Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup metatuning One bright light

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "stephenszpak"
<stephen_szpak@...> wrote:
>
> > It's too late for talk. These must be set alight:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4617398.stm

These are just nuclear. There are missile sites and chemical
plants too. We could just wait...

Out of Iran yesterday:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/14/world/main1397849.shtml?
CMP=ILC-SearchStories

Iran: Nuclear Program 'Irreversible'

Excerpts here:

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaks:

Iran's supreme leader said Tuesday that his country's nuclear fuel
program was "irreversible"

Ahmadinejad said that "no power" can take nuclear fuel cycle
technology away from Iran.

"They should be assured that through propaganda, political pressures
and games they play nowadays such as issuing statements, making
angry gestures...can't deny the Iranian nation from pursuing its
path,"

-Stephen Szpak

🔗Afmmjr@...

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗stephenszpak <stephen_szpak@...>

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...> wrote:
>
> > It's too late for talk. These must be set alight.
>
++++++++++++Carl

Thanks for replying.

Iran must be bombed. If Bush doesn't have the resolve,
give the green light to Israel to deal with them. Israel
did this before with Iraq and prevented Saddam from
becoming a nuclear (bomb) power.

Iran is not our friend, nor does freedom of religion
extend to the point of accepting any religion that
wishes Israel's (and America's) destruction.

I guess you have different thoughts on the subject.
Many don't seem to think there is any rush regarding
Iran's nuclear program.

I hope I'm not being nasty here.
As you can see I have strong feelings on this matter.

Regards,

Stephen

> I don't know what you mean by this, but it sounds
> serious. Christians such as yourself whom I've met
> seem in relative agreement as far as finding Islam
> at fault, and that reminds me how similar the faults
> of these two religions are. Talk about backward
> practices.
> > -Carl
>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗stephenszpak <stephen_szpak@...>

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...> wrote:
>>
> We have nukes, and we've used them. Is it acceptable to
> bomb any country who isn't our friend and that might be
> planning to build nukes?
>
+++++++++ Carl

I'm not talking about any country. I'm talking about
a sponsor of terrorism. In other words Iran has already
used non-nuclear means to kill the innocent.

What Iran recently said about one of our staunchest allies:

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/08/051208164944.y49anqze.html

Ahmadinejad, who sparked an international outcry in October when he
said Israel "must be wiped off the map", also repeated his view
Thursday that the Jewish state was a "tumour".

One line of thinking is that if Iran gets nuclear bombs
they would never use them. They would never hit Israel first,
and accept the consequences.

They would never hand them out
to Muslim terrorists.

Iran would never, in the future, put nukes on missiles
and hold the Persian Gulf's oil supply hostage, insulating
themselves from any invasion for decades to come.

I guess we just think differently about this matter Carl.

-Stephen

🔗Afmmjr@...

🔗monz <monz@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗Afmmjr@...

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗Afmmjr@...

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗Afmmjr@...

Then I am confused. If Israel is not as legitimate as India and the U.S. is legitimate, there must be other non-legitimate countries in your world view. I don't understand your parameters. Johnny

-----Original Message-----
From: Carl Lumma <clumma@...>
To: metatuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 01:49:36 -0000
Subject: [metatuning] Re: One bright light

> What are your 5 most non-legitimate countries?

I dunno.

-Carl

Meta Tuning meta-info:

To unsubscribe, send an email to:
metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/

To post to the list, send to
metatuning@yahoogroups.com

You don't have to be a member to post.

Yahoo! Groups Links

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗Afmmjr@...

If the only country in the world that is deemed not legitimate or less legitimate than others is Israel, when there are so many hot spots all over the planet, then it would seem that this belief/position is.... I don't want to put words into your mouth. ;) Johnny

-----Original Message-----
From: Carl Lumma <clumma@...>
To: metatuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 02:21:52 -0000
Subject: [metatuning] Re: One bright light

> Then I am confused. If Israel is not as legitimate as India and
> the U.S. is legitimate, there must be other non-legitimate
> countries in your world view. I don't understand your parameters.
> Johnny

It may be me who's confused. Tell me, why should I accept the
sovereignty of Israel? (I do accept it, incidentally, but I'm
curious as to why you think I should).

