From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V13 #137 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Friday, May 14 2004 Volume 13 : Number 137 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: the moral high ground [Capuchin ] Re: the moral high ground [] Re: the moral high ground [Capuchin ] RH bit torrent at bt.easytree.org ["Christopher Carville" ] Kerry on my wayward fegs ["Rex.Broome" ] Re: RH bit torrent at bt.easytree.org [Miles Goosens ] Re: the moral high ground [FSThomas ] Re: the moral high ground [FSThomas ] Re: the moral high ground ["cmb adams" ] Re: the moral high ground ["cmb adams" ] RE: the moral high ground ["cmb adams" ] RE: the moral high ground ["FS Thomas" ] RE: the moral high ground ["FS Thomas" ] RE: the moral high ground ["cmb adams" ] Re: news [Christopher Gross ] Re: the moral high ground (The time has come) [steve ] Re: Rush News (NR) [Eb ] Re: the moral high ground [Capuchin ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 13:15:11 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: the moral high ground On Fri, 14 May 2004, Capuchin wrote: > It's absolutely shocking to see an American claiming that one should not > fight against a government that does not serve its people outside the > system of government if necessary. On second thought, this isn't all that surprising, considering that it's coming from the same white Americans who are seeking immigration control. Revolution that put me in power is good, but no more of that stuff. Immigration that brought my people to this country is good, but no more of that, either. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 15:20:59 -0500 From: Subject: Re: the moral high ground [demime could not interpret encoding binary - treating as plain text] On Fri, 14 May 2004 11:38 , Capuchin sent: >In short, terrorism can be killed with kindness. so terrorism must always be the result and the cause is unkindness? gSs - ---- Msg sent via WebMail ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 13:27:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: the moral high ground On Fri, 14 May 2004 gshell@americangroupisp.com wrote: > On Fri, 14 May 2004 11:43 , Capuchin sent: > > A government that cannot govern itself to maintain minimum standards > > of public service must be removed from power. > > is this in democracies or should this apply everywhere. Everywhere, of course. But the determination of what those standards of public service ARE must be left to the governed. > if there is no democracy, is a revolution or coup the only way to remove > a failed government that is not willing to be removed? Um, any change in government structure is a revolution, so I don't understand your question. Is a revolution only accomplished by revolution? Yes. Duh. But that doesn't have to be an armed revolution. A coup, or coup d'etat here, is just a "stroke of state" or any sudden, decisive change. A change in government could come quickly or slowly, even outside the system. But if it came quickly, it would certainly be a coup. But that doesn't have to be a military coup. > if the governed cannot complete a successful revolution or coup > themselves, what then? Well, then, hopefully those that sympathize with their plight will take appropriate action to assist. I'm presuming, here, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you're trying to suggest that the invasion of Iraq was somehow an appropriate action to assist in an Iraqi revolution. I think that's a pretty bogus argument for several reasons, but even if we leave your fundamental assumptions about the state of politics in Iraq unassailed, I'll explain why I think you're wrong. If the governing body you would like to escape is brutal and violent, then you cannot revolt by being violent and brutal. This only assures that your rulers after the conflict will be violent and brutal and you have gained nothing. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 16:33:36 -0400 From: "Christopher Carville" Subject: RH bit torrent at bt.easytree.org http://bt.easytree.org/torrents-details.php?id=978 Please register & share this with others who don't have a good fast internet connection. C - --------------- - --text file-- Robyn Hitchcock (solo acoustic) 10/02/90 SUNY-Binghamton (now Binghamton University), Susquehanna Room - Binghamton, NY Source: Soundboard -> cassette (master) Transfer: cassette (master) -> Soundstream -> wav -> CDWave -> mkw -> shn Seeded by theman (furthur@bowwowmeowmeow.com) Disc 1: (cut) 01. (talk) 02. Oceanside 03. (talk) 04. Madonna Of The Wasps 05. Clean Steve 06. (talk) 07. Raymond Chandler Evening 08. (talk) 09. The Devil's Coachman 10. Wax Doll 11. Wey Wey Hep Uh Hole 12. (talk) 13. Queen Elvis 14. (talk) (tape flip) Disc 2: (cut) 01. (talk) 02. Autumn Is Your Last Chance 03. (talk) 04. Bass 05. (talk) 06. My Wife And My Dead Wife 07. Beautiful Girl 08. (talk) 09. I Got A Message For You 10. Chain Mary To The Bed 11. Cynthia Mask 12. (talk) 13. Sometimes I Wish I Was A Pretty Girl 14. I Often Dream Of Trains DO NOT ENCODE AND DISTRIBUTE AS AN MP3! