Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id EAA25230 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Fri, 19 Apr 2002 04:52:33 +0100 X-Originating-IP: [18.104.22.168] From: "Scott Chase" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com Subject: RE: Bush's War on Terrorism Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 23:46:30 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <F34t3HvoFOAmEaJswFC0000121a@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Apr 2002 03:46:31.0173 (UTC) FILETIME=[CAF9EB50:01C1E754] Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
>From: "Grant Callaghan" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>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: http://messenger.msn.com
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