-Carl

Meta Tuning meta-info:

To unsubscribe, send an email to:
metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/

To post to the list, send to
metatuning@yahoogroups.com

You don't have to be a member to post.

Yahoo! Groups Links

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

> If the only country in the world that is deemed not legitimate
> or less legitimate than others is Israel, when there are so many
> hot spots all over the planet, then it would seem that this
> belief/position is.... I don't want to put words into your
> mouth. ;) Johnny

Not that I really care much about or respect nations, and indeed
they are always in flux and their legitimacy comes mostly from
war (it's the way I recognize Israel as legit), but India has
been inhabited by more-or-less the same folks for 5000 years.
They were invaded by Alexander the Great and countless others.
Mongols and Islam, probably, and finally the English. But
they've pretty much weathered it out, they got their
independence, and now they're joining the modern world.

I'm not sure when in history the land now marked as Israel
was occupied exclusively by jews, but its current iteration
is very recent, right? And arrived by unusual means (an
aggreement between colonial powers). And the genetic makeup
of the people now living there is different than it was in
antiquity, right?

The successful defense of Israeli territory adds to its
legitimacy in my eyes, while the settlement of the occupied
Palestinian area detracts from it.

-Carl

🔗Afmmjr@...

Carl, your comments carry perhaps unintended weight. I wanted to know what you consider a non-legitimate country but could not get even a second country to Israel. Too much time has passed for you to submit one now. ;)

As for India, 80 percent below poverty. One quarter of the population, Dalits, perhaps the true Indians before the Aryan/Hindu invasions, horribly tortured into idiocy by the cruelty of Hindus.

Israel did not massacre Arabs in advance of taking possession. In fact it was England that set the place up after taking leave of an imperialist jaunt. It was Germany that caused the worldwide conflagration that made a need for Israel. It was an increasing militantancy, perhaps growing wildly now, that forced an ancient people for the Arabic world in need of a place to live.

Just as the Islamic world sees itself as 1.3 billion people in the world, Judiasm sees itself as a world people. Once forced out of their original home (Israel, by all accounts), they settled everywhere. However, the world was not, and is not, hospitable to minorities sure in their ways.

While you might support the President of Iran's suggestion to move Israelis to Europe, you have not dealt at all with the millions of oriental Jews that had to leave Iraq (half of former Baghdad), Libya, Egypt, Yemen, etc, as refugees. Finally, the world has a responsibility for an ancient people with no home. You may disagree. That's what I wanted to understand. I am upset that the Lankans of Sri Lankans were uprooted from their ancient homes in Sri Lanka, for example, or the San "capoids" forced out of their ancient world. (Maybe you see an inconsistency?)

-Johnny

P.S. our U.S. anscestors murdered natives just as the first Hindu Indians did (the present majority). Israel did not; Jews don't take out others in violence, as a rule.

p.s. Good news -- India has just this past month decided that all the Dalits can get a free education from kindergarten through college.

-----Original Message-----
From: Carl Lumma <clumma@...>
To: metatuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 03:56:01 -0000
Subject: [metatuning] Re: One bright light

The successful defense of Israeli territory adds to its
legitimacy in my eyes, while the settlement of the occupied
Palestinian area detracts from it.

-Carl

Meta Tuning meta-info:

To unsubscribe, send an email to:
metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/

To post to the list, send to
metatuning@yahoogroups.com

You don't have to be a member to post.

Yahoo! Groups Links

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@...>

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...> wrote:

> I'm not sure when in history the land now marked as Israel
> was occupied exclusively by jews, but its current iteration
> is very recent, right?

Israel is by no means exclusively inhabited by Jews *now*. It's also
legitimate by international law. From that point of view, Taiwan might
be an "illegitimate" state. It clearly is a state, but we pretend it
isn't because otherwise China becomes upset. The US position is that
Taiwan is not a country, and everyone, including China, must treat it
like it is and respect its borders. Or else.

