From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V10 #361 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Tuesday, September 18 2001 Volume 10 : Number 361 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: My Back Digests [steve ] Re: "The middle east? What, you mean Virginia?" ["Maximilian Lang" ] Fw: Airport security ["noe shalev" ] Fw: Israel ["noe shalev" ] monday's late show [HAL ] Re: Israel ["noe shalev" ] Re: conspiracies'r'us ["noe shalev" ] heeeeere's the reaper [HAL ] Re: Israel [steve ] Fw: [VegetableFriends] America Under Attack = Banned Songs ["lucifersam" ] re: hey rube and Israel (two for the price of one!) [Michael R Godwin Subject: Re: My Back Digests On Monday, September 17, 2001, at 04:04 PM, Viola Rockiss wrote: > Bush has been just adequite, which I partly blame on his own lack of > native wit and partly on his speechwriters. You can see him laboring. > Theres no fire, no uplift, no zing, and alot of fear that his clothes > are transparent. (In fact, and Im not sure this makes sense, but theres > something bout his eyes which have -always- looked full of fear to me.) I figure Bush *knows* he's in way over his head and he's afraid the public will eventually suss this out. One wag suggested that the real reason they sent Cheney away was so that he wouldn't be there to make his boss look small. It also seems obvious to me that the Bush bunch have declared themselves a war but they as yet have little idea what they're actually going to do. This makes it hard to preprogram what Bush is going to say. Some of the answers he gave to reporters today made even less sense than usual. Not to mention the "dead or alive" stuff, which is evidently making even Republicans cringe (in private, anyway). - - Steve __________ PORTLAND, OREGON, July 22, 2001 - The Oregon Democratic Party today endorsed a drive to impeach five U.S. Supreme Court justices for the decision that effectively gave President Bush his office last year. - Reuters ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 23:08:52 -0400 From: "Maximilian Lang" Subject: Re: "The middle east? What, you mean Virginia?" >Max, Jeme, everyone - to your corners! We don't want this list splitting >and people leaving because of this. This has been one hell of a week, and >understandably it has exposed some raw nerves and peeped of some layers of >protective skin. > >James I am sorry to anyone I offended and even to my fellow Feg Jeme. It has been a really tough week for me and I am genuinely sorry. But please, I don't want to talk about this stuff anymore. Please do not direct e-mails to me regarding politics and such as it has really frayed my nerves of late. Sorry, Max _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 23:40:39 EDT From: BLATZMAN@aol.com Subject: people are people About those WTC opportunists... << The real solution is, of course, to educate and inform and make it so that there is no market for this shit and, even if there were, nobody would dirty their hands with selling it. >> Nice try! I'm afraid there will always be the people who love to look at car wrecks and such... Some people have a wierd "curiosity" streak, and they just gotta see the worst of things. Educate against human nature? I don't think that would work. That would be a tremendous waste of resources. Kinda like corporations giving classes on "Sensitivity Training"!!!! What a load of horseshit that stuff is!!!! Thenthitivity Twaining, I say! Sounds like the start of another horrible "program"!! Dave ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 08:24:00 +0200 From: "noe shalev" Subject: Fw: Could this be true? > The palestinians never celebrated the invasion of Kuait back in 1990. they > were celebrating the missille attack on Israel in 1991. > > for the recent celebrating I realy dony know about the CNN footage, yet > there was a celebration i witnessed it myself, and footage of it wasn't > publish due to action taken by the Palestinian aouthoritiy to prevent > publicatio of it. > > > > > [found this posted on Usenet] > > > > CNN using 1991 footage of Palestinians celebrating the invasion of Kuwait > > By Marcio A. V. Carvalho > > > > All around the world we are subjected to 3 or 4 huge news distributors, > and > > one > > of them - as you well know - is CNN. Very well, I guess all of you have > been > > seeing (just as I've been) images from this company. In particular, one > set > > of > > images called my attention: the Palestinians celebrating the bombing, out > > on the > > streets, eating some cake and making funny faces for the camera. > > > > Well, those images were shot back in 1991. Those are images of > Palestinians > > celebrating the invasion of Kuwait! It's simply unacceptable that a > > super-power > > of communications as CNN uses images which do not correspond to the > reality > > in > > talking about so serious an issue. > > > > A teacher of mine, here in Brazil, has videotapes recorded in 1991, with > the > > very same images; he's been sending e-mails to CNN, Globo (the major TV > > network > > in Brazil) and newspapers, denouncing what I myself classify as a crime > > against > > the public opinion. > > > > [other stuff clipped] > > > > Marcio A. V. Carvalho > > State University of Campinas - Brazil ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 08:24:11 +0200 From: "noe shalev" Subject: Fw: Airport security - ----- Original Message ----- From: "noe shalev" To: "Randy R." Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 7:31 AM Subject: Re: Airport security > year ago my brother came nack from a trip in the US and I remember him > telling me he flow all over with a leatherman tool kit in his pocket. > security selectors saw it and didn't even ask about it. here in Israel i > doubt he could enter a cinema with tool like that. > > all thebest > noe > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Randy R." > To: > Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2001 7:39 PM > Subject: Airport security > > > > Around 3 years ago I went to Sea-Tac airport to pick up some family > members > > and I bought my "biking" bag with me. It contained various utensils for > > fixing a flat and other odds n ends that somehow ended up inside, > including > > my butterfly knife. To those not familiar with one, it has 2 handles that > > fold upon itself, encasing the blade inside and enabling the user (with > some > > practice) to swiftly open, flash and switch, and then close it in a swift > > motion. I consider it a defensive weapon as it can appear much more > > intimidating than a mere switchblade. So I completely forget it's in > there > > and make my way to the gate. My bag passes safely thru the security but > my > > boots (steel toed) had to be scanned. The flight was delayed so I head > back > > outside for a smoke and then back thru security where my bag makes it thru > > again. The flights delayed. Out for another smoke, and this time, an > > elderly security officer detects my knife. I kick myself for my > > absentmindedness and wait patiently thru a variety of questions before > they > > let me go. And they confiscated my knife. Bah!!! (by the way, it was > nice > > greeting my family while I was sitting in a chair surrounded by police and > > security. Typical) > > > > I mention this because on the news there was a gentlemen who was appalled > > that he was able to bring a steak knife on board several years ago. I > might > > be asking the wrong group, but has anyone else been able to bring > > questionable items on board (pocket protecters don't count ) ? And I > > agree with Jeme, that many many items when used correctly can be used as a > > weapon. A box cutter is such a dangerous and yet easily hidden item. > > Anyone who has ever worked with one will tell you. > > > > Vince ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 08:24:32 +0200 From: "noe shalev" Subject: Fw: Israel - ----- Original Message ----- From: "noe shalev" To: "Capuchin" Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 8:05 AM Subject: Re: Israel > > > I just believe there's a statute of limitations on land claims after, say, > > a thousand years and that a religious state cannot also claim to be > > democratic. > > Ths is interesting. could you please define a religious state? > > I'm asking this because in judaizm there is a mixture of nationality and > what christians reffer to as religion (The original Hebrew language has no > word that means religion) basically jews are a people with it's own history, > culture and customs, many of which are historically of a theocratic > character. most ancient customs were this way manny around the world still > are. > > so what is a religious state, lets say here in Israel scular parties will > never allow the cemtral bank to print on it's note a phrase like: "in god we > trust". is this the meaning of a religious state? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 23:29:26 -0600 From: HAL Subject: monday's late show Kudos to David Letterman and Dan Rather for dropping the professional/showbiz facade and showing their humanity tonight. Fascinating and very real. /hal ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 08:32:33 +0200 From: "noe shalev" Subject: Re: Israel > On Mon, 17 Sep 2001, Christopher Gross wrote: > > What happens to them? Well, usually they finish school, after which > > most serve two years in the Army. it's three years of national service:-) > Are you saying there is no law or policy in Israel that is particularly > jewish? Is one not REQUIRED to keep the Sabbath and so on? as i mentioned before Jewish is not all about religion. there is on law which is in a great debate here and it's the one of marital status. following the previous British law the law of domiciel jews in Israel if they want to get Married should do this in an aurthodocs jewish manner. yet the jewish manner i/e/ hebrew law is much like other law systems. nobody is required to keep the Shabat here. nor to have circomsision. