Date: Thu 07 Nov 2002 - 02:53:49 GMT
> >Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 15:26:46 -0600
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 08:06:14 -0500
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>On Wednesday, November 6, 2002, at 12:12 , Grant Callaghan
> > > > > >>wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>the armies raised by these religious empires still use the
> > > > > >>>words of
> > > > > >>> Christ and Mohamed
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>Now, I'm not a biblical or koranic scholar, so, I'm just
> > > > > >>asking- what words of the new testament are they using? I
> > > > > >>can bring up about a thousand words from Deuterotomy that
> > > > > >>would skin you alive, but, I'm absent of anything reported
> > > > > >>to be said by Christ that could be used to foment war. Just
> > > > > >>the opposite.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>- Wade
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >That was my point. You can find bibles and quotes from Jesus
> > > > > >everywhere. Most of the people who fight the wars for
> > > > > >European countries claim to be Christians and have been
> > > > > >indoctrinated in the words of Christ, yet the memes they use
> > > > > >in dealing with other countries are the memes of empire. I
> > > > > >grew up going to mass every morning and being taught the
> > > > > >catechism by nuns every day and joined the Marines at the age
> > > > > >of 17. The Muslims bow to Mecca five times a day and run
> > > > > >little kids through these schools where all they do all day
> > > > > >is read the Koran. Yet they grow up ready to conquer in the
> > > > > >name of Allah.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >The memes that were supposed to change that are there, buried
> > > > > >in their minds, and yet the memes of empire rule. The people
> > > > > >who run countries find war to be the final solution when it
> > > > > >comes to my memes versus your memes. The people who follow
> > > > > >these leaders usually go along with it. As Bush likes to tell
> > > > > >us, we've got to spend 300 billion dollars a year to keep a
> > > > > >big enough army that our enemies won't be able to destroy
> > > > > >"our way of life." And they are using terrorism to stop us
> > > > > >from destroying theirs. What is our way of life but the set
> > > > > >of memes we built our culture around?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Grant
> > > > > >
> > > > > P.S. As a note of irony, during the Vietnam war our motto was
> > > > > "We're fighting for peace." There seems to be no end to the
> > > > > twisted logic people will accept in defense of their beliefs
> > > > > and desires. I still don't know why I came out of a religious
> > > > > institute after years of training in Christian values ready to
> > > > > kill for my country.
> > > > >
> > > >
> We have to run the cruel yet humanistic equations, and do a cost- > >
> >benefit analysis. If we assume that unseating Saddam would cost a >
> > >hundred thousand lives (a high-end estimate), but that, if we do
> not > > >do so and he obtains nukes, that there is only a 10% chance
> that he > > >will employ them against New York or Tel Aviv, with a
> certain > > >counterstrike against baghdad whichever he chooses (total
> dead - 10 > > >million), then the prudent decision, by a factor of
> 10-to-1, is to > > >act to pre-empt the risk od such a catastrophic
> disaster. In the > > >present circumstances, considering Saddam's
> history and his present > > >endeavors to build or otherwise obtain
> nukes, the most dangerous > > >course to take, by far, is to twiddle
> our thumbs up our nether > > >regions and do nothing. > > > > > > > >
> That is the excuse we are using all right. But do you really believe
> > > that kill or be killed are the only two options for an intelligent
> > > society? Why do you think we invented prisons? Why do you think
> we > > invented contracts and other ways of avoiding conflict? Why is
> the > > only solution to go into Iraq and occupy the country, as we
> did with > > Afghanistan? That may be the only solution the people
> running the > > government can come up with, but that is a product of
> the memes they > > have inherited. That's the Greco-Roman solution.
> I think it's > > possible to show them the futility of the course of
> action they are > > taking. > > >Because we can't send in the
> gendarmes to arrest the criminals when >they have armies of their own.
> And we are not dealing with intelligent >societies, but with a
> fascist regime and a global militant fundamentalist >terror
> organization. Allah tells Al Quaeda what is and is not reasonable >or
> futile - of this they are incorrigibly certain. > > > > Why are we
> occupying Afghanistan? > > >Because that's where the planning,
> funding, training and organization of >the 9/11 terror flyers was
> directed from. And we are there at their >request and behest; we will
> not make the mistake we made befor of >leaving too early, for that's
> what got us the Taliban in the first place. >Rather, we shall help
> them to build a sovereign and responsible nation, >and then leave, as
> we did in Germany and Japan (whyncha ask THEM >if they regret it
> now?). > > > > The Afghanis didn't attack us. > > >But they shielded
> those who did. > > > > But > > war and occupation is the only solution
> the military mind can see. We > > were clear about that part. Now we
> have the problem of what to do > > with Afghanistan now that the
> Taliban has been neutralized. > > >It is vastly to be preferred to the
> problem of how to deal with a global >fundamentalist terrorist
> conspiracy using that whole country as its base. > > > > We're not > >
> nearly so eager to rebuild the country and try to solve its problems.