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 13:34:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: the moral high ground On Fri, 14 May 2004 gshell@americangroupisp.com wrote: > On Fri, 14 May 2004 11:38 , Capuchin sent: > >In short, terrorism can be killed with kindness. > > so terrorism must always be the result and the cause is unkindness? Naw, unkindness has all kinds of results besides terrorism. It must not always be the result. The only other cause of terrorism besides unkindness, as near as I can think right now, is lust for power. But healthy people with a sense of self-worth and purpose don't seek power over others. So if our kindness manifests itself as a force for promoting health, purpose, and self-worth, that cause for terrorism will also be diminished. [It's also maybe interesting to note that a population that is healthy, purposeful, and aware of its own worth is very difficult to sway by terror and not an effective target. Therefore, the small number of messed-up people that seek power for power's sake might have a hard time imagining terror tactics as a means to achieve their ends.] J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 13:54:16 -0700 From: "Rex.Broome" Subject: Kerry on my wayward fegs Ferris: >>If you vote for a third-party >>or fringe candidate, then get used to either another four years or the >>catastrophe that would be a sKerry presidency. - -and- >>In his twenty-plus years as a Senator, can anyone name _one_ major piece >>of legislation that he has his name on? I've seen his name crop up as a >>co-sponsor on some zero-value items (such as the "Resolution >>commemorating the 30th Anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem"), >>but nothing I would deem important. Sure, he's served on a pile of >>committees, but what is that worth in the end? Now, I'm not stumping for Kerry either, no way no how, but I'm still a little surprised to see predictions of "catastrophe" at this stage, especially when coupled with an assessment that part of Kerry's problem is that his stances are as-yet undefined. They either will become defined and he will or won't be elected on the basis of them, or they won't be, in which case he ain't getting into office anyhow, right? Jeme would probably say, and I wouldn't disagree, that you can pretty much guarantee his stances will line right up with mainstream Democratic "slightly less conservative" positions... all I'm saying is that if you think Kerry's main problem is an ill-defined agenda, it's not worth worrying that he'llbe elected. If your problem with him is that that such a lack of definition means that he's just a cipher onto which his party's values will be projected, then you can only be arguing from a partisan perspective, because saying that such a candidate is bad on principle would have absolutely precluded voting for Bush last time out. Or, more broadly, anyone *other* than a "fringe" candidate... Meanwhile... Courtesy of Eb: >>With support from a new generation of likeminded musicians-- >>including Tool's Danny Carey who provided the acoustic drum on >>"Use Less" I think this is the first time I've seen the term "acoustic drum", or at least used to mean what I think it means here... that being "a drum set played by a live musician and recorded by microphones". Which is not precisely acoustic nor a single drum, unless, what, the guy just whacked a floor tom on the three of every fourth measure? But hey, that's cool. As long as he used phosphor bronze strings... if he used nylon, that'd be a "classical drum". - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 16:07:59 -0500 From: Miles Goosens Subject: Re: RH bit torrent at bt.easytree.org At 04:33 PM 5/14/2004 -0400, Christopher Carville wrote: >Robyn Hitchcock >(solo acoustic) > >10/02/90 >SUNY-Binghamton (now Binghamton University), Susquehanna Room - Binghamton, >NY This is one of my favorite shows - very close in sound/spirit to my first RH show, a solo/acoustic one that May at the Bluebird Cafe here in Nashville. I highly recommend getting this one if you don't have it already. later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 17:50:17 -0400 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: the moral high ground Capuchin wrote: > So your morality is relative? You will always consider the lesser evil as > a good? > > If so, then what is the scale on which lesser and greater evil is weighed? > How is it relative to what? In terms of the electoral process in this country you are