Re: The terrorism meme

Date: Wed 20 Nov 2002 - 00:10:13 GMT

  • Next message: "Re: Fwd: Going ape"

    > > Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 18:43:43 -0600
    > > From:
    > > Subject: Re: The terrorism meme
    > >
    > >>
    > >>> Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 12:15:21 -0600
    > >>> From:
    > >>> Subject: Re: The terrorism meme
    > >>>
    > >>>> At 07:24 AM 17/11/02 -0800, you wrote:
    > >>>>
    > >>>>> SNIP..................Grant
    > >>>>> Yes, the problem do lie within us. It lies within the way we
    > >>>>> are creating the 21st century and a global economy that reaches
    > >>>>> out to everyone on the planet while they want to keep the world
    > >>>>> in the 14th century. We can't turn back time and evolution just
    > >>>>> for them. I suspect most muslims would rather participate in
    > >>>>> the new global culture but the people who control their religion
    > >>>>> are threatened by it.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> Ah Grant
    > >>>> I wanted to quit this strand, but you got me with this one. I
    > >>>> have been wanting to discus the 'might-is-right meme' for a while
    > >>>> but for some reason nobody wants to touch it. What we have here
    > >>>> is a little example of it. Who wants a 'global economy' dominated
    > >>>> by USAnian capital? You may 'suspect' Muslims would - but you
    > >>>> won't know unless you ask them, and they won't be able to answer
    > >>>> you because most of them wouldn't know what it means; I'm not too
    > >>>> sure that I do. You and other RIGHT (not intimating correct here)
    > >>>> minded people have assumed that you know what is best for others
    > >>>> in the world on the basis of - well I don't know really.
    > >>>>
    > >>> It is actually the Radical Muslims that are willing to force their
    > >>> 'divinely inspired' vision of what is best upon others. Radical
    > >>> Muslims can observe their asceticism in a Western culture, but
    > >>> Westerners cannot exercise their freedom in a Muslim culture.
    > >>> This is an excellent reason for me to oppose the universalization
    > >>> of shar'ia law throughout the globe.
    > >>
    > >> I will grant an others freedom in the same respect he grants mine.
    > >> So I must oppose the excesses of the Sharia, the Torah and the
    > >> Bible.
    > >>
    > > I oppose the excesses of ALL religious faiths, but patriarchal
    > > monotheisms have historically been by far the greatest offenders.
    > They are bad, but pantheistic ones are not that good either, eg Aztec
    > etc.
    Not even to mention the Hindu Thuggees Kali cult.
    > >>>> >>>> You have no evidence that you are any more >> moral
    > than the next >> person other than a bunch of your fellow USAnians >>
    > agree with you. >> That does not make you RIGHT - and I do mean
    > correct >> this time. >> Your nation touts democracy but vetos or
    > bullies the >> majority of >> other nations in the UN so as to get
    > 'outcomes beneficial >> to US >> interests'. >> > Actually, removing
    > that massive threat in the >> volatile region is a > massively
    > beneficial outcome for Europe, as >> well. And they'll bitch and >
    > moan about it all the way to >> benefitting from it. >> >> That
    > doesn't answer the question of why u are right. >> > Because the
    > routing of Al Quaeda and the ousting of Saddam are both > beneficial
    > to the safety and security of the EU.
    > Saddam may be a bit barking, but his grip on power is dependent on not
    > threatening the West, hence the weapons inspectors are back. He knows
    > he holds power till he poses a threat to the west (as do many
    > dictators). But we should see where this goes over the next few
    > months. Plus bringing Saddam down doesn't necessarily make us safer as
    > there is not much of a plan in place for what to do after he is gone.
    His intention is to stall until he possesses nukes, at which time he plans to tell everyone to shove it, and proceed with his plan of annexing the Arabian Peninsula. The inspections are intended to forfend such an eventuality; I have hopes, but no certainties, that they will succeed. Saddam has money and scientists (his 'nuclear mujaheddin'), and a large country in which to hide such programs.
    > When was Al Queda routed precisely? As far as I am aware they, like
    > most terrorist organisations fade into the background like they did
