From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V10 #343 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Thursday, September 13 2001 Volume 10 : Number 343 Today's Subjects: ----------------- more WTC pictures - peaceful ones [Ken Weingold ] Re: more WTC pictures - peaceful ones [strange little woj ] Re: Violation of civil liberty? [steve ] Re: more WTC pictures - peaceful ones ["Maximilian Lang" ] Re: more WTC pictures - peaceful ones [Ken Weingold ] Re: more WTC pictures - peaceful ones [strange little woj ] Re: fegmaniax-digest V10 #342 [grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan)] Re: more WTC pictures - peaceful ones [Ken Weingold ] some cheering up [grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan)] Re: hats off ["Timothy Reed" ] Re: fegmaniax-digest V10 #342 [Viv Lyon ] Re: Security [Capuchin ] Re: Security [Viv Lyon ] Re: Security [Capuchin ] Re: Security [Capuchin ] Re: Discomfort ["Stewart C. Russell" ] Re: meanwhile, amongst the aged ["Stewart C. Russell" ] international perspective on bombings and terrorist motives [minister o] fwd - islamicperspectives / taliban etc. [minister of misinformation ] Re: Ireland again [Michael R Godwin ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 00:28:38 -0400 From: Ken Weingold Subject: more WTC pictures - peaceful ones Here are some more pictures, in a different light. The Chloe ones. I forgot about these. . These are of me and Chloe, the daughter of some good friends of mine who were visiting me in NY from MA, at the World Trade Center Tower 2. chloe-1.jpg is Chloe on the Observation Deck, I guess the 110th Floor. I am almost positive that that is the western view, New Jersey across the Hudson River. chloe-2.jpg is again on the Observation Deck, facing north/uptown. Around the middle there, the tallest building, is the Empire State Building. Can you see how immense the twin towers were? Also know that the WTC is almost at the bottom tip of Manhattan. The Statue of Liberty is off Battery Park, the way southern tip. From the tower, you really have to look hard to find the statue. It's tiny from up there. The Empire State Building is about 10 blocks north of where I work. chloe-3.jpg is Chloe and I on the roof. Not sure of the direction, but my guess is that you are seeing New Jersey again, so west. Yes, my hat is stupid, but it was winter, and when you live in NYC you have to wear shit like this to stay warm. These are at least happier pictures, but honestly they make me nauseous. - -Ken ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 00:33:08 -0400 From: strange little woj Subject: Re: more WTC pictures - peaceful ones when we last left our heroes, Ken Weingold (hazmat@hellrot.org) exclaimed: >seeing New Jersey again, so west. Yes, my hat is stupid, but it was >winter, and when you live in NYC you have to wear shit like this to >stay warm. you and me both: http://www.smoe.org/woj/nanook2.jpg +w ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 23:39:17 -0500 From: steve Subject: Re: Violation of civil liberty? On Wednesday, September 12, 2001, at 09:04 PM, Gene Hopstetter, Jr. wrote: > Respectfully, Mr. Capuchin, I think these violations have already > begun, but it doesn't bother me (as of today). A lot of my ideas about > "civil" and "liberty" changed on September 11, 2001, when terrorists > destroyed the World Trade Center and thousands of American lives, with > our own airplanes. I feel smaller, threatened, and vulnerable. But I > also feel I can be stronger and more secure. Damn, is that the music from The Wall that I hear starting up? - - Steve __________ A New York Times investigation into overseas ballots that helped George W. Bush win the presidency found that Florida election officials, facing intense GOP pressure to accept military votes, counted hundreds of overseas absentee ballots that failed to comply with state election laws. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 00:43:00 -0400 From: "Maximilian Lang" Subject: Re: more WTC pictures - peaceful ones >From: Ken Weingold >Reply-To: Ken Weingold >To: fegmaniax@smoe.org >Subject: more WTC pictures - peaceful ones >Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 00:28:38 -0400 > >Here are some more pictures, in a different light. The Chloe ones. I >forgot about these. . These are >of me and Chloe, the daughter of some good friends of mine who were >visiting me in NY from MA, at the World Trade Center Tower 2. >chloe-1.jpg is Chloe on the Observation Deck, I guess the 110th Floor. >I am almost positive that that is the western view, New Jersey across >the Hudson River. chloe-2.jpg is again on the Observation Deck, >facing north/uptown. Around the middle there, the tallest building, >is the Empire State Building. Can you see how immense the twin towers >were? Also know that the WTC is almost at the bottom tip of >Manhattan. The Statue of Liberty is off Battery Park, the way >southern tip. From the tower, you really have to look hard to find >the