And arrived by unusual means (an
> aggreement between colonial powers).

That's actually a very usual reason. Israel is internationally
recognized, which is all you need to be legitimate.

And the genetic makeup
> of the people now living there is different than it was in
> antiquity, right?

This makes it different than the US exactly how? The same is true of
the rest of the world, incidentially--genes move around a lot, and
gene frequencies change for that and other reasons.

> The successful defense of Israeli territory adds to its
> legitimacy in my eyes, while the settlement of the occupied
> Palestinian area detracts from it.

Everyone should have the right to live where they are born and raised,
I think. That gets confusing in some cases.

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@...>

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@... wrote:

> As for India, 80 percent below poverty. One quarter of the
population, Dalits, perhaps the true Indians before the Aryan/Hindu
invasions, horribly tortured into idiocy by the cruelty of Hindus.

India has its problems, but it should be noted that untouchability is
a banned concept according to the constitution of India. Ethnically,
about a sixth of the population is Dalit, but they are not a
genetically distinct or distinguishable group. In the urban areas,
they are in the process of merging with the rest of the population so
the problem is a rural one.

> P.S. our U.S. anscestors murdered natives just as the first Hindu
Indians did (the present majority). Israel did not; Jews don't take
out others in violence, as a rule.

They did, and the natives murdered them too. Really, it was warfare.
The huge die off of native populations was not caused by warfare
however, but by plague.

🔗Afmmjr@...

Thank you, Gene, for your comments on this thread. I have a few responses to what is below.

I have been reading Dalit sites on the Internet. They claim to be 1/4 of the population. As to their genetic distinctions, have you seen data that says the Dalits are of the same DNA as the Brahmins? I still doubt it, based on the history in India.

On the other hand, Jews in Israel share the same DNA as the Palestinian Arabs. Even Israelis from far-flung places show middle eastern origins.

As for the Israelis murdering the Palestinians to get their homeland. Neither of us were there, but as I recall from history the Arabs turned down a 2-state idea and declared war. With that declaration, Israelis fought back and took on new territory, claiming the width of the country was too narrow to properly defend.

I agree about the horrors of the germs that spread unintentionally from Europe to natives, but it must have seemed like a boon of great fortune, making it easier to acquire the real estate of others.

Johnny

-----Original Message-----
From: Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@...>
To: metatuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 01:57:25 -0000
Subject: [metatuning] Re: One bright light

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@... wrote:

> As for India, 80 percent below poverty. One quarter of the
population, Dalits, perhaps the true Indians before the Aryan/Hindu
invasions, horribly tortured into idiocy by the cruelty of Hindus.

> P.S. our U.S. anscestors murdered natives just as the first Hindu
Indians did (the present majority). Israel did not; Jews don't take
out others in violence, as a rule.

They did, and the natives murdered them too. Really, it was warfare.
The huge die off of native populations was not caused by warfare
however, but by plague.

Meta Tuning meta-info:

To unsubscribe, send an email to:
metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/

To post to the list, send to
metatuning@yahoogroups.com

You don't have to be a member to post.

Yahoo! Groups Links

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@...>

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@... wrote:

> I have been reading Dalit sites on the Internet. They claim to be
1/4 of the population.

Perhaps, but other sources say 1/6.

As to their genetic distinctions, have you seen data that says the
Dalits are of the same DNA as the Brahmins?

The point is not that it is the same, but that there aren't any major
differences genetically in the gene pools between Dalits and the rest
of India. They don't seem to have been strongly isolated genetically.
The DNA studies support the Ayran invasion theory which so upsets some
Indian nationalists, and does show that lower castes, and Dalits, are
less likely to have Y chromosomes from a more European-type ancestor.
But mitochondrial DNA seems to be pretty mixed, so the caste boundries
were apparently very porous.