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 08:36:53 +0200 From: "noe shalev" Subject: Re: conspiracies'r'us > 1) Bin Laden has now twice denied responsibility for the WTC, and the > Taliban don't think he has the capability of carrying it out. So who does? > Well, Saddam Hussein for one. Only - as much as he would love to hit the US > - he wouldn't want it to be known it was him. He'd want someone he could > pin the blame on. So, when it is clear that a terrorist leader has a grudge > against the US (and has attacked the WTC in the past), he has the perfect > patsy to set up. ObL gets the blame, maybe even becomes a martyr to the > cause. Hussein gets to strike the US where it hurts and lives to fight > another day. Why should Sadam do it? how could it help him? Sadam doesn't do things for no reason. the only reason I can think of for him to do it is to get more soppurt in his own back yard, and to help chear up the starving people there. if this was true he would claim responsibility for this act. no way he would do this act annonimusly. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 01:05:36 -0600 From: HAL Subject: heeeeere's the reaper Tonight Show (w/JC) producer Fred DeCordova dead at age 90. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 02:19:34 -0500 From: steve Subject: Re: Israel On Tuesday, September 18, 2001, at 01:32 AM, noe shalev wrote: > there is on law which is in a great debate here and it's the one of > marital > status. following the previous British law the law of domiciel jews in > Israel if they want to get Married should do this in an aurthodocs > jewish > manner. yet the jewish manner i/e/ hebrew law is much like other law > systems. There's no civil marriage in Israel, correct? And the orthodox religious institutions hold certain powers granted in deals made between them and the secular Zionists back in the early days. - - Steve __________ A U.S. anti-missile weapon was able to destroy a test warhead in space on July 14 partly because a beacon on the target signaled its location during much of the flight, defense officials said on Friday. - Reuters, 07/27/01 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 10:23:17 +0100 From: "lucifersam" Subject: Fw: [VegetableFriends] America Under Attack = Banned Songs http://chartattack.com/damn/2001/09/1707.cfm=20 .=20 [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type application/octet-stream which had a name of America Under Attack = Banned Songs.url] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 11:59:17 +0100 (BST) From: Michael R Godwin Subject: re: hey rube and Israel (two for the price of one!) On Mon, 17 Sep 2001, Christopher Gross wrote: > As far as all of Israel being "occupied territory" -- Ed has already > refuted at great length with the idea that the Arabs are the only natives > and the Israelis are invaders. To put it simply, The Area Frequently > Known As Palestine has had both Jewish and Arab inhabitants since farther > back than matters. Because of this, it was not at all unreasonable to > give the Jews PART of Palestine (and remember, they only got part) as a > homeland, to which more Jews could voluntarily immigrate. Israel may have > *some* territory that it shouldn't, but there's no reason to say that > Israel should not exist at all. Agreed. But in modern times, the Jewish claim was based on the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which 'guaranteed' the rights of existing inhabitants. Unfortunately when 1948 came around, huge numbers of Palestinians were expelled, or fled, or were 'ethnically cleansed' (why this happened is still highly contentious). My understanding is that it was Barak's refusal to allow consideration of this issue which caused the failure of last year's peace talks (or talks about talks). This issue isn't going to go away: when I spent a day in Syria I met a Palestinian whose parents had given him the keys of their house and promised him that one day he would be able to claim it. I don't think this will happen, but the powers who agreed to make space for Israel must have some sort of duty to compensate the losers. The 'occupied territory' refers to the land in Gaza and the West Bank conquered from the Palestinians by the Israelis in 1967, in which they have subsequently built widespread settlements against the wishes of the UN. From the Palestinian point of view these are spoils of Israeli colonialism and would not exist if Israel was not permitted by the support of the US to ignore United Nations resolutions. As modern Israel came into being by the authority of the UN, I believe it is unwise to think that it will always be able to reject UN resolutions. > It should be possible to capture or kill enough