statue. It's tiny from up there. The Empire State Building is >about 10 blocks north of where I work. chloe-3.jpg is Chloe and I on >the roof. Not sure of the direction, but my guess is that you are >seeing New Jersey again, so west. Yes, my hat is stupid, but it was >winter, and when you live in NYC you have to wear shit like this to >stay warm. > >These are at least happier pictures, but honestly they make me >nauseous. > >-Ken OUTSTANDING. These pix help bring into focus just what happened, bringing the abstract into reality. They were just so big, unless you have seen them repeatedly and been to the top I don't think you could ever really understand just how traumatizing it is. It was not just one behemoth but two. So fucked up. Thankyou, Max _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 00:51:47 -0400 From: Ken Weingold Subject: Re: more WTC pictures - peaceful ones On Thu, Sep 13, 2001, strange little woj wrote: > >seeing New Jersey again, so west. Yes, my hat is stupid, but it was > >winter, and when you live in NYC you have to wear shit like this to > >stay warm. > > you and me both: http://www.smoe.org/woj/nanook2.jpg Dork. ;-) - -Ken ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 00:53:25 -0400 From: Ken Weingold Subject: Re: more WTC pictures - peaceful ones On Thu, Sep 13, 2001, Maximilian Lang wrote: > These pix help bring into focus just what happened, bringing the > abstract into reality. They were just so big, unless you have seen > them repeatedly and been to the top I don't think you could ever > really understand just how traumatizing it is. It was not just one > behemoth but two. So fucked up. Yes. One thing I always loved to do was to walk up to the base of one of the towers, stand right against it, and look straight up it. Total mindfuck. It just didn't end. - -Ken ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 00:54:05 -0400 From: strange little woj Subject: Re: more WTC pictures - peaceful ones when we last left our heroes, Ken Weingold (hazmat@hellrot.org) exclaimed: >Dork. ;-) fuck you, ken weigold! ;) +w ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 16:54:25 +1200 From: grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan) Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest V10 #342 >Should we train pilots and stewards in self-defense? of course. I would have expected that this was standard practice anyway. In the air, the cabin crew are defacto the law. As such, they should have the means to overpower anyone who is unarmed. And no-one should be armed on a plane (and for that reason I too agree with the Quail). a strange point - the US doesn't really do well in years that are multiples of 20 plus 1. Presidential deaths in 1841,1881,1901 (and attempted assasination in 1981), civil war in 1861, Pearl Harbour in 1941, Cuba in 1961. Can't think of anything major in 1921, but other than that it's an interesting run. James James Dignan, Dunedin, New Zealand. =-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= -=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.- .-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=- You talk to me as if from a distance -.-=-.- And I reply with impressions chosen from another time =-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-. (Brian Eno - "By this River") ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 00:56:39 -0400 From: Ken Weingold Subject: Re: more WTC pictures - peaceful ones On Thu, Sep 13, 2001, strange little woj wrote: > >Dork. ;-) > > fuck you, ken weigold! ;) Fuck ME?!? Fuck YOU, you fucking fuck! ;-) - -Ken ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 16:57:35 +1200 From: grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan) Subject: some cheering up Since y'all need some cheering up, i thought I'd pass on this, which I just received. It might not help, but it might distract your thoughts for a couple of minutes at least. Apologies if you've seen it before: >>If you yelled for 8 years, 7 months and 6 days you would have produced >>enough sound energy to heat one cup of coffee >>(Hardly seems worth it) >> >>______________________________________________________ >> >>If you farted consistently for 6 years and 9 months, enough gas is >>produced to create the energy of an atomic bomb >> >>(Now that's more like it) >> >>______________________________________________________ >> >>The human heart creates enough pressure when it pumps out to the body to >>squirt blood 30 feet >> >>(OMG...!) >> >>______________________________________________________ >> >>A pig's orgasm lasts 30 minutes. >> >>(In my next life I want to be a pig) >> >>______________________________________________________ >> >>A cockroach will live nine days without its head before it starves to >>death. >> >>(Creepy) >> >>(I'm still not over the pig) >> >>______________________________________________________ >> >>Banging your head against a wall uses 150 calories an hour. >> >>(Do not try this at home .. maybe at