Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id NAA24802 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Thu, 7 Mar 2002 13:43:54 GMT Subject: Re: Fwd: Radical New Views of Islam and the Origins of the Koran From: Ned Wolpert <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com In-Reply-To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-Gyljfn3nMobqP3t6synb" X-Mailer: Evolution/1.0.2 Date: 07 Mar 2002 06:39:17 -0700 Message-Id: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I thought it was Nixon who wanted to nuke Vietnam. Reagan joked about
nuking USSR, if I remember correctly.
And you do make an interesting point. If everyone can declare 'attack
for we may be attacked' then the potential for disaster is
Think about the little meme 'war against terrorism' that Bush started.
Suddenly, it was ok to use unlimited force against the terrorist. Once
that happened, every other conflict was called a 'response to
terrorism'. ( The conflict of Kashmir became terrorism, even Milosevic
used the concept that he was simply fighting terrorism like Bush is now
as a trial defense.) Suddenly, its ok to fight your foes in world
politics because you are also fighting 'terrorism'. [Side note, I
wonder if the 'Contra freedom fighters' that Ray-Gun supported would now
finally be considered terrorists?]
I fear that in the current condition, everyone will start getting the
fear, and attack even when there is no provocation or even perceived
threat. This little meme is likely to have an interesting impact.
On Wed, 2002-03-06 at 22:00, Jeremy Bradley wrote:
> 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.
Virtually, Ned Wolpert <email@example.com> 4e75
1024D/5DEA314E: 7FFB 99C3 BF90 6135 12F4 07B8 0B23 2E5C 5DEA 314E
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part
=============================================================== 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) see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 07 2002 - 13:54:19 GMT