currently, on a national level, faced with two choices: DNC or GOP. If you intend to exercise your right to vote, doing so outside of either of those parties currently harms one and helps the other. Yes, it's a matter of the "lesser of two evils." Or choosing the "slightly less evil one." In grander scales of morality, yes, there are universal rights and wrongs, but there are also times when, faced with a situation, you have to (perhaps) go against what you believe to be morally right and true on one issue to defeat another. I personally find violence reprehensible, but I can damned well tell you that, if threatened directly, I'm capable of it. > What scenario would have to occur in order for you to admit that he was > lying? Is anything less than a signed confession going to convince you? I won't condone lying, but if it were grounds for immediate dismissal from office how many full-term politicians would there be? I'm not green-lighting lies and would like nothing better than transparent situations when it comes to governance, but, seriously, Jeme. In regards to calls for Rummy's head getting piked: a good analogy I heard the other day, in regards to the inmate treatments, was that you don't fire a teacher when one student fails. Here's a guy ostensibly with, what, 135,000 students in the field and less than a dozen are brought up on charges? It simply doesn't call for his ouster. [A discussion on the employment of those techniques and the ramifications of the situation should come under a completely different cover.] > Are you doing this to say that it's OK for Rumsfeld to lie because Clinton > did? Nope. Also: was it a lie or a mistake? I can't quote word-for-word something I said a month ago. You could tell me that I said that monkeys flew out of my butt on Christmas Day and I might take your word for it. It is at least possible that Rumsfeld couldn't recall stringing those exact words together. > Wow. Were you ALIVE in 1998? Clinton was roasted alive in the press. > Impeachment proceedings were held. Feet were held to flames. Shit went > down. And yet he got to stay in office and finish out his second term, completely unscathed. The man probably should do time. > And I think Jon Stewart described the mainstream press best a few weeks > ago on the radio when he compared them to six-year-olds playing soccer: > There's no game plan, no agenda. They run around clumped together in a > little pack and every once in a while the ball pops out and they all go > chasing after it to huddle around kicking at each other for a while. That's good. I like Stewart. > So you think that if we vote for, say, a liar and a thief and a would-be > despot (I'm honestly not trying to implicate any individual here), that we > should stand by and let them rule in their way for so long as their > appointed term allows? This is surely putting the cart before the horse > in the worst way! Government exists as an agent of the public and when it > ceases to serve the public good, regardless of whether or not the majority > recognize it, it must be removed from power. Disregard for tenants of the government (think two- or four-year terms) and tossing someone out in medias race just because you don't like a policy would be chaotic. In the case of a proven violation of law, fair enough. You haven't got a single example of that to date. Furthermore: "a liar and a thief and a would-be despot": your transparency betrays you. If you're eluding to the President, by thief I would assume you mean Florida. In that case I would refer you to a solid description of the electoral college. Again, not to digress, that's a topic for a different discussion. > ...where certain classes of citizens cannot attend the polls. For clarity: Felons or absentee ballots cast by military personnel? > Again, what if the process does not serve the public? What if it has > flaws that can be exploited so as to prevent the public from effecting > real change? Example? - -f. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 17:58:06 -0400 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: the moral high ground Capuchin wrote: > Here's a FANTASTIC example of how conservatism is self-perpetuating and is > so narrow as to not even understand that a person can be anything but > conservative. > > OF COURSE, the more conservative you are, the more consistent you will be > in your expressed views. The more conservative you are, the more > well-defined your views are because they are NOT based on your own > individual creative thought or a process of successive hypotheses and > search for validation or refutation. The more conservative you are, the > less you are searching for the new and better. It's pretty much the > DEFINITION of conservative to be stuck in one mode of thought. Why does a thread of consistency