Re: Bush's War on Terrorism

From: Steve Drew (
Date: Wed Apr 17 2002 - 20:02:25 BST

  • Next message: Steve Drew: "RE: Bush's War on Terrorism"

    Received: by id UAA20810 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 20:11:07 +0100
    X-Originating-IP: []
    User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/9.0.2509
    Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 20:02:25 +0100
    Subject: Re: Bush's War on Terrorism
    From: Steve Drew <>
    To: <>
    Message-ID: <>
    In-Reply-To: <>
    Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
    Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
    X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Apr 2002 19:04:50.0743 (UTC) FILETIME=[C00D9470:01C1E642]
    Precedence: bulk

    Hi Grant

    > Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 07:22:42 -0700
    > From: "Grant Callaghan" <>
    > Subject: Re: Bush's War on Terrorism
    >> On Wednesday, April 17, 2002, at 02:06 PM, Grant Callaghan wrote:
    >>>> Subject: RE: Bush's War on Terrorism
    >>>> Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 23:04:38 -0400
    >>>>> Grant Callaghan:
    >>>>> A muslim country where the people are
    >>>>> not dreaming
    >>>>> about killing each other or someone else. I don't know of one. Do
    >>>> you?
    >>>> Kuwait. Yemen. Tunisia. Morocco. Syria. Turkey. Jordan. Saudi Arabia.
    >>>> Oman.
    >>>> Uinted Arab Emirates. Libya. Egypt.
    >>> Obviously we read different newspapers. The 9/11 terrorists and a goodly
    >>> number of the Al Quaeda are from Saudi Arabia. Egypt harbors many people
    >>> who have committed numerous murders in the name of Allah. Turkey has the
    >>> Kurds. Jordan has the Palestinians. Wasn't it in Yemen that the U.S.
    >>> lost a ship? All of the places you mentioned are in the midst of turmoil
    >>> and have people trying to kill each other or trying to kill others for
    >>> religious reasons. Kuwait, maybe, although you could say they were
    >>> recently at war with Iraq. They certainly don't harbor any good will
    >>> toward Sadam Hussein. And before the invasion there was a bit of
    >>> discontent among the people. Saudi Arabia also harbors people who killed
    >>> a goodly number of Americans who were protecting the ruling families. I
    >>> can't really say you've made your point here. A large number of Saudis
    >>> living in England fled there to escape harsh treatment by their
    >>> government. And Lybia -- considering the amount of mischief it does in
    >>> the world and the countries around it, you've got to be kidding.
    >>> If those are your idea of contented and peaceful people, we live in
    >>> different worlds.
    >> I read you as implying that it was a national pasttime to "dream of
    >> killing each other or someone else". On that interpretation, the countries
    >> listed are pretty much moderate. But on the interpretation you give next,
    >> the US and a whole lot of "western" (ie, Christian) countries come up as
    >> pretty bloodthirsty places to be as well, so perhaps you'd like to revise
    >> the way you set the criteria.
    >> --
    >> John S Wilkins
    >> Head, Communication Services
    >> The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research
    >> Parkville, Victoria, Australia
    > That's a position I've always maintained. I never said we were any
    > different. "Christian" countries are some of the most bloodthirst in the
    > world. But you have more people fleeing from Islam to Europe and America
    > than you have fleeing in the other direction. I can't help feeling we are
    > more content with our form of government than they are with theirs. What
    > I'm comparing here is systems under which people live.
    > We have two systems at war or going to war with each other. The question is
    > which will prevail and why. One side sees war as a last resort (most of the
    > time, anyway) and the other sees violence as the chief means of
    > accomplishing their goals. One side worships science, technology and
    > democracy. The other wants to impose shia on the rest of the world. Shia
    > (cutting off the hands of theives, stoning women for adultery, killing
    > people who don't believe in your religion in its most recent interpretation)
    > is not something the rest of the world is going to accept. Not only that,
    > but they want the clergy to run the government. IMO it's not a good basis
    > for running a country. That's the point I was trying to make.
    > Grant
    IIRC, part of the problem is that to devout Muslims, there is no separation
    possible into the secular and religious. They are one and the same thing.
    Hence the clergy are the de facto choice because they are the one's with the
    religious knowledge. Hasn't prove to awe inspiring when the god botherers
    had a say in the west either.

    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 : Wed Apr 17 2002 - 20:33:55 BST