From: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org (alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest) To: ammf-digest@smoe.org Subject: alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V5 #322 Reply-To: ammf@fruvous.com Sender: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest Sunday, December 2 2001 Volume 05 : Number 322 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: jian and other musician/celebrities [tracymeyers@canada.com (Tracy Me] Re: jian and other musician/celebrities ["Cap'n" <"capn"@home.com (delete] Re: his point ["A.J. LoCicero" ] Re: his point ["Cap'n" <"capn"@home.com (deletethistoreply)>] Re: OT: jianghomeshi.com vs. the NG (was: jian and other musician/celebrities) ["Chris K @*_*@" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 1 Dec 2001 21:17:43 -0800 From: tracymeyers@canada.com (Tracy Meyers) Subject: Re: jian and other musician/celebrities a news group poster's age should not be brought into the issue here but miss Ln you are trying to write like an adult from your previous posts & then you end a post with the statement for someone to fuck off. in your first posting to this news group you mentioned that you were 16 & attended your first Fr|vous show. that recent posting sounded exactly like a frustrated teenager that threw a temper tantrum. when holding your own in a discussion on alt.music.moxy-fruvous or any news group you need to keep your age hidden to avoid being flamed by the others. as for molly's postings keep up the good work. you are intersting & fun to read. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 05:37:07 GMT From: "Cap'n" <"capn"@home.com (deletethistoreply)> Subject: Re: jian and other musician/celebrities Sometimes I think maybe the threads have started to shift away from the topics... maybe it's just me. This thread seems to have turned into a minor flame war. Albeit, a flame war with lots of :) and :P, etc. I must say it has to be one of the most polite, friendly flame wars in the history of NG. Much better than my city's .general group. You should see the children jabber back and forth, it's atrocious. Pickles! Cap'n "Pray for Mojo." Mojo (via computer), The Simpsons ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 05:50:43 GMT From: "A.J. LoCicero" Subject: Re: his point Lori Martin wrote: > I think it's absolutely right to request it. I think the *demand* is arrogant > and ignorant, because we don't allow Taliban any room to save face. Now see it is interesting about that. I agree that our demand is arrogant, but you know what? I don't give a shit. I don't want them to save face, I want them gone in as much disgrace as possible. We were attacked in a large unignorable act of war. Our security was threatened. =MY= security was threatened. That changed something for me. That turned it personal. Now I don't care what is fair, I don't care about hypocrisy. We have means at our disposal that are unique to the US. Just because nobody else has them is not a reason not to use them for our own security. The fact is that we have the means to really enforce the simple choice spoken by Tony Blair: "Surrender Bin Laden or surrender power." The words may have been arrogant, but they were by no means empty. I don't care if no other country in the world can do that. We can, and they should have thought of that before they let Bin Laden bomb New York City. As far as I am concerned that attack untied our hands. When defending ourselves we do what we think is necessary. Not what is fair. Fair is a peacetime concept. This is war. > > < > discuss the situation. Instead we issued ultimatums.>> > > Taliban forces did attack us. > > When? Al-Qaeda is not Taliban. Yes, but it is becoming clear now that they are a lot more intertwined than we knew. > I agree that Afghans should be able to choose their own government. I'm not sure > why the US didn't think this 5 years ago ... ten years ago ... twenty years ago Well we DID support the Mujahideen against the Soviets. Partly that was about fighting the Soviets, but it was ALSO about helping them secure their freedom. I am not sure what we were supposed to do once the Soviets left and all the factions we'd armed turned on each other. That was a very difficult situation > ... instead of foisting these thugs ON Afghanistan in the first place. That's > why the "whatever force necessary" part bothers me. Why is any force necessary? > Because we played this damnable game out of our own narrow interests instead of > leaving them alone in their own country, that's why. Well obviously supporting the Taliban was stupid, but what should we have done instead. We really don't have big interests in the region aside from stemming the tide of opium production. > > The bigger problem, of course, is that Afghanistan is just one part of the > puzzle. Where else do we have to act -- and even if we *should*, can we really > do that kind of global deconstruction and reconstruction? Especially with an > isolationist president who's "not into nation-building" but is apparently into > government-deposing? Good question. I'm taking one thing at a time. I'm not sure he's an isolationist, whatever else he may be. > I'll play devil's advocate here and say: but is it a global good? Doesn't have to be. Other things we do should be for global good. Of necessity, war is about OUR good first and foremost. > More to the point, and making the assumption that the notion and reality of > "America" is a good thing, could it have been achieved by non-violent means -- > "democratic" means -- instead of by the insurrection of a minority of colonists? > Look at the rest of the former British Empire. Look at the other political > forces at work in the 18th century. Democracy, or at least federalism, was an > idea whose time had come. Perhaps it would have come a few decades later had we > not rebelled. But perhaps a more gradual change, supported by a majority, would > have spared many other "emerging democracies", from France to El Salvador to > India, a history of revolutionary violence and brutality. I believe this is true, but the American revolutionaries were radicals who wanted to experiment. They weren't going to wait. The people who were more moderate moved north and became known as "Canadians" :) > > War, though > > regrettable, has ocassionally yielded long term results that are probably > > more positive and productive that what would have come around without it. > > I tend to think those results are not because of war, but in spite of it. I more or less agree with you, but at the same time, I think there are a very few times when war is unavoidable for one's own security. > I don't think we lost the choice, but I think many Americans feel we did. This > wasn't like going into Bosnia or Somalia; we were attacked; therefore we don't > have a choice about whether to act on terrorism any longer. We "have to" > respond. That's what I keep hearing: "but we have to do something." > > Let's think carefully about what "something" is before we leap into action, > then. And while we're at it, I'd like to think outside the box of war. To be fair, they have. Much as I hate the Bush administration, they have done a lot more. The war is only a small part of the overall effort. It is the most visible and dramatic, so it gets the most attention, but there is also a lot of diplomacy, police work and other types of moves being made. > It's hard to do. I knew this at 9:30 am on September 11th when I told my > mother: "We're at war, we just don't know with who yet." Yes -- the dove knew > that much. But it was a foregone conclusion then, because that's the way we > think. I can think of only one American example of a person who thought > otherwise -- Jimmy Carter, who held an anti-war position at enormous political > cost, and without the provocation of a single incinerated building or civilian > death. This was a far more appalling attack than the embassy takeover and > hostage-holding in Teheran. When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, Jimmy Carter freaked out, reinstated Draft registration, turned a deaf ear to the Sandinistas, and started supplying arms to the Mujahideen. He also ordered a military rescue mission to free the hostages, which the US military--totally unprepared as they were then--bungled. He wasn't THAT much of a dove. I don't know if his policy was anti-war, or anti-getting the hostages killed. I am glad that they all got out safely in the end, but it is hard to tell how much more vulnerable we became in the eyes of terrorists over that incident. I'm not at all sure that it could have been handled any better than it was, but I certainly don't think it was an example of a great American success. > Still, I was hoping I'd hear something different from the politicos -- some > consideration that there might be an alternative to answering destruction and > death with more of the same. I was hoping, and praying, that they'd look for a > way out of the box. But I've never heard any administration representative speak > convincingly -- sincerely -- of a preference for a non-war solution to this > crisis. Offers not to attack *if* Taliban meets all our demands without > discussion just don't count as sincere in my book. I guess I'm just not feeling safe enough for experimental "out of the box" thinking right now. I want Al Qaida in little tiny insignificant pieces, and I want anyone else planning on targeting America jailed or dead. Once the immediate threat has abated, THEN we can start thinking out of box, and trying to get at underlying causes. But until we have room to breath I can't do that. When there is a gun to your head it is hard to think creatively. All you can really think about is killing the guy with the gun. A.J. - -- "I am here to make an announcement that this Thursday, ticket counters and airplanes will fly out of Ronald Reagan Airport."