Re: Fwd: Radical New Views of Islam and the Origins of the Koran

From: Jeremy Bradley (
Date: Thu Mar 07 2002 - 05:00:54 GMT

  • Next message: Ned Wolpert: "Re: Fwd: Questions about Islam and violence"

    Received: by id FAA24166 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 05:12:43 GMT
    X-Authentication-Warning: Host [] claimed to be green-machine
    Message-Id: <>
    X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
    Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 16:00:54 +1100
    From: Jeremy Bradley <>
    Subject: Re: Fwd: Radical New Views of Islam and the Origins of the Koran
    In-Reply-To: <>
    References: <> <>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
    Precedence: bulk

    At 07:47 AM 6/03/02 -0700, you wrote:
    >On Tue, 2002-03-05 at 22:30, Jeremy Bradley wrote:
    >> Nuke Gingridge said today that it is "reasonable that a nation has the
    >> right to defend itself against clear and present danger by whatever means
    >> are available to it". He also said that it is 'just' that a nation take
    >> "action against aggressors" even if that action is pre-emptive.

    Ned replied
    >Slightly off-topic from the original post, but I find the above
    >statement quite interesting. is "Nuke" (Your spelling, not mine) saying
    >that due to the fear of danger (that may be justified) the potential
    >victim can do anything they want to the potential aggressor, even before
    >the aggressor attacked? Does that then justify, say, the use of atomic
    >weapons against potential foes, or perceived foes? (Like say, the USA
    >bombing Iraq with a 10M 'nuke') The most interesting part in your
    >wording is the fact that you used 'nuke' and 'whatever means are
    >available to it' in the same sentence.
    >Then again, it might just be bad spelling...
    >I do find a problem with the concept of 'whatever means necessary' since
    >the interpretation of 'means' can be absolutely catastrophic and, of
    >course, unjustified.
    >Ned Wolpert <> 4e75
    Yes Ned
    You have caught me out with a deliberate misspelling, but the tone of the
    interview was such as to be quite scary. He did use the terms pre-emptive
    and whatever means available. Besides, the recent White House revelations
    that Ray-gun wanted to nuke North Vietnam do suggest that my misspelling
    may not be too outrageous when it comes to right-wing extremists.
    My point was that if pre-emptive strikes with the use of unlimited force
    for the purpose of defence against potential aggression is the right of all
    and sundry, and not just the axis of good, we are courting disaster.

    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 : Thu Mar 07 2002 - 05:22:50 GMT