> > > We will have the same problem with Iraq if we go in and remove the
> > > leaders. We have to provide new leaders that the people will
> follow > > and we have to rebuild what we destroy. Another name for
> conquer and > > occupy. The Roman solution all over again. I doubt
> the people we > > will choose will be any more acceptable than Pontius
> Pilate was > > >Actually, the people in Kabul danced in the streets
> when they were >relieved of the Taliban yoke, just as the people of
> Baghdad will, once >they are relieved of their own despot. I'm quite
> sure that the average >citizen of either country, if you explained to
> them your reasoning for not >relieving them of their serfdom, would
> happily slap you around until you >regained some semblance of good
> sense, > > > > Grant > >
>And now that the dancing in the streets is
> over the U.S. military is rearming the war lords and backing some of
> them over Karzai, a man we helped put in the position of head of
Wrong; the US government is NOT backing warlords over hamid karzai
(who was elected to his position by a loya jirga, the closest thing to traditional democracy which Afghanistan possesses so far). In fact, the order has been given to destroy discovered weapons caches rather than to turn them over as booty to those warlord troops who moonight as out Special Forces guides. And the most objectionable Afghan warlord, Gulbuddin Hekmatyr, is on our most wanted list.
> People sympathetic to the Taliban position on Islam are
> planting bombs in schools that educate women.
And we will root them out. Wound you prefer that the education of women be once again forbideen in Afghanistan?
>The country is slowly
> being divided into the camps of various factions, some of whom will
> oppose us again.
Actually, when an attempt to assassinate Hamid karzai failed in Kahdahar, the birthplace of the Taliban, a spontaneous demonstration erupted, with the residents marching in the streets shouting "Long live Karzai!"
>Pakistan looks to be on the verge of changing colors
> once more and will try to influence the tribes on their border and the
> "government" in Kabul can't leave their compound without putting
> Karzai in danger or using a phalanx of American soldiers to protect
It just takes one turncoat bodyguard to take out his charge, which is why we're providing protectopon. as for Pakistan, they recently helped us apprehend two of the pivotal planners of 9/11 who were in hiding in their country.
> I expect the same scenario on Bagdad. In fact, that's why I think
> George Bush the First refused to oust Husein the first time. He saw
> the country disintigrating into a bunch of factions at war with each
> other. Iran's Shiite faction could seize a large chunk of territory
> in the south and the Kurds could seize another in the north. This
> will upset Turkey, which has been at war with the Kurds for I don't
> know how long. When the dancing in the streets is over, the reality
> of war between Kurds, Sunis, Shiites and the EU under Turkey will make
> it kind of hollow. Iran may be able to use our interventions to
> expand the territory they control to include southern parts of
> Afghanistan and part of Iraq. And we will once more be the Great
> Satan to the people who danced when we came.
Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing the country partitioned; it was illegitimately welded together in the first place. George Bush 1 did not oust Saddam because he wanted them to continue to serve as a counterbalance to Iran, but with saddam continuing his megalomaniacal ways and Iran progressively moderating, that is no longer the reasonable course to follow. And the 30 million Kurds are the largest dispossessed group in the world; they deserve their own country, and they have been instituting democratic reforms in the northern no-fly- zone area out overflights have granted them.
> During WWII, people cheered in the streets when the invading armies
> marched into several countries. They cheered again when the next army
> came through.
> That doesn't mean they were happy to any of the armies that marched
> through their country. It simply means that cheering is a survival
> behavior when you're being invaded.
It is also an indicator that someone has been liberated. Nothing else could explain the massive return of Afghan refugees to the contry they fled; they feel that they can be once more free and secure there.
> If we really put our minds to it, how many other options do you think
> we could come up with? When I say the means we use shape the ends we
> get, that's what I mean. The means we used to fight Russia in
> Afghanistan led to the Taliban taking control. It led to the creation
> of Al Quaeda (the list of reliable agents who were trained and proved
> their worth in Afghanistan) We are taking the expedient route to
> solve a problem that is much deeper and will last much longer than the
> means we are using will solve.
Nope; we'll stay there long enough to rebuild that nation, both infrastructurally and administratively, like we did in japan and germany, and like we'll do in Iraq. we will not repeat the mistake we made after the USSR was driven out of Afghanistan, because we know where that path leads.
> What we have to do is find new solutions for a world that old
> solutions don't do much for. No, we can't arrest Hussein or use any of
> the other old solutions (although we did do that to Noriega). But we
> can look at what new ideas have been developed since the Roman Empire
> and find one that has a better chance of changing things for the
> better for everyone rather than just for the "winner" of a war. It
> will be ten years down the road before we really know whether we "won"
> this war or not. What we did to Japan and Germany after WWII gives me
> hope that there are other options more viable than what we've been
And we will use them, but first we have to get rid of the despots. We got rid of the Taliban, and now it's Saddam's turn.
> We didn't have to invade or occupy Russia to find a solution that
> looks better than war. The people who danced in the streets of Poland
> and the rest of Eastern Europe weren't dancing at the sight of
> American soldiers, but at the departure of Russian soldiers. The
> Russians had more weapons of mass destruction than we did. It didn't
> keep their empire from collapsing. And we saw the folly of invasion
> in that case. And invasion and occupation didn't help Russia keep its
> empire together. Maybe we should look at our options in Iraq again
> before we rush to a "final" solution.
But the Russians were not supported by a messianic faith, as the muslims are. Look how long it took the holy roman Empire to crumble; in a WMD world, we can't wait that long, nor can we count on the adherents of a jihadic and Paradise-seeking cult to be rational concerning their own WMD's (which is why we can't allow them to get their hands on same). And I take major umbrage at your 'final solution' canard; that's what Hitler was doing to the Jews. The only belligerent who has gassed people in the present conflict is Saddam Hussein.
> _________________________________________________________________ Add
> photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
> 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 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 2.1.5 : Thu 07 Nov 2002 - 02:57:31 GMT