--G.W. Bush, Arlington VA, Oct. 2, 2001. Email:aj@locicero.org ICQ: 13117113 AIM: locicero For some of the best Long Distance and Calling Card rates around visit http://www.ld.net/?sensible. Cheap rates and *I* get a commission! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 06:29:15 GMT From: "Cap'n" <"capn"@home.com (deletethistoreply)> Subject: Re: his point "A.J. LoCicero" wrote: > Our security was threatened. =MY= security was > threatened. That changed something for me. That turned it personal. > Now I don't care what is fair, I don't care about hypocrisy. With fair play out the window and hypocrisy running amok, I know -my- security feels even more threatened! I don't mean to belittle you with sarcasm but your statement seems a bit blunt. Did you mean for it to sound this harsh or did I lose your meaning in the transition from the page to my brain? > Fair is a peacetime concept. This is war. Again, this seems like a frightening train of thought to me. If the Americans and those who feel threatened by the terrorist attacks feel that fairness no longer applies for them, where does this put innocent victims (both American and otherwise)? Were not the innocent lives lost in the WTC attacks a result of the terrorists believing they are in a constant state of war and that fair does deserve consideration? I realize that you said you don't care about the hypocrisy but considering the harsh consequences of such thoughts as this, I feel that hypocrisy may be turning to vengeance. If anger consumes us we will lose. While rational thinking is difficult in the wake of recent events, one cannot forget that all humankind throughout the world will scrutinize and respond to our every action. > (snip) > > When? Al-Qaeda is not Taliban. > > Yes, but it is becoming clear now that they are a lot more intertwined > than we knew. It is becoming clear? Is this because CNN has told us this with all of their angry, American experts? I know they have certainly raised the question about links between Al-Qaeda and the Taliban but I don't believe we have concrete proof or enough circumstantial evidence to show that there are corroborating ties between them. I look forward to your responce, and any others that feel the need. Please remember that I am simply asking some questions and stating some of my feelings and thoughts. It is not an open invitation to blast me with insults. If you feel I was wrong tell me why. I don't think this thread is the appropriate place for petty insults and any attempts will deter others from posting. Thanks! Cap'n By the way, I am very pleased that a newsgroup with a diverse and intelligent background has decided to discuss the events. And a quick thanks to Jian for writing the article that prompted the discussion. While everyone may not agree on his views, you must admit it has plunged this newsgroup into an engrossing topic. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 16:41:51 GMT From: "Chris K @*_*@" Subject: Re: OT: jianghomeshi.com vs. the NG (was: jian and other musician/celebrities) SugarFly26@aol.com wrote: > Sorry, then. It's just that your post came right after > I made one about the > very things you were attacking, and I read back a little > bit on the website > and there weren't others like mine. (I didn't read far > because some were long.) So you're assuming that I saw your post on jian's webpage before posting here? Bad assumption. You could've saved a lot of bandwidth and yourself from a headache from assuming that. > Yes, and I don't mind sarcasm except when I feel it's > attacking me somewhat > out of the blue. ie, "I know I sat up watching whatever > news station and > thinking MY GOD! I WONDER WHAT JIAN THINKS? THANK GOD HE POSTED!" > etc. That's all. Please remember that the NG and Jian's page are two separate entities. People who read the NG don't always (and I could insert *never* here) read jian's page. Some try to steer clear from it unless they absolutely have to go to it. In this case, I was forced to go to it to see what you where screaming about. You didn't read far back enough because the posts were too long? Then you missed a lot from the time period I was talking about. Try going back to September/October (specifically September 22 when one of the first "I wondered what Jian had to say" comments surfaced) on the board. Those messages were in reference to another piece from Jian that may or may not have been discussed here. "All messages" is at the bottom of the page. Stop being so paranoid and thinking that *one* comment was directed towards you! It's like we have the Lone Gunmen on the the NG. Mulder: What about UFO activity during that period? Langly: Yeah, (sarcasm) UFOs caused the Gulf War Syndrome. That's a good one! Byers: (Laughing) That's why we like you, Mulder. Your ideas are weirder than ours! Christine. ------------------------------ Date: 2 Dec 2001 15:44:00 -0500 From: lightman@thwip.polyamory.org, tmbg.org@thwip.polyamory.org (at) (Eric) Subject: Re: An antiwar question Molly, For someone