on policies and views necessitate conservativism? Can there be no consistency on a Liberal agenda? Or is it that Liberalism, at it's heart, is ENTIRELY based on situational ethic and therefore by definition incapable of consistency on direction? > And it's only further proof that the Democratic Party is also a > conservative organization (though, clearly slightly less conservative than > the Republican party which is slightly less conservative than the Italian > Fascists) that they counter this complaint with cries that their candidate > is TOTALLY CONSISTENT ACROSS TIME and as conservative as possible in his > or her changing of mind and adopting of new ideas and guiding principles. If the DNC is only *slightly* less conservative than the GOP, just what, pray tell, are you proposing as an alternative? I'm honestly curious here. > ...Committees > propose and make sometimes drastic or important subtle changes to proposed > legislation before it reaches the floor, sometimes completely altering the > impact intended by the author or the original sponsors. Would they, then, be responsible for tacking on pork projects to otherwise worthwhile legislation? If that's the case than I would see committee members as more of a cause of the ills infecting our government than any one other thing. In my own little Utopia proposed legislation and the final product would be single-point proposals. If it's a farm bill, it stays a farm bill; without any bullshit specialty programs tagged onto it just to garner support from the Honorable Representative from . Bastardization and the intentional bloating of proposed legislation is a cause of many, many problems. - -f. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 18:03:59 -0400 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: the moral high ground Capuchin wrote: > [It's also maybe interesting to note that a population that is healthy, > purposeful, and aware of its own worth is very difficult to sway by terror > and not an effective target. Therefore, the small number of messed-up > people that seek power for power's sake might have a hard time imagining > terror tactics as a means to achieve their ends.] So by your equation, the American people are healthy, purposeful, and aware of their worth, whereas the Spanish are sickly, aimless, and consider themselves somewhere on the lower rungs of the evolutionary ladder? Why, then, if your theory is to hold water, would Islamic Terrorists have carried out the attacks on the US the way they did, and not focused on smaller, more malable targets? The idea as stated doesn't hold water. Unless, of course, their *goal* was to goad us into attacking Muslim states. If that is the case than 9-11 is simply a well-executed plan whose repercussions weren't fully noodled out. - -f. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 15:31:55 -0700 From: "cmb adams" Subject: Re: the moral high ground On Fri, 14 May 2004 18:03:59 -0400, FSThomas wrote > Why, then, if your theory is to hold water, would Islamic Terrorists > have carried out the attacks on the US the way they did, and not > focused on smaller, more malable targets? The idea as stated > doesn't hold water. Unless, of course, their *goal* was to goad us > into attacking Muslim states. If that is the case than 9-11 is > simply a well-executed plan whose repercussions weren't fully > noodled out. what if the goal of 9-11 was to provoke the US into doing something asinine that would enflame the entirely moslem world against us, damage our image with much of the rest of the civilized world, and wreck our economy for the next decade or so? who didn't think through the repercussions again? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 15:37:56 -0700 From: "cmb adams" Subject: Re: the moral high ground On Fri, 14 May 2004 17:50:17 -0400, FSThomas wrote > In regards to calls for Rummy's head getting piked: a good analogy I > heard the other day, in regards to the inmate treatments, was that > you don't fire a teacher when one student fails. great. do you fire a teacher when one student rapes another with a broomstick? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 15:53:55 -0700 From: "cmb adams" Subject: RE: the moral high ground On Fri, 14 May 2004 08:38:40 -0400, FS Thomas wrote > On a different note: Regarding Abu Ghraib. > > No one should mention the Geneva Convention in the same sentence with > that situation again. The Convention was designed to protect the rights > and conditions of soldiers. The Convention clearly states that to be > granted protections, you must be uniformed. The Geneva Conventions (there are several) states no such thing, clearly or unclearly. But don't take my word for it...read them. The two most relevant ones are: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm (Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War) and http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm (Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War) > If you are not > uniformed, you may be treated as an Enemy Combatant. no such category exists under the Conventions, nor does the term even appear in the text. in fact, the Prisoner of War one is quite specific that "should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal." > Whether it's ethically correct to conduct interrogations and detentions > in that manner is one thing, but having done so is clearly no violation > of the GC, nor is it any sort of war crime. it is certainly the former, both in letter and spirit. whether it is the latter is possibly arguable, but if humiliating, raping and murdering prisoners of war isn't a war crime to you, well...I'd hate to live in your head. or neighborhood. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 18:57:42 -0400 From: "FS Thomas" Subject: RE: the moral high ground > [mailto:owner-fegmaniax@smoe.org] On Behalf Of cmb adams > > what if the goal of 9-11 was to provoke the US > into doing something asinine that would enflame > the entirely moslem world against us, damage our > image with much of the rest of the civilized world, > and wreck our economy for the next decade or so? Hijacking planeloads of civilians and flying them into soft civilian targets isn't asinine? It isn't at least one of many definitions of evil? Quite honestly what reactions it *has* elicited are far, far less grave than they could have (or, in many ways, should have) been. - -f. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 18:58:44 -0400 From: "FS Thomas" Subject: RE: the moral high ground > great. > do you fire a teacher when one student rapes another with a > broomstick? Well, the most recent case that comes to mind would be the Louima sodomy case in NYC. I don't recall the watch commander or the chief of police being raked over the coals, so my answer would be no. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 16:13:19 -0700 From: "cmb adams" Subject: RE: the moral high ground On Fri, 14 May 2004 18:57:42 -0400, FS Thomas wrote > > what if the goal of 9-11 was to provoke the US > > into doing something asinine that would enflame > > the entirely moslem world against us, damage our > > image with much of the rest of the civilized world, > > and wreck our economy for the next decade or so? > > Hijacking planeloads of civilians and flying them into soft civilian > targets isn't asinine? It isn't at least one of many definitions of > evil? evil, absolutely. but a very smart strategic move. you know...the repercussions you mentioned. bin laden is still a free man. al qaeda is still relatively intact. the US is spending billions of dollars (and hundreds of american lives) to turn iraq from a fairly secular sunni-governed nation whose people weren't especially anti-american into what seems likely to become a shiite ruled nation of howling anti-americans (you know...bin laden people). our economy is in the shitter and likely to get worse, in large part because of wartime spending. and we're fast becoming a subject of international fear and loathing. who came out ahead on this deal? > Quite honestly what reactions it *has* elicited are far, far less grave > than they could have (or, in many ways, should have) been. oh? and what should the response have been? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 20:14:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: news On Fri, 14 May 2004, Eb wrote: > [I'm just posting this for Chris Gross (I don't remember his email > address), or anyone else foolish enough to be impressed by this band. > ;) Eb] > > SKINNY PUPPY > RETURN WITH 'THE GREATER WRONG OF THE RIGHT' > MAY 25 ON SPV RECORDS Excellent! Thanks for the good news, Eb. (But how can you not remember my email address? I'm posting to the list *constantly* these days!) > with their 13th and first full-length album in eight years-- Yeesh! Do they have trained monkeys write their press releases, or what? On a short vacation and *so* totally ignoring the whole political thread, Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 19:20:02 -0500 From: steve Subject: Re: the moral high ground (The time has come) For the good of the country, and the Republican party, Bush should announce that he will not seek re-election in November. - - Steve __________ God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them. - George Bush, as related to Harretz by Mahmoud Abbas ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 12:27:10 +1200 From: grutness@surf4nix.com Subject: Re: the moral high ground > > And yes, in the grand scheme of things everything is relative. > >So your morality is relative? You will always consider