibility of a comprehensive peace (even
    >if a Palestinian state might evolve from it eventually).

    This idea that peace will come from a negotiation between the victors and
    the dispossessed is demonstrably untrue. Indigenous peoples pursue their
    claims for hundreds, if not thousands (in the case of Japan), of years.

    >Nonetheless, the hydra remains and there are other heads to lop off ASAP.
    >Your calls to more diplomatic methods are noble, but I prefer gunship
    >diplomacy when it gets down to a serious situation as we have now.

    John Wayne would be proud of these memes, we have the notion that violence
    will cure evil and a damn good gunfight will fix anything. Forget
    Rumsfeld's new office, the old one in Hollywood is doin' just fine.

    >What happens *if* the U.S. and Russia start co-operating. Aren't we possibly
    >entering into the Georgian conflict? As much as I might enjoy ragging on the
    >Brits, they will (however begrudgingly, reluctantly and critically) probably
    >stick by us.
    Even the Russians are getting USAnian help with their Moslems. Poor old
    Slobodan all he had to do was wait a few years and he could have had US
    assistance to deal with the Kosovars and Albanians.
    All of the above contentions, both yours and mine Scott, are meme driven.
    My heritage is from the dispossessed Catholic Irish, yours, I would guess,
    is from the victorious colonisers of North America. Our heritages have left
    indelible imprints on us. They make us susceptible to memetic infection. To
    you might makes right, but to my people the worst, the most evil, the most
    Godless barbarians of all were Christian/capitalist fundamentalists with guns.
    Can you find a tiny doubt in your USAnian fundamentalism that might lead
    you to a wider understanding of the Middle Eastern crisis and the dubious
    role that the US has played in the region? Will you try to overcome the
    detrimental effects of the Hollywood meme factory enough to accept that US
    megalomania has contributed to its present situation and should, as such,
    bear some of the blame for the events of 9/11
    Very sincerely

    This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
    Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
    For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 01 2002 - 13:12:51 GMT