who tries to insult my intelligence, I find it quite humorous that you do not know how to spell Lebanon. In the case of Ireland (or anywhere else), for there to be peace, there needs to be two parties who both desire working towards that peace. For the record, I have a few Irish friends (both who were born there and still live there)... do you have any? I feel truly sorry for you if you believe that the Taliban would want to work towards a peace with the United States or anyone else. (They can't even maintain peace with other Arab and Muslim nations!) - --Eric - -- lightman at wam dot umd dot edu http://www.his.com/lightman ------------------------------ Date: 2 Dec 2001 15:39:22 -0500 From: lightman@thwip.polyamory.org, tmbg.org@thwip.polyamory.org (at) (Eric) Subject: Re: his point Molly, You are the only one who seems to lack an understanding. I have neither the time nor the will to respond to your many ludicrous claims, especially when it is clear that the vast majority of the people on this group are able to see through your straw man arguments. I'm sure that you will take offense to this as well, but that's your problem, not mine, so likewise I won't bother to respond to it. As for my "moral courage," it is more of an issue of respect. I respect the people around me and am not going to cause a disruption to them. You obviously have no tolerance for people who do not share your views. I understand this, though, because often people with weak viewpoints are very vulnerable and thus in fear of being struck down. You have to "deal with the media" that doesn't support your views? Well guess what!? I have to deal with people like you who don't support mine! That's life; I am handling it well, and I recommend that you learn to as well instead of trying to attack me. The Taliban has the right to think whatever they want of me. I am not trying to tell them what to think. However, when if they try to kill me, you better believe that I will kill them first in self-defense. Finally, I recommend you look back on my previous post and follow the procedure you recommended to me. You seem to lack a fundamental understanding of most of the things that I said, and base your arguments on the fact that you disagree with me, and therefore discredit everything I say. You did not produce a single example of where I misunderstood you. To answer some of your follow-up questions: 1) I did not walk out of the show because I did not pay money to listen to political commentary. I paid money to listen to one of my favorite musicians, and I intended to do just that. For the record, I enjoyed the show. I did not stick around afterwards because I was with one friend who I had not seen in a year and was on my way to see one of my best friends afterward (keep in mind I drove from out-of-town to see this show). Time was an issue. 2) As for my geographical skills, I would guess that I know more than you about the situation in the Middle East. I could gladly pinpoint Lebanon or any other Muslim nation on a map. (I have friends of friends that are currently being held in captivity by the Hezbollah.) 3) You accuse me of "ignorance" because I am using a computer whereas others in poorer countries are not. I don't see the connection here. It seems to me that you are making a socialist argument, in which case I recommend you show your true colors so that the people on this newsgroup know exactly whom they are dealing with. 4) I don't quite see what your argument is in the Ghana situation. Are you proposing an anti-capitalistic system? Such as communism? Socialism? Hmm? - --Eric - -- lightman at wam dot umd dot edu http://www.his.com/lightman ------------------------------ Date: 2 Dec 2001 15:51:45 -0500 From: lightman@thwip.polyamory.org, tmbg.org@thwip.polyamory.org (at) (Eric) Subject: Re: jian and other musician/celebrities Cap'n <"capn"@(deletethistoreply)home.com> wrote in <76jO7.11076$Rp6.3513033 @news2.rdc1.ab.home.com>: > Sometimes I think maybe the threads have started to shift away from the > topics... That's what happens when the band that is supposed to be the topic of the newsgroup is "on hiatus"... we have to make our own fun. Likewise, this would be a great time for the Fruvous guys to get back together to keep their fans from mauling each other... *wink* - --Eric - -- lightman at wam dot umd dot edu http://www.his.com/lightman ------------------------------ Date: 2 Dec 2001 16:00:33 -0500 From: lightman@thwip.polyamory.org, tmbg.org@thwip.polyamory.org (at) (Eric) Subject: Re: his point Lynne wrote in : > how do we insure that we arent targeting civilians? > How do *I* know? Civilians have died as far as I know. > (I never claimed to have the solution - by the way) This is true. And although civilian casualties are, of course, regrettable, there is definitely a difference between civilian targets and accidental civilian deaths. (For instance, I read that an Afghan citizen was killed by a food drop -- needless to say, the intent