of them to, not "root > out terrorism," but at least put a serious crimp in it. That may be > very very difficult, but not impossible. Of course, this only applies > if Bush is smart enough to avoid mass bombing of innocent Muslim > civilians, which could wind up with us fighting the whole Muslim > world. But avoiding that should require such a low level of smarts > that even Bush can do it. (Knock on wood.) I went to a lecture by the famous (in the UK) war correspondent Martin Bell yesterday, and he took comfort from the fact that the US Government includes a successful general with war experience. Powell is the person most able to set realistic objectives for both 'search and destroy' and 'hearts and minds'. - - Mike Godwin PS I understand your point about anti-Semitism but I disagree. There is extensive confusion about whether the common usage refers to religious prejudice against Judaism, national prejudice against Israelis, or racial prejudice against people of Semitic origin. There are substantial numbers of Arabs with Israeli nationality (as opposed to Palestinians) so at least two of those 3 definitions could include Arabs. But I expect I am fighting a losing battle. What do Collins think, Stewart? PPS to Noe: Thanks for your always helpful posts. My understanding is that the constitution of Israel is completely secular, but there are Jewish religious groups who want to replace this with a theocracy, some of whom reject the State of Israel altogether. Unfortunately the crazed Israeli electoral system of proportional representation gives far too many seats to religious extremists. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 22:17:21 +0930 From: minister of misinformation Subject: Glen Tilbrook/ Squeeze fans , read on . I recorded the Adelaide gig of Glenn Tilbrook ( formerly of Squeeze ) this week . He's now playing solo and is damned good. A very memorable show, which even featured a segment where he wandered around the club with the audience in tow for a few numbers . Its been mastered to CD , 105 mins , after the usual trip through Pro tools and the end result sounds v nice. The show was recorded on a d6 with a Sony ECM mic, which gives great results for acoustic shows . Anyone who wants a copy, e-mail me with a list or a link to a list. Commander Lang ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 13:50:13 +0100 From: "matt sewell" Subject: Interesting article (Guardian 18/9/01) A very interesting piece by all-round-socialist-hero/dangerous-pinko-looney George Monbiot... I have to say he makes a lot of sense... "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" now that's what I call wisdom! Hoping this won't cause a feline/columbid conflagration, Matt If Osama bin Laden did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him. For the past four years, his name has been invoked whenever a US president has sought to increase the defence budget or wriggle out of arms control treaties. He has been used to justify even President Bush's missile defence programme, though neither he nor his associates are known to possess anything approaching ballistic missile technology. Now he has become the personification of evil required to launch a crusade for good: the face behind the faceless terror. The closer you look, the weaker the case against Bin Laden becomes. While the terrorists who inflicted Tuesday's dreadful wound may have been inspired by him, there is, as yet, no evidence that they were instructed by him. Bin Laden's presumed guilt appears to rest on the supposition that he is the sort of man who would have done it. But his culpability is irrelevant: his usefulness to western governments lies in his power to terrify. When billions of pounds of military spending are at stake, rogue states and terrorist warlords become assets precisely because they are liabilities. By using Bin Laden as an excuse for demanding new military spending, weapons manufacturers in America and Britain have enhanced his iconic status among the disgruntled. His influence, in other words, has been nurtured by the very industry which claims to possess the means of stamping him out. This is not the only way in which the new terrorism crisis has been exacerbated by corporate power. The lax airport security which enabled the hijackers to smuggle weapons on to the planes was, for example, the result of corporate lobbying against the stricter controls the government had proposed. Now Tuesday's horror is being used by corporations to establish the preconditions for an even deadlier brand of terror. This week, while the world's collective back is turned, Tony Blair intends to allow the mixed oxide plant at Sellafield to start operating. The decision would have been front-page news at any other time. Now it's likely to be all but invisible. The plant's operation, long demanded by the nuclear industry and resisted by almost everyone else, will lead to