So, Brahmins and Kshatriya are a little different, but not greatly.
The other castes, not very much at all.

> On the other hand, Jews in Israel share the same DNA as the
Palestinian Arabs. Even Israelis from far-flung places show middle
eastern origins.

There are similarities, but it isn't the same. If you count it as the
same, you certainly will need to count Dalits as the same as other
Indians, especially the lower-caste ones.

> I agree about the horrors of the germs that spread unintentionally
from Europe to natives, but it must have seemed like a boon of great
fortune, making it easier to acquire the real estate of others.

Most of the die-off was not even noticed by Europeans, though in
Mexico it was apparent. It was one of the great pandemics in human
history, along with the Black Death and the Spanish Flu, but not much
was historically recorded, and the numbers involved are very
tentative. It may have been the worst of the lot, depending on whose
population figures you believe.

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

> Carl, your comments carry perhaps unintended weight.

Apparently.

>I wanted to know what you consider a non-legitimate country
>but could not get even a second country to Israel.

I never said Israel was non-legitimate.

>One quarter of the population, Dalits, perhaps the true Indians
>before the Aryan/Hindu invasions, horribly tortured into idiocy
>by the cruelty of Hindus.

Only 1 point for settling, then.

> Israel did not massacre Arabs in advance of taking possession.
> In fact it was England that set the place up after taking leave
> of an imperialist jaunt.

Right. That's highly irregular.

> It was Germany that caused the worldwide conflagration that
> made a need for Israel.

I don't accept this reasoning.

> It was an increasing militantancy, perhaps growing wildly now,
> that forced an ancient people for the Arabic world in need of a
> place to live.

The Arabic world was the last place on Earth they could go?
You don't think it had anything to do with the holy land?

> However, the world was not, and is not, hospitable to
> minorities sure in their ways.

That is true. I'm not sure how much anyone's entitled to
complain about it, though.

> While you might support the President of Iran's suggestion
> to move Israelis to Europe

Hardly.

> Finally, the world has a responsibility for an ancient people
> with no home. You may disagree.

I do. The World has no responsibility for history. There
are many other ancient peoples without homes. Most of the
World's peoples are probably now extinct.

> P.S. our U.S. anscestors murdered natives just as the first
> Hindu Indians did (the present majority). Israel did not; Jews
> don't take out others in violence, as a rule.

The old testament shows a clear directive of taking cities
and regions from their inhabitants by force, on directive
from God, on account that they are his "chosen people", to
the explicit exclusion of everybody else.

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

> > I'm not sure when in history the land now marked as Israel
> > was occupied exclusively by jews, but its current iteration
> > is very recent, right?
>
> Israel is by no means exclusively inhabited by Jews *now*.

They're the majority. Let's not forget, there are jews in
Iran. A friend of mine was born there (ok, I'll grant you,
he moved).

> > And the genetic makeup
> > of the people now living there is different than it was in
> > antiquity, right?
>
> This makes it different than the US exactly how? The same is
> true of the rest of the world, incidentially--genes move
> around a lot, and gene frequencies change for that and other
> reasons.

They have no ancient claim to that land. It's not different
from the US, but then again, most americans don't claim such
a claim to this land.

> Everyone should have the right to live where they are born
> and raised, I think.

I agree.

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗Afmmjr@...

Dear Carl,

Have you not heard of the different mini-wars in India? How about the Naga who fight for their rights? How about the deadly exchanges in Assam? There really are many others? Don't these count?

Johnny

p.s. could you expound on why Germany does not bear primary responsibility for the movement of Jewish genes back to their point of origin in Israel?

p.s. And Gene, if you are reading, these results have been published. Maybe you heard that 40% of Ashkenazi Jews can be traced to a single mother in Italy, who originally came from the Middle East.

-----Original Message-----
From: Carl Lumma <clumma@...>
To: metatuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 08:48:11 -0000
Subject: [metatuning] Re: One bright light

Ok, I realized I shouldn't have said legitimate. Howabout
this instead: India is a less contested area. Where there
is contest, there are doubts. (Speaking *very* generally,
here.)

