RE: Bush's War on Terrorism

From: Scott Chase (
Date: Fri Apr 19 2002 - 04:46:30 BST

  • Next message: Vincent Campbell: "RE: Bush's War on Terrorism"

    Received: by id EAA25230 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 04:52:33 +0100
    X-Originating-IP: []
    From: "Scott Chase" <>
    Subject: RE: Bush's War on Terrorism
    Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 23:46:30 -0400
    Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
    Message-ID: <>
    X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Apr 2002 03:46:31.0173 (UTC) FILETIME=[CAF9EB50:01C1E754]
    Precedence: bulk

    >From: "Grant Callaghan" <>
    >Subject: RE: Bush's War on Terrorism
    >Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 07:23:14 -0700
    >>Good morning Grant,
    >>What did you see in the fianncial section of New York?
    >>I think the core idea of 'getting our attention' is that there are some
    >>things the US is doing -- some things consciously and some unconsciously
    >>their effects -- that harm the Arab andor Muslim owlrds, or the 3rd World.
    >>The great majority of those who hold this view would like us to enter into
    >>dialog with them to see whether these issues can be resolved. A few who
    >>these views have 'given up' on the US (and other western countries) and
    >>that only acts of violence will get our attention.
    >>A large part of Palestinian violence aganist the Israelis is motivated for
    >>this reason as well: to indicate to the Israelis that the Palestinian
    >>and desire for a viable freedom cannot be ignored. Of course, some
    >>react to this provocation with violence of their own and announcements
    >>they will not pay attention to Palestinian grievances, but others realize
    >>that the only way Israeli itself can have have peace is to deal with those
    >>grievances. At this time, which way this will eventually go is still up
    >>the air, and very difficult, given the mutual antipathy that has evolved.
    >>But the US is under no such constraint; we do have the option to enter
    >>dialog with those who have grievances against us, at least to the point of
    >>coming to understand what they are. Bush's extraordinary reversal -- that
    >>we CAN neotiate poitically without the prerequisite of a cessation of
    >>violence, is very promising.
    >> >
    >> >
    >> > >
    >> > >The people who are preaching "it" DON'T call it 'shia'. Please look
    >> > >Armstrong's book, or look up "shi'i" in an encyclopedia, or do
    >> > something to
    >> > >find out what shi'ism is. It has nothing to do with the "it"
    >> > that you are
    >> > >so worried about.
    >> > >
    >> > >As to "them," they are aren't out to kill us; they are out to get our
    >> > >attention. Unfortunately, all too many people in this country have yet
    >> > >learn what it is we are supposed to be paying attention to...
    >> > >
    >> > >Lawrence
    >> > >
    >> > >
    >> > Whatever they call the new doctrine, I've seen examples of how people
    >> > enforcing it on television and in the newspapers.
    >I've also seen
    >> > an example
    >> > of it in New York in the financial section. Yes, that got my
    >> > Now I wonder what the people who got it want to do with it. And how is
    >> > getting my attention going to change anything or help them in any
    >> > way? One
    >> > more attention getter like that and I'll be ready to back George
    >> > Bush. Is
    >> > that what they want?
    >> >
    >> > Grant
    >> >
    >What I saw in the financial section of New York was the World Trade Center
    >crumble and fall after the airplanes struck them.
    >As to dialogue, every president since the intafada started has brought both
    >the Israelis and the Palestinians together in Washington and Camp David and
    >made them talk to each other. Jimmy Carter wasted so much of his time on
    >these intransigents he neglected the needs of his own country. After every
    >negotiation, one side or the other refused to abide by the rules they had
    >agreed to. Both of them follow a policy of "never give an inch."
    >If 30 years of dialogue with the U.S. as broker can't get them to agree on
    >something, why will calling for more of the same solve any problems? We
    >can't stop them from killing each other. The fight is not on equal terms.
    >No matter what we do, one side or the other will claim we favored the other
    >side. The only solution I can see is to go in and occupy both Israel and
    >Palestine and confiscate their weapons. Unfortunately, the Israelis have
    >atomic weapons and have shown that if they feel their backs are against the
    >wall, they will do whatever, in their eyes, needs to be done. That
    >would end with both Arabs and Jews hating us and the possibility that an
    >atomic bomb might be exploded in a U.S. city. At this point, it seems like
    >a no-win situation, no matter what we do.
    As for what could happen if we butted heads with Israel take a look into the
    USS Liberty incident.

    Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger:

    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 Apr 19 2002 - 05:20:21 BST