Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id GAA26268 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Fri, 8 Mar 2002 06:06:44 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: cheetah.nor.com.au: Host 248.digital.ppp.telstra.dataheart.net [188.8.131.52] claimed to be green-machine Message-Id: <firstname.lastname@example.org> X-Sender: email@example.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 16:54:45 +1100 To: firstname.lastname@example.org From: Jeremy Bradley <email@example.com> Subject: Re: Fwd: Radical New Views of Islam and the Origins of the Koran In-Reply-To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
At 06:39 AM 7/03/02 -0700, you wrote:
>I thought it was Nixon who wanted to nuke Vietnam. Reagan joked about
>nuking USSR, if I remember correctly.
I think that you could be correct here Ned
>And you do make an interesting point. If everyone can declare 'attack
>for we may be attacked' then the potential for disaster is
>Think about the little meme 'war against terrorism' that Bush started.
>Suddenly, it was ok to use unlimited force against the terrorist. Once
>that happened, every other conflict was called a 'response to
>terrorism'. ( The conflict of Kashmir became terrorism, even Milosevic
>used the concept that he was simply fighting terrorism like Bush is now
>as a trial defense.) Suddenly, its ok to fight your foes in world
>politics because you are also fighting 'terrorism'. [Side note, I
>wonder if the 'Contra freedom fighters' that Ray-Gun supported would now
>finally be considered terrorists?]
I'm not sure on this but my guess is that as USAnia is a member of the axis
of good meme team, all of the insurgents that have been trained and all of
the covert operations that have been mounted in order to protect US goods
would be a part of that good and, as such, would be sanctioned but the God
in which your dollar bill places its trust.
>I fear that in the current condition, everyone will start getting the
>fear, and attack even when there is no provocation or even perceived
>threat. This little meme is likely to have an interesting impact.
are you sure that impact is a suitable word to follow interesting in this
>On Wed, 2002-03-06 at 22:00, Jeremy Bradley wrote:
>> You have caught me out with a deliberate misspelling, but the tone of the
>> interview was such as to be quite scary. He did use the terms pre-emptive
>> and whatever means available. Besides, the recent White House revelations
>> that Ray-gun wanted to nuke North Vietnam do suggest that my misspelling
>> may not be too outrageous when it comes to right-wing extremists.
>> My point was that if pre-emptive strikes with the use of unlimited force
>> for the purpose of defence against potential aggression is the right of all
>> and sundry, and not just the axis of good, we are courting disaster.
>Ned Wolpert <email@example.com> 4e75
>1024D/5DEA314E: 7FFB 99C3 BF90 6135 12F4 07B8 0B23 2E5C 5DEA 314E
>Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\signature2.asc"
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 Mar 08 2002 - 06:16:53 GMT