-Carl

Meta Tuning meta-info:

To unsubscribe, send an email to:
metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/

To post to the list, send to
metatuning@yahoogroups.com

You don't have to be a member to post.

Yahoo! Groups Links

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗stephenszpak <stephen_szpak@...>

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 3/15/2006 6:16:11 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> stephen_szpak@... writes:
> Ah, but I am a secular human being. Muslims must listen.
>
> ++++++++++++Sorry, I can't understand your thoughts here.
>
> -Stephen
>
> This discussion has nothing to do with whether a Muslim is
involved or not.
> It has to do with people. Since the good doctor was a Muslim, she
has the
> needed tools for expressing herself. Her transformation is
completely reasonable
> based on her explanations. The Muslim world must confront
personal
> testaments such as her's. IMO, Johnny
>
++++++++++++++++Johnny

I understand what you're saying now.

You say:

"The Muslim world must confront personal
testaments such as her's."

From your link:

The other guest on the program, identified as an Egyptian
professor of religious studies, Dr. Ibrahim al-Khouli, asked,

"Are you a heretic?" He then said there was no point in rebuking or
debating her, because she had blasphemed against Islam, the Prophet
Muhammad and the Koran.

Apparently this guy is a doctor (that is, educated) and he
wouldn't even talk to her.

-Stephen

🔗Afmmjr@...

Hi Stephen,

It would seem that the set of people the Egyptian Religious Professor represents finds itself on an island, if indeed a vast one. I would say that if they won't confront her then they lost credibility and will appear self-serving.

Johnny

-----Original Message-----
From: stephenszpak <stephen_szpak@...>
To: metatuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 18:04:50 -0000
Subject: [metatuning] Re: One bright light

I understand what you're saying now.

You say:

"The Muslim world must confront personal
testaments such as her's."

From your link:

The other guest on the program, identified as an Egyptian
professor of religious studies, Dr. Ibrahim al-Khouli, asked,

"Are you a heretic?" He then said there was no point in rebuking or
debating her, because she had blasphemed against Islam, the Prophet
Muhammad and the Koran.

Apparently this guy is a doctor (that is, educated) and he
wouldn't even talk to her.

-Stephen

Meta Tuning meta-info:

To unsubscribe, send an email to:
metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/

To post to the list, send to
metatuning@yahoogroups.com

You don't have to be a member to post.

Yahoo! Groups Links

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗stephenszpak <stephen_szpak@...>

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@...> wrote:
>
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@> wrote:
>
> > We have nukes, and we've used them.
>
>
> And in fact, the USA is the only country in history
> which has ever *used* nuclear weapons against an enemy.

Hi Monz

The reason why Japan had to be nuked is because a invasion
of Japan would have cost 1,000,000 American dead and wounded
by, what I believe, were reasonable estimates. Even with this,
the nulcear attack
was done with some reservation by the Truman administration.

Al-Qeada wouldn't hesitate. I believe Putin (Russia) said
once "We are like dust to them." , referring to Muslim
terrorists and how they view the West (and Israel).

-Stephen

🔗stephenszpak <stephen_szpak@...>

>
> I'm not sure when in history the land now marked as Israel
> was occupied exclusively by jews, but its current iteration
> is very recent, right?

Carl

Contract made about 2000 B.C. or so.

Genesis Chapter 15

On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying,
"To your descendants I have given this land,
From the river of Egypt as far as the great river,
the river Euphrates.

As far as taking possession of the land that is now
commonly called Israel, one could look at a map of
what was Israel around 1000 to 925 B.C. (the Kingdom
of Solomon).

What I found today (the above seems right). I'm no
Bible scholar.

> The successful defense of Israeli territory adds to its
> legitimacy in my eyes, while the settlement of the occupied
> Palestinian area detracts from it.

Israel doesn't occupy Palestinian land. The West Bank
is sometimes called 'occupied' by most media outlets.
They've already become biased on this subject. They have
tacitly stated that they believe Israel (one of the smallest
countries, and surrounded by millions of Arabs that hate
them) is too large.