    > after 9/11, only to strike later as in Bali etc.
    Al Quaeda (The Base) is now base-less (Afghanistan was their base). Their attempts to create new bases (in the Phillipines and Yemen, for instance) are being thwarted. Their leaders are in hiding, captured or dead; those who are in hiding are having to burn valuable terrorist time looking over their shoulders, moving from safe house to safe house, and remaining free. As an organization, they have been disrupted in a major manner. But you are right that there remains much work to be done in that direction; I will not be happy until we have Bin Laden, Zawahiri and Omar safely esconsed in Gitmo or dead.
    > >> >>>> You demand
    > democracy of other nations but imposes >>>> globalisation without
    > asking. >>>> >>> People and entities make import-export deals with
    > other people and >>> entities; private citizen to private citizen or
    > corporation to >>> corporation. People who do not want the benefits of
    > free and open >>> trade should just refuse to make the deals. >> >>
    > Please explain to me the import tariffs the US and The EU impose on
    > >> diverse goods ranging from steel to agriculture and then repeat the
    > >> above sentence. >> > NAFTA and GATT have largely been US
    > initiatives which have been > opposed by some because the removal of
    > trade barriers promotes > globalization, which some see as detrimental
    > to the cottage industries > found in some developing nations because
    > they can be undercut, and > their workers driven into unemployment, by
    > the unfettered foreign > competition. The steel tariff was a
    > blatantly political decision (hunting > votes in the Rust Belt), and
    > it will eventually be repudiated by the WTO.
    > Yes, the same thing exist with the CAP and the EC over here. That is
    > the problem though. We, the West, tell the rest of the world how
    > wonderful free trade is etc, and if there are jobs or votes in peril
    > in our countries, then suddenly it is not so rosey.
    > Globalisation can be detrimental like any other human activity, just
    > as It can be beneficial.
    > BTW, given that the WTO has such significant powers, when did I miss
    > the vote? >>
    It hasn't happened yet...but it will, and its results will not be favorable to the US, nor should they be.
    > >>>>>> You won't sign treaties on global >> justice, >>
    > climate change, chemical and biological weapons (I'd like to >> see >>
    > anyone try to get weapons inspectors into US stockpiles). >> > The US
    > >> should've signed onto the Kyoto Accords on Global Warming, > but a
    > >> laundry list of unrelated gripes with them provides no rationale
    > for > >> opposing the particular course of action. >> >> Then >> there
    > is the >> Marshal and Bikini Islanders and the previous residents >>
    > of Diago >> Garcea, I wont go on but there is more of these disgusting
    > >> >> atrocities and you know it so cut the high and mighty stuff! And
    > the >>>> only justification for the US jugganaut is the MIGHT-IS-RIGHT
    > meme. >> I >> just disagree with it, which doesn't make me bad, evil
    > or wrong. >>>> Jeremy >> > The US is the country that leaves when the
    > job is done, >> and sometimes, > as in Afghanistan post USSR retreat
    > and in Haiti, >> leaves too soon. It's > soldiers have died to feed
    > Somalis, to save >> the lives of Bosnians and > Kosovars, and to free
    > Kuwaitis and >> Afghanis, Muslims all. It has > released the occupied
    > nations of >> Japan, West Germany and the > Phillipines (among others)
    > to their own >> democratic governments and > administrations, rebuilt
    > Europe and Japan >> after it freed one and > defeated another, and
    > gifted Panama with a >> canal it had itself built. > More often than
    > not, the US has exercised >> its might attempting to SET > things
    > right; attempts that have also >> been, more often than not, heavily >
    > solicited by their beneficiaries. >> >> >>
    > =============================================================== >>
    > 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: >>
    > ===============================================================
    > 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:

    =============================================================== 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:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed 20 Nov 2002 - 00:13:01 GMT