work) >> >>______________________________________________________ >> >>The male praying mantis cannot copulate while its head is attached to >> >its body. The female initiates sex by ripping the male's head off. >> >>("Honey, I'm home. What the....") >> >>______________________________________________________ >> >>The flea can jump 350 times its body length. It's like a human jumping >>the length of a football field. >> >>(30 minutes...can you imagine??) >> >>______________________________________________________ >> >>The catfish has over 27,000 taste buds. >> >>(What can be so tasty on the bottom of the pond?) >> >>______________________________________________________ >> >>Some lions mate over 50 times a day. >> >>(I still want to be a pig in my next life...quality over quantity.) >> >>______________________________________________________ >> >>Butterflies taste with their feet. >> >>(Something I always wanted to know) >> >>______________________________________________________ >> >>The strongest muscle in the body is the tongue. >> >>(Hmmmmmm........) >> >>______________________________________________________ >> >>Right-handed people live, on average, nine years longer than left-handed >>people do. >> >>(If you're ambidextrous, do you split the difference?) >> >>______________________________________________________ >> >>Elephants are the only animal that cannot jump. >> >>(OK, so that would be a good thing....) >> >>______________________________________________________ >> >>A cat's urine glows under a black light. >> >>(I wonder who was paid to figure that out.) >> >>______________________________________________________ >> >>An ostrich's eye is bigger than its brain. >> >>(I know some people like that.) >> >>______________________________________________________ >> >>Starfish have no brains. >> >>(I know some people like that too.) >> >>______________________________________________________ >> >>Polar bears are left-handed. >> >>(Who knew...? Who cares!) >> >>______________________________________________________ >> >>Humans and dolphins are the only species that have sex for pleasure. >> >>(What about the pig?) >> >>--------------------------------------------------------------------- >>This piece of junk was brought to you by Tractor Junk, a non-profit >>organisation devoted to stupid bollocks. >> >>To visit the web site click here www.tractorjunk.com James James Dignan, Dunedin, New Zealand. =-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= -=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.- .-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=- You talk to me as if from a distance -.-=-.- And I reply with impressions chosen from another time =-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-. (Brian Eno - "By this River") ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 01:17:32 -0400 From: "Timothy Reed" Subject: Re: hats off Ken, woj - It looks like Chloe could give both of you some good hat advice. Tim > when we last left our heroes, Ken Weingold (hazmat@hellrot.org) exclaimed: > > >seeing New Jersey again, so west. Yes, my hat is stupid, but it was > >winter, and when you live in NYC you have to wear shit like this to > >stay warm. > > > you and me both: http://www.smoe.org/woj/nanook2.jpg > > > > +w ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 22:52:27 -0700 (PDT) From: Viv Lyon Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest V10 #342 On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, James Dignan wrote: > >Should we train pilots and stewards in self-defense? > > of course. I would have expected that this was standard practice anyway. You wouldn't know it to look at the flabby captains and scrawny, frail hostesses. I highly doubt any of them could take even a moderately determined depressed fanatic, much less a savagely determined suicidal fanatic. > In the air, the cabin crew are defacto the law. As such, they should have > the means to overpower anyone who is unarmed. And no-one should be armed on > a plane (and for that reason I too agree with the Quail). Problem is, lots of things can be used as weapons. Even a belt. If you're creative. Which I ain't. > a strange point - the US doesn't really do well in years that are multiples > of 20 plus 1. Presidential deaths in 1841,1881,1901 (and attempted > assasination in 1981), civil war in 1861, Pearl Harbour in 1941, Cuba in > 1961. Can't think of anything major in 1921, but other than that it's an > interesting run. James, I mean this in the best possible way. You're a dork. But you made me smile, so that's good thing. Vivien ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 23:09:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Security On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, Viv Lyon wrote: > For all of you who think Jeme and I march in lock-step over every > issue, I have some shocking news: I agree with Quail that airport > security should be stepped up. Considerably, even. I want civil > liberties protected as much as the next guy (perhaps more, I suppose), > but I really don't think it's anyone's right to carry anything on > board a plane that could be construed as a weapon. Anything is a weapon if you hold it right. Perhaps all flights should come with IV drips that just sedated everyone for the duration. > You want to bring a knife with you to Phoenix? Fine. Pack it in your > suitcase, not your carry-on. You don't need a two hour check... in fact, you don't need MORE searching than is done right now. You just need to make sure the people doing the searching are doing their job. Because right now, they're not. I think the scanners that exist and the random carry-on searches are effective deterrent... and anything MORE wouldn't significantly increase safety. No matter how you set the game up, there's always a clever way to win it. Viv: They could just thoroughly search all your stuff and inspect everything. Jeme: And break it apart? Viv: No, they wouldn't be allowed to break anything. Jeme: So you build something that has to be broken to extract the weapon. There's always a way. I don't believe there's any significant gain by increasing the TYPES of searches done. But I do believe the current searches could be done with a bit more diligence and concern. You're never going to be able to stop everyone. > I'm sort of joking, but mostly serious. What can really be done? My trumpet instructor had the best suggestion and I was as shocked as he was that it hadn't yet been suggested: Secure the cockpit. Lock it down and don't let anybody in or out. Duh. It's a small measure that could really help save lives. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 23:14:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Viv Lyon Subject: Re: Security On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, Capuchin wrote: > My trumpet instructor had the best suggestion and I was as shocked as he > was that it hadn't yet been suggested: Secure the cockpit. Lock it down > and don't let anybody in or out. Duh. It's a small measure that could > really help save lives. Yeah yeah yeah. I thought of this this morning. Spouted off to one of me classmates, I did. She told me it was a good idea, but fatally flawed. A really secure door would cause problems in air pressure, apparently. They've tried such things, and they don't work. That's what she said. Me, I don't know from air pressure. I know that I'm damn tired, though. Vivien ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 23:20:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Security On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, The Great Quail wrote: > I will happily sacrifice a few moments of inconvenience at an airport > if even ONE out of the next fifty hijackers are caught. And I will do so, too... and do, every time I fly. > You say airport security is the "Most intrusive thing we should allow > as it stands?" For god's sake, having someone read your mail and bug > your phone is obtrusive. Yes, it is... but note that I said it was the "most INTRUSIVE thing we SHOULD ALLOW". Wire-taps and mail reading require a warrant showing probable cause against a specific individual. Airport searches are much more general. They have no reason to suspect YOU, but you're searched anyway. It's incredibly intrusive and is a real violation of personal privacy. But it's necessary and we should allow it. I just don't think we should let things get any worse. There are people actually suggesting that investigators infiltrate and spy on EVERY organization that might be dissident or "para-military" (by the way, the state department requires registration of all paramilitary organizations and their definition is so broad as to include the Boy Scouts of America). So you get a group together to talk about politics... then you play "find the spook". (I've been accused of being a government infiltrator in one organization. It was very surreal.) Absurd, wasteful, intrusive, and dangerous. As I wrote to the local paper yesterday, if we give up ANY of our freedom of speech, the press, or assembly or our right to personal security in our privacy and property because of this event, then the terrorists have won: They have damaged the American way of life. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 23:24:27 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Security On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, Viv Lyon wrote: > Yeah yeah yeah. I thought of this this morning. Spouted off to one of > me classmates, I did. She told me it was a good idea, but fatally > flawed. A really secure door would cause problems in air pressure, > apparently. They've tried such things, and they don't work. That's > what she said. Me, I don't know from air pressure. I know that I'm > damn tired, though. I can't imagine that you couldn't design a door that allowed for air flow and was somewhat secure. I'm not talking bulletproof, I'm just saying you shouldn't be able to kick it in or pry it open with a coat hanger. And the pilot and copilot should NOT be allowed to leave. The door should stay closed for the duration of the flight. I heard one tale where the cockpit was captured WHEN THE COPILOT CAME OUT TO SEE WHAT WAS GOING ON. If the pilot or copilot have reason to believe there is a hijacker on board, they should immediately try to land the plane. Everything else is secondary at that point. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 08:59:46 +0100 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: Discomfort The Great Quail wrote: > > Because they hate us. Because they are soulless. Because they > are evil. No-one is soulless. Once you start thinking that way, you allow war. keep the heaid Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 09:07:12 +0100 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: meanwhile, amongst the aged Natalie Jane wrote: > > She's worried the media might try to whip people into a frenzy. They're already doing it. On the (very moderate) BBC Radio 4 "Today" programme this morning, the former US ambassador to the UK was interviewed. He said that the reaction was mostly shock and sadness, despite the interviewer asking (while the former ambassador was speaking) "Where's the anger?", as if he wanted it to come out. Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 09:57:50 +0100 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: IRA The Great Quail wrote: > > Certainly, official IRA > doctrine makes a statement about the IRA being a military > organization, and they generally realize the value of keeping their > targets "acceptable" in terms of guerilla warfare Dear Quail, I hope that posting was an aberration. If not, please explain how the following were legitimate guerrilla (that is, fighting regular military or police forces) targets: * Manchester shopping centre, 1996 * London Canary Wharf, 1996 * Enniskillen, November 1987 > That's all that I meant, I hope I gave no offense. more than you can imagine. Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 19:08:53 +0930 From: minister of misinformation Subject: international perspective on bombings and terrorist motives If US fegs wish to find out what some of the the perspectives of the outside world are , you could do worse than going here and listening to the vastly interesting Philip Adams program from last night http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/lnl/default.htm it has a realplayer audio of the show from last night ( WED 12th sept ) it discusses the motives of potential terrorists and the way that the US is perceived by various countries. Four correspondents , from the US and other countries discuss the reasons why Palestinians , Lebanese and others hate the states so virulently and how the average US citizen is shielded from these facts by their media . Its a very interesting discussion . I suggest you fwd to about 20 minutes into the broadcast as it gets to what we have been discussing on the list - very pertinent and a bit of a change from the CNN perspective . Commander Lang . ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 19:27:24 +0930 From: minister of misinformation Subject: fwd - islamicperspectives / taliban etc. I fwd this from RT list as again it provides some more information on the motivation of potential terrorist groups. Perspectives & BG For some intelligent and knowledgeable perspectives on aspects in the "news" (long snips): Afghanistan, the Taliban and the United States by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed "This paper purports to concisely review the scale and nature of the current crisis in Afghanistan in its historical context, with the view to comprehend whether Western ? particularly American ? foreign policy toward Afghanistan has been formulated on the basis of humanitarian principles or not. By briefly analyzing the extent of the catastrophe that continues to devastate the Afghan people to this day, and by uncovering its historical causes and contemporary geopolitical/strategic context, the paper outlines the responsibility of the international community for the ongoing war in the country. My thesis is that not only has the United States together with the former Soviet Union perpetuated the current catastrophe by having previously supported the armed factions in Afghanistan, but that covert US support of the most prominent faction in the country ? the Taliban ? continued throughout the 1990s, and may be continuing to this day. The US policy, I argue, is motivated not by humanitarian principles, but by lucrative economic and strategic interests in the region. The case of Afghanistan therefore illustrates the irrelevance of human rights in the formulation of US/Western foreign policy, and highlights the fundamental ongoing cause of the escalating catastrophe in the country in that policy." http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq2.html (above is rather long paper) The one and a half page by the particularly noted journalist/author Ahmed Rashid ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM "After a decline in the 1980s, Islamic fundamentalism is once again a growing phenomenon, which could pose a threat to regimes in the Muslim world and the West. Today Islamic fundamentalism poses as an alternative to U.S.