-Stephen

🔗stephenszpak <stephen_szpak@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

> p.s. could you expound on why Germany does not bear primary
> responsibility for the movement of Jewish genes back to their
> point of origin in Israel?

They certainly aren't taking responsibility for it, if that's
what you mean. I mean, they are indirectly responsible.
But they shouldn't be held responsible.

Perhaps you are in favor of monetary reparations to black
Americans, as suggested by Charles Krauthammer and others?

> p.s. And Gene, if you are reading, these results have been
> published. Maybe you heard that 40% of Ashkenazi Jews can be
> traced to a single mother in Italy, who originally came from
> the Middle East.

Ashkenazi Jews make up roughly half of the Israeli population.
They can are of semitic descent, but are a product of serious
European breeding. They have no genetic claim to the area
in my view.

-C.

🔗Dante Rosati <dante@...>

🔗Afmmjr@...

Carl, have you ever been to Germany? As far as I can tell, the German have indeed taken responsibility. They have taken responsibility in a way no nation ever has for a great magnitude of a tragedy. Truly they acknowledge they are culpable, at least the NAZI's were. Do you (dare I ask) deny the Holocaust?

Besides no one is making a genetic claim. And this is no time to bring up reperations for American Blacks. I bring up a world responsibility for an endagered people just I would for an endagered animal. Hell, support of microtonal music in all its systems and approaches, itself, is analogous. Otherwise, it dies, culture fails, and we all suffer, or go extinct. My respect goes to the living, and to the oldest among us. Guess we're different that way.

Johnny

-----Original Message-----
From: Carl Lumma <clumma@...>
To: metatuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 21:46:04 -0000
Subject: [metatuning] Re: One bright light

> p.s. could you expound on why Germany does not bear primary
> responsibility for the movement of Jewish genes back to their
> point of origin in Israel?

They certainly aren't taking responsibility for it, if that's
what you mean. I mean, they are indirectly responsible.
But they shouldn't be held responsible.

Perhaps you are in favor of monetary reparations to black
Americans, as suggested by Charles Krauthammer and others?

Ashkenazi Jews make up roughly half of the Israeli population.
They can are of semitic descent, but are a product of serious
European breeding. They have no genetic claim to the area
in my view.

-C.

Meta Tuning meta-info:

To unsubscribe, send an email to:
metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/

To post to the list, send to
metatuning@yahoogroups.com

You don't have to be a member to post.

Yahoo! Groups Links

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

> > I'm not sure when in history the land now marked as Israel
> > was occupied exclusively by jews, but its current iteration
> > is very recent, right?
>
> Contract made about 2000 B.C. or so.
>
> Genesis Chapter 15
>
> On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying,
> "To your descendants I have given this land,
> From the river of Egypt as far as the great river,
> the river Euphrates.
>
> As far as taking possession of the land that is now
> commonly called Israel, one could look at a map of
> what was Israel around 1000 to 925 B.C. (the Kingdom
> of Solomon).
>
> What I found today (the above seems right). I'm no
> Bible scholar.

Hey, this is amazing. I've got a contract right here that
says I own all your stuff. Apparently, my god, whose name
is FlyingRubberChicken, says he created it for me, not you.

> > The successful defense of Israeli territory adds to its
> > legitimacy in my eyes, while the settlement of the occupied
> > Palestinian area detracts from it.
>
> Israel doesn't occupy Palestinian land. The West Bank
> is sometimes called 'occupied' by most media outlets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_territories

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@...>

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@... wrote:

> p.s. And Gene, if you are reading, these results have been
published. Maybe you heard that 40% of Ashkenazi Jews can be traced
to a single mother in Italy, who originally came from the Middle East.

Ashkenzi Jews have DNA which is significantly related to Eastern
Mediterranian populations, including Palestinians. That is not the
only genetic element; there is also a significant admixture of
European genes, and while the theory that Ashkenazi Jews are really
Khazars by ancestry turns out to be baloney, there seems to be a
little of that also.