of the drop was to help save lives, not to take lives.) Although some people still may not accept accidental civilian deaths, I think that it is nonetheless important to recognize the differences. - --Eric - -- lightman at wam dot umd dot edu http://www.his.com/lightman ------------------------------ Date: 2 Dec 2001 15:45:45 -0500 From: lightman@thwip.polyamory.org, tmbg.org@thwip.polyamory.org (at) (Eric) Subject: Re: his point Lynne wrote in : > Jian is a person with an opinion, just like you. Of course, and he is most certainly entitled to it. I was just stating that I don't agree with his politics. I hope that this wasn't misconstrued. - --Eric - -- lightman at wam dot umd dot edu http://www.his.com/lightman ------------------------------ Date: 2 Dec 2001 15:27:43 -0800 From: frute_pie@hotmail.com (Molly Hathire) Subject: Re: his point Lori Martin wrote in message news:<3C091B62.D0D8234B@xpnonline.net>... > > involvement in the Lebannon if he thinks (as he seems to) that all US > > foreign policy is benign. > > You believe. Big question there. no i don't think there's a question there. Eric's words were: "What policies do you feel are not equitable, and what do you propose in their stead?" that is really important. really really important. much much much more important than whether or not I'm transgressing your newsgroups codelets of behavior. you know as well as i know that people who don't need to be are starving now because of western foreign policy (lets broaden it to `western' so we don't unecessarily US bash). you know that mad psychotic regimes are armed to the teeth by the CIA. you know that the UN is critically weakened by the US failure to pay it. you know the US has just completely fucked up the Kyoto treaty. and the land mines treaty. and the chemical and biological weapons treaties. now Eric doesn't seem to know that, or else he wouldn't have asked the question, and I'm the only one who seems to want to tell him. you seem much more exercised by giving me a thorough critique of my manners. it is essential that the US citizens who are "clueless on international geopolitical matters" (your words) are clued, and I'm afraid responding to Eric's question and telling him to open his eyes is much more important that handing out lessons in newsgroup etiquette to someone like me, who I'm afraid, doesn't care. >I otoh could cite reams of data to back up my position that Americans > as an aggregate (although obviously not all individuals) are clueless on international geopolitical > matters. then cite. and here's another important thing: your desire to state that "Americans as an aggregate (although obviously not all individuals) are clueless" but your shyness from applying that argument to individuals. every American I've met has been intelligent, articulate, kind, and well informed. but every american that I have met also thinks that every other american apart from themselves is naive, ignorant, ill-informed and greedy. and there's the problem: not that americans are any more or less clued than anyone else in the world, but that they think everyone else but themselves is clueless. care to tell me why or disagree with me? > It does intrigue me that you're spelling "Taleban" in the European way, Taleban, Taliban, Schmaliban. I get my news from . No adverts and occasional flashes of objectivity. > And do you prefer to try to educate this supposed ignorance, or simply insult it so that won't bother > listening to you? It seems like the latter. and you want to patronise your clueless compatriots into enlightment? cos I hate to break it to you Lori, you can be pretty patronising. and some people don't bother to listen to the patronising as much as some people don't wanna listen to the insulting. lets make a team. you patronise first off. i'll insult those left. the clueless of the world doesn't stand a chance. :) Molly ------------------------------ Date: 2 Dec 2001 15:52:06 -0800 From: frute_pie@hotmail.com (Molly Hathire) Subject: Re: An antiwar question "A.J. LoCicero" wrote in message news:<3C09AB17.E07E78F7@locicero.org>... > And Britain has used no force at all in the last 80 to defend itself there? yeah and a fat lot of good it did britain. britian used force, turned dead IRA thugs into martyrs, turned a perfectly soluable dispute into an 80 year war. a lesson to be learned perhaps? i'm sorta interested that you want to draw parallels between this war and the second world war, cos I don't think it fits. the US are again allying themselves by pure expediency and not by morality. if the northern alliance had won the battle for Kabul in 1996 (? sorry not sure of the date) then the US would most likely be currently allying itself with the Taleban against the northern alliance. cos I think the NA would have been as happy to babysit bin Laden and his millions as the Taleban were. the US is allied to Pakistan -- a military dictatorship. if Pakistan were a democracy then its government would not touch Bush