a massive proliferation of plutonium, and a high probability that some of it will find its way into the hands of terrorists. Like Ariel Sharon, in other words, Blair is using the reeling world's shock to pursue policies which would be unacceptable at any other time. For these reasons and many others, opposition has seldom been more necessary. But it has seldom been more vulnerable. The right is seizing the political space which has opened up where the twin towers of the World Trade Centre once stood. Civil liberties are suddenly negotiable. The US seems prepared to lift its ban on extra-judicial executions carried out abroad by its own agents. The CIA might be permitted to employ human rights abusers once more, which will doubtless mean training and funding a whole new generation of Bin Ladens. The British government is considering the introduction of identity cards. Radical dissenters in Britain have already been identified as terrorists by the Terrorism Act 2000. Now we're likely to be treated as such. The authoritarianism which has long been lurking in advanced capitalism has started to surface. In these pages yesterday, William Shawcross - Rupert Murdoch's courteous biographer - articulated the new orthodoxy: America is, he maintained, "a beacon of hope for the world's poor and dispossessed and for all those who believe in freedom of thought and deed". These believers would presumably include the families of the Iraqis killed by the sanctions Britain and the US have imposed; the peasants murdered by Bush's proxy war in Colombia; and the tens of millions living under despotic regimes in the Middle East, sustained and sponsored by the US. William Shawcross concluded by suggesting that "we are all Americans now", an echo of Pinochet's maxim that "we are all Chileans now": by which he meant that no cultural distinctions would be tolerated and no indigenous land rights recognised. Shawcross appeared to suggest that those who question American power are the enemies of democracy. It's a different way of formulating the warning voiced by members of the Bush administration: "If you're not with us, you're against us." The Daily Telegraph has set aside part of its leader column for a directory of "useful idiots", by which it means those who oppose major military intervention. Perhaps the roll of honour will soon include families of some of the victims, who seem to be rather more capable of restraint and forgiveness than the leader writers of the rightwing press. Mark Newton-Carter, whose brother appears to have died in the terrorist outrage, told one of the Sunday newspapers: "I think Bush should be caged at the moment. He is a loose cannon. He is building up his forces getting ready for a military strike. That is not the answer. Gandhi said: 'An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind' and never a truer word was spoken." But when the right is on the rampage, victims as well as perpetrators are trampled. Mark Twain once observed that "there are some natures which never grow large enough to speak out and say a bad act is a bad act, until they have inquired into the politics or the nationality of the man who did it". The left is able to state categorically that Tuesday's terrorism was a dreadful act, irrespective of provenance. But the right can't bring itself to make the same statement about Israel's new invasions of Palestine, or the sanctions in Iraq, or the US-backed terror in East Timor, or the carpet bombing of Cambodia. Its critical faculties have long been suspended and now, it demands, we must suspend ours too. Retaining the ability to discriminate between good acts and bad acts will become ever harder over the next few months, as new conflicts and paradoxes challenge our preconceptions. It may be that a convincing case against Bin Laden is assembled, whereupon his forced extradition would be justified. But, unless we wish to help George Bush use barbarism to defend the "civilisation" he claims to represent, we must distinguish between extradition and extermination. Tuesday's terror may have signalled the beginning of the end of globalisation. The recession it has doubtless helped to precipitate, coupled with a new and understandable fear among many Americans of engagement with the outside world, could lead to a reactionary protectionism in the US, which is likely to provoke similar responses on this side of the Atlantic. We will, in these circumstances, have to be careful not to celebrate the demise of corporate globalisation, if it merely gives way to something even worse. The governments of Britain and America are using the disaster in New York to reinforce the very policies which have helped to cause the problem: building up the power of the defence industry, preparing to launch campaigns of the kind which inevitably kill civilians, licensing covert action. Corporations are securing new resources to invest in instability. Racists are attacking Arabs and Muslims and blaming liberal asylum policies for terrorism. As a result of the horror on Tuesday, the right in all its forms is flourishing, and we are shrinking. But we must not be cowed. Dissent is most necessary just when it is hardest to voice. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 23:03:24 +0930 From: minister of misinformation Subject: bin Laden -frontline show Fegs Sorry to go on about this again , but just seen this link and this show was on tonight here in OZ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/ We just had a rerun of an American program called Frontline which looked into the background of bin Laden and the reasons why some muslims may resent the states so much. Briefly , we can lay some of the blame on a resentment of the Saudi Royal family , who are seen by Saudi dissidents as corrupt and cow towing to the west. The continuing presence of US troops in S Arabia is seen as defiling the holy shrines at Mecca. They also had interviews with other moderate US Muslims who said that for them this also was an insult, although they would not support a jihad aimed against the west , but it was a problem for them. Son of a wealthy Saudi construction billionaire and actually part of the ruling elite, Bin Laden had been involved in the jihad against the soviets , then returned to Saudi Arabia in time for the gulf war. He moved to Sudan after heavily criticizing the Saudi regime , in fact they took away his passport ,but he was smuggled out of the country . when in Sudan he may or may not have been involved in funding bombings , perhaps actively planning them , although ostensibly he was building roads for the Sudanese but eventually , under pressure from the US, he was asked to leave by the Sudanese govt and he moved to Afghanistan . This was probably the worst thing that could have happened as he there found a group of radicalized muslims and a regime who would support him. Basically it seems that because we have so little understanding of the fundamentalist muslim viewpoint we have helped sow the seeds of resentment that has now borne this poisoned fruit . For this we can blame both president Clinton for allowing the missile strike on Sudan , which give bin Laden wide support amongst African muslims , but also the previous administration which poured 6 billion dollars into the jihad against the soviets, giving many muslim radicals experience in using modern weapons and making them realize that they could defeat a superpower if they engaged in holy war. Bush senior and his crew were to blame for having such little understanding of muslim beliefs that they did not understand ( or did understand , but ignored the fact in favour of military expediency ) just what an insult ( or blasphemy ) they caused by continuing the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia after the gulf war.. If these had left it would have removed a major source of inflammation for many muslims . There was also an interview with a guy who was an associate of the sheikh who bombed the WTC in 1993, chilling guy. His attitude was - do you expect us to not retaliate when you attack our way of life ? If you slap me on the cheek , I won't turn it ,and allow you to slap they other ,I will punch you in the nose, hard ! All we ask is to be left alone ......... So there we go, this is what we are up against. Like it or not , understand the viewpoint or not, we have given gross offence to some people and we have to now deal with it. I would favour a judicial solution to this , rather than the invasive military one proposed by the administration . If it is proven that bin Laden ( or whoever else is involved ) is behind the terror and he can be somehow winkled out of Afghanistan ( and personally, I think they are going to be bloody lucky of they ever find him in that inhospitable region ) then he/they should be tried by the international war crimes tribunal rather than the US meting out indiscriminate violence which is only going to kill more civilians , achieve a hollow revenge for the states and one which would likely see international sympathy turn to international condemnation . Although the Bush administration seems likely to go this way , any response that uses more force against muslims , whether it be operatives such as bin Laden or countries who harbour him , such as Afghanistan , will probably only inflame the situation , lead to even more terrorist attacks in the future and an even greater spiral of violence . We should not act in haste, we need to be SMART( yeah I know its hard to believe that Bush CAN be smart, but he has people around him who might be able to aspire to those heights ) its time for a rethink of strategy before even bigger mistakes are committed in the name of preserving freedom. Commander Lang ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V10 #361 ********************************