the lesser evil as >a good? That would mean that Mussolini was a good guy because he was better than Hitler. James (hoping that Godwin's law will now take effect) - -- 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: Fri, 14 May 2004 20:01:50 -0500 From: steve Subject: Rush News (NR) > Rush Returns To Roots On 'Feedback' > > Canadian rock trio Rush's next release will feature covers of classics > popularized by the Who, Cream, Buffalo Springfield and the Yardbirds, > Billboard.com has learned. Due June 29 via Atlantic, the eight-track > "Feedback" marks the first time the group has ever recorded material > by other artists. > > The album kicks off with a new take on Blue Cheer's cover of Eddie > Cochran's "Summertime Blues." The track list is rounded out by the > Yardbirds' "Heart Full of Soul" and "Shapes of Things," the Who's "The > Seeker," Buffalo Springfield's "For What It's Worth" and "Mr. Soul," > Love's "Seven and Seven Is" and Robert Johnson's "Crossroads," > famously covered by Cream. > "[Bassist] Geddy [Lee], [guitarist] Alex [Lifeson] and I were > channeling back to 1966 and 1967, when we were 13- and 14-year-old > beginners," drummer Neil Peart writes in the album's liner notes. "We > thought it would be a fitting symbol to commemorate our 30 years > together if we returned to our roots and paid tribute to those we had > learned from and were inspired by. We thought we might record some of > the songs we used to listen to, the ones we painstakingly learned the > chords, notes and drum parts for, and even played in our earliest > bands." - - Steve __________ Bush may look like a well-meaning dolt. On consideration, he's something far more dangerous: a dedicated fool. - Jacob Weisberg ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 18:17:31 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: Rush News (NR) >> Rush Returns To Roots On 'Feedback' >> >> Canadian rock trio Rush's next release will feature covers of >> classics popularized by the Who, Cream, Buffalo Springfield and the >> Yardbirds, Billboard.com has learned. Due June 29 via Atlantic, the >> eight-track "Feedback" marks the first time the group has ever >> recorded material by other artists. >> >> The album kicks off with a new take on Blue Cheer's cover of Eddie >> Cochran's "Summertime Blues." The track list is rounded out by the >> Yardbirds' "Heart Full of Soul" and "Shapes of Things," the Who's >> "The Seeker," Buffalo Springfield's "For What It's Worth" and "Mr. >> Soul," Love's "Seven and Seven Is" and Robert Johnson's "Crossroads," >> famously covered by Cream. God...what boring, obvious choices in material. What, couldn't they get the rights to "Twist and Shout"? Incidentally, Aerosmith's new album is also a covers disc (all blues). I guess this is going around.... Eb ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 18:51:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: the moral high ground On Fri, 14 May 2004, FSThomas wrote: > Capuchin wrote: > > [It's also maybe interesting to note that a population that is > > healthy, purposeful, and aware of its own worth is very difficult to > > sway by terror and not an effective target. Therefore, the small > > number of messed-up people that seek power for power's sake might have > > a hard time imagining terror tactics as a means to achieve their > > ends.] > > So by your equation, the American people are healthy, purposeful, and > aware of their worth, whereas the Spanish are sickly, aimless, and > consider themselves somewhere on the lower rungs of the evolutionary > ladder? Hell, NO! Americans are a GREAT target for terrorism! They're insecure, panicky, reactionary, and totally disenfranchised. (This is speaking broadly of culture, of course, and not descriptive of all Americans individually.) > Why, then, if your theory is to hold water, would Islamic Terrorists > have carried out the attacks on the US the way they did, and not focused > on smaller, more malable targets? The idea as stated doesn't hold > water. I love that you made up some interpretation of my statement and then refuted your made-up interpretation and claimed my statement doesn't hold water. > Unless, of course, their *goal* was to goad us into attacking Muslim > states. If that is the case than 9-11 is simply a well-executed plan > whose repercussions weren't fully noodled out. Terrorism isn't that effective, man. I mean, it doesn't cause specific actions in that way. It causes terror. It makes people frightened, insecure, and edgy. It takes away a goodly portion of life's joy. And its purpose in "influencing a population" is simply to make people feel like that until the situation the terrorists find undesirable is resolved. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V13 #137 ********************************