and his war with a shitty stick, not if they wanted to get re-elected. if this war were parallel with the second world war the US would have allied itself with Mussolini to fight Hitler. i have no problem with just wars (I'm not a pacifist, i don't have that courage) or wars of self defense. this is neither. the US cannot and will not kill every terrorist that wants to kill americans, and this war runs the very clear risk of increasing the number of people wanting to do that. if you feel personally threatened then the solution is rather mundane. you have to ask why suicide bombers can kill thousands in the US but tens in Isreal. because Isreal takes domestic terrorism seriously, as do most european countries. time for the US to as well? Molly ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 18:15:54 -0500 From: Lori Martin Subject: Re: his point Note: the mail-->news gateway appears to be fried again. If this post doesn't go through, I'm going to try posting via the aol newsreader as well. (yes! Lori the Borg Drone may return!) So eventually you may see duplicates of the several posts I've made since 3 am Dec. 2 ... apologies in advance for multi-posting. "A.J. LoCicero" wrote: > > They offered to hand over bin Laden to third-party courts if we ceased bombing. > > That wasn't good enough for the Bush administration to consider, much less make > > a counter-offer. > > Counter-offer????? Lori, with those people, you are going to negotiate?? Not extensively, but yes I'm willing to entertain a brief dialogue instead of merely haranguing them. Don't forget that they started out graciously enough by offering condolences (sincere or not sincere ... who knows?) on Sept 11. The mere gesture shocked the hell out of me, I can tell you that much. > What > are you talking about? The taliban have violated human rights right and left, > they supported terrorists who attacked the US. They wanted non-muslims to wear > patches on their clothing for god sakes. They are intolerant in the extreme. > Their existence is an affront to civilization in my opinion. YES, we have dealt > with and even supported many awful regimes in the past, but does that mean we > should continue to do so? A.J., just realise that many of the arguments you're making against the Taliban, citizens in foreign countries make, with just cause, against various American administrations including the current one. I don't see significant difference between clothing patches and ID cards. Both are abhorrent ideas. Both were infamously used in Nazi Germany. Does this mean I should start carpet-bombing DC because I suspect John Ashcroft is holed up in the environs? And don't even get me started on favorable or indulgent government policies toward non-governmental operations (we often call them "corporations") enabling civilian deaths. 4000 domestic and foreign civilians being killed in one day is an appalling figure, yes. But let's put it in mathematical, global perspective, and consider deaths because of cotton-planting subsidies, or sugar-planting subsidies, or American tobacco ... Some would call these terrorist methods as well, albeit slower and more grinding than plowing planes into buildings -- enabled by a government that has its own ruthless and self-interested aspects. > The fact is that in this case we actually had a choice, and we had the ability, > for once, without starting world war III, That remains to be seen, imho. > to get rid of some awful awful > people. And you want to negotiate for Osama to be handed over to a 3rd > party???? They were stalling for time, that is all. I'm not convinced of that. I think they were trying to ease their way out of a vise-grip without appearing to betray him and his ties with them altogether. > This war was necessary. I'm hardly convinced of that either, as you might have noticed. ;) > There was no reason whatever to give them more time to prepare. In fact I was > worried for a while there that the taliban would actually give us Osama and then > we wouldn't have been able politically to get rid of them and Al Qaida. It would have necessitated a much more subtle approach in the eyes of our "allies", I'll grant you that. But I believe that with a concerted effort at diplomacy and aid and intelligence operations and financial and law-enforcement crackdowns within the peacetime legal structure that was already in place on Sept 10, it could have been done awhile ago -- and most importantly could *still* be done now. In a nutshell, I think the warlike aspects of this "war" on terrorism are overkill, the alarmed overreaction of a country that's only spasmodically attentive to events outside its own borders when it realises it's behind the curve on an issue or twenty. I have a tremendous amount of faith in the peaceable, non-combative, "below-the-radar" measures we're taking right now, in conjunction with the rest of the world, to thwart terrorism and to hem in the Taliban. I'm surprised and disappointed that the