-led globalization, perceived U.S. hegemony around the world, and the perception that the U.S. sanctions, bombs and punishes only Muslim countries and their peoples (such as Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Afghanistan). However, the underlying reason for the growth of fundamentalism is the refusal of local elites to come to terms with the end of the Cold War and the end of the support they received from one or the other superpower, and their unwillingness to move towards democraticization and more equal economic development. Fundamentalists are cashing in on the acute and growing economic deprivation of their people, the massive corruption and incompetence of their elites, the lack of good governance, and the fact that ten years after the end of the Cold War most Muslim regimes are moving ever more swiftly toward authoritarianism rather than toward democracy." http://www.nationalstrategy.com/nsr/v10n3Spring01/100304.htm Actually anything by the above (Ahmed Rashid has 2000 and 2001 books out on Taliban); and Yossef Bodansky (use your favourite search engine people!). "Recent articles of Bodansky" http://www.freeman.org/m_online/bodanska.htm Commander Lang ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 11:39:51 +0100 (BST) From: Michael R Godwin Subject: Re: IRA On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Stewart C. Russell wrote: > Dear Quail, I hope that posting was an aberration. If not, please > explain how the following were legitimate guerrilla (that is, fighting > regular military or police forces) targets: > > * Manchester shopping centre, 1996 > > * London Canary Wharf, 1996 > > * Enniskillen, November 1987 > > > That's all that I meant, I hope I gave no offense. > > more than you can imagine. You said it, Stewart. Even Adams has apologised for Enniskillen, for whatever that's worth: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_25000/25480.stm Whether or not there was going to be a party of soldiers at the cenotaph, setting off a bomb during a civilian religious service shows complete disregard for human values. Furthermore, I don't believe that it is acceptable to draw distinctions between the various IRA and INLA units and say that some are more irresponsible than others. The armed republican movement contains a peace faction, a military targets faction and a bomb-all-the Protestant-Irish and-Brits faction. I believe that people who are committed to indiscriminate bombing move from one organisation to another depending on who offers them the most scope at the time. - - Mike Godwin PS What makes it particularly pointless is that the UK and the Irish Republic are both members of the European Union, signatories to the European Human Rights laws and are subject in a large measure to control from Brussels, so it really makes very little difference who "governs" the six counties. Rather than all these awkward cross-border co-operation arrangements, why not make the six counties a direct protectorate of the EU, attached to neither Great Britain (nearly wrote 'the UK' - whoops!) nor the Irish Republic? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 12:38:58 +0100 (BST) From: Michael R Godwin Subject: Re: Ireland again Very interesting and gloomy chronology of the Irish question at: http://wwwvms.utexas.edu/~jdana/history/chronology.html Shows how a cycle of violence can just keep going, even in the face of determined efforts by the two governments to impose a peace process. I was a bit surprised that the chronology starts _after_ Gladstone's Home Rule Bill, but I suppose you have to draw the line somewhere. While I was browsing through for this, I came across some very odd references which suggested to me that outsiders confuse the Brits with the Irish Protestants. The UUP and the DUP are entirely Irish parties, they don't organise in Great Britain (though at one time the Conservative Party used to have links with what is now the UUP). Many people in Great Britain think that the UUP and (especially) the DUP are quite barmy, but as long as they keep on winning elections on a program of maintaining the Union, it is very hard to see how to extricate Britain from the six counties. I even saw a comment saying "Why not kick the Protestants out of Ireland and send them to Britain?" But of course the Presbyterians and Episcopalians have been in Ireland as long as they have been in North America, so I can't see how that is humane politics. And I suspect that the last thing the Dublin Government wants is to take on responsibility for this mess. - - Mike Godwin ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V10 #343 ********************************