administration and the American people don't have equal faith in these measures. And I'm concerned that in focussing our attention on bin Laden, Al Qaeda and Taliban we're missing the boat on the bigger picture. Even if we take out the Taliban, we still have repressive regimes all over the globe -- including some of our "allies". And in an awful lot of them there is official, or peripheral, government support for terrorism. Are we really ready to turn against Saudi Arabia and start carpet-bombing Riyadh because their rather slack financial oversight still permits, although it doesn't precisely endorse, financial support? For that matter, are we going to turn against Saudi Arabia because they have a hideous human rights record? Just one example. There are entirely too many to count, if we're really going to try to end terrorism through warlike means. > > Did anyone at the White House or Pentagon even take into consideration that it > > is one of the highest cultural values within various Afghan tribes to protect a > > guest with one's life if necessary? > Yes you can bet they did. The people Bush has in place are bastards, but unlike > him, they aren't stupid. You don't have to be stupid to have totally western blinders on. Just look at the unfortunate string of linguistic gaffes coming out of the Departments of Defense and Justice in naming their various "operations". > > While the Taliban, in the opinion of many, > > does not represent true Afghan culture, clearly they could only lose further > > credibility and control within their own country had they delivered one of their > > own "honored guests" on *ultimatum* -- not negotiation or diplomacy - -- to a body > > clearly inimical to that guest and likely to pursue his death. > > What we have learned is that exactly the opposite is true. In fact most Afghans > view Osama and the other "Foreign Taliban" not as guests, but as invaders. We > will be lucky to get our hands on the guy in one piece. THEY will more than > likely kill him on sight. It is partly because of his support that the Taliban > were able to run their reign of terror. True, but I think you've touched on a salient point: THEY want bin Laden and the Taliban-supportive Arabs and Pakistanis and others out of their country. They want Afghanistan back. And some parts of our anti-terrorism campaign actually are empowering Afghans, not destroying them. Why don't we focus on those aspects of this effort instead of making war on the country as a whole? Why isn't it sufficient to a) facilitate delivery of food and other humanitarian aid and thereby helping ease life for ordinary Afghans to the point where they are able to consider and rise against their social and political predicament b) to enlist surrounding countries' support for anti-terrorist measures that disrupt their network, while at home paying more attention to existing security protocols than to cutting corners in the name of profit, and c) to reject outright and refuse to support a (I'd like to say *any*) heinous regime? > > Don't ignore, either, that in the minds of many in the middle east and Asia > > there is little evidence that bin Laden had anything to do with Sept 11. > So are we supposed to act based on the opinions of those on the other side of > the world who do not share our culture or values? We convinced our allies, and > a bunch of other countries. Wrong. We convinced their governments. There's a huge difference. > Evidence continues to mount. Nobody anywhere has > offered a credible alternate theory. I'm sorry. That is good enough for me. And me as well. I absolutely believe al Qaeda is behind the events of Sept 11. That doesn't mean I totally dismiss the importance of the opinions of hundreds of millions (probably well into the billions) of Malays, Pakistanis, Indonesians, Qataris, Palestinians, Filipinos and others -- likely including, although it hasn't gotten any media coverage that I've seen, a bunch of people in various South and Central American nations who have direct over land access to US soil. Those hundreds of millions are NOT al Quaida operatives trapped within Afghanistan. They're a dynamic force that we have to deal with very carefully if we want to convince them that we're good, al Quaida and terrorism in general is bad. We're doing a lousy job of it by ignoring them, no matter how improbable we might believe their theories. And the longer we don't deal with their concerns, the longer we appear to them simply to be scapegoating and then bombing senseless their fellow Muslims or fellow poor and oppressed people -- well, we can say it's not an anti-Islam war or an anti-Afghanistan war all we want, but that doesn't make it so in their eyes. We just give al-Qaeda and other terrorist organisations a bonanza of propaganda for recruitment and hate-fomenting purposes. - -- Lori ------------------------------ End of alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V5 #322 ********************************************