What I have heard is not that the mitochondrial DNA was more Middle
Eastern, but just the opposite: that it showed a clear admixture with
European populations, but the Y chromosome of paternal descent was
srongly Middle Eastern.

None of which is in the slightest degree relevant to the question of
the status of Israel.

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗stephenszpak <stephen_szpak@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗stephenszpak <stephen_szpak@...>

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...> wrote:
>
> > > But for you, Isreal just isn't a staunch ally, it's the
> > > holy land. Isn't it?
> >
> > It is for me and millions like me. Is your question
> > suggesting something?
>
> Why do you care if muslims take over Israel? Not for the
> reasons you said. You specifically don't want it to fall
> to Islam: true or false?

++++++I'm really not sure what you are saying by the above
comment. I don't want Israel to fall by the military
power of a Arab nation. As far as I know all the Arab
nations anywhere near Israel are predominantly Muslim.

>
> If it were truly holy, it wouldn't matter who lived there.

+++ If my sister was truly a virgin, it wouldn't matter who
forced himself on her????

-Stephen

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

> > > > But for you, Isreal just isn't a staunch ally, it's the
> > > > holy land. Isn't it?
> > >
> > > It is for me and millions like me. Is your question
> > > suggesting something?
> >
> > Why do you care if muslims take over Israel? Not for the
> > reasons you said. You specifically don't want it to fall
> > to Islam: true or false?
>
> ++++++I'm really not sure what you are saying by the above
> comment. I don't want Israel to fall by the military
> power of a Arab nation. As far as I know all the Arab
> nations anywhere near Israel are predominantly Muslim.
>
> > If it were truly holy, it wouldn't matter who lived there.
>
> +++ If my sister was truly a virgin, it wouldn't matter who
> forced himself on her????

I don't want to see Israel taken over either, but:

1. I think they can and should take care of that themselves.
2. Your proposed solution of bombing Iran is really terrible.

-C.

🔗stephenszpak <stephen_szpak@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗stephenszpak <stephen_szpak@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

> You support Israel bombing Iran? Thousand of Iranians
> are going to die. Are you just indifferent to what Israel
> does to Iran or Iran to Israel?

I support them doing it before us. I don't think conditions
for bombing Iran have obtained, but I could be wrong.

When you get a threat from a madman, it's best to ignore it.
A threat from a madman who's the leader of a country, it is
probably appropriate to make a counter-threat. Hopefully
Israel has put Iran on notice.

Nuclear arms do add a wrinkle because an attacker, if they
really knew what they were doing, could wipe a country out
before it could defense itself. But a country like Israel,
that won't even admit it has nukes, can hardly expect Iran
to agree not to develop them. If Iran did have them -- and
ALL countries should be forced to submit to UN inspections
on that point -- AND threatened a first strike, then they
should most definitely be bombed, hopefully by the country
they threatened, or if that country were willing but unable,
then by the US.

What Israel definitely should do is get its settlers out of
the West Bank immediately. It should fund the relocation
of each and every settler there back inside its internationally
agreed-upon borders or the US (I'd be happy to have them);
their choice. Then, if not strategically suicidal, withdraw
its military from the area gradually. Then, the next bomb
that goes off in an Israeli restaurant, the nation through
which the responsible persons are believed to have entered
Israel should be burned to the ground.

In such a situation Israel has every right to expect peace
and security. And as for being squeezed out by Arabs, not a
worry. In the next 50 years or so, the Arab world will accept
cooperation with the West one way or the other (either before
or after destroying itself).

-Carl

🔗stephenszpak <stephen_szpak@...>

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...> wrote:
>
> > "To your descendants I have given this land,
> > From the river of Egypt as far as the great river,
> > the river Euphrates.
>
> Everything from the Nile to the Euphrates, eh? That's
> quite a bit more than Israel today.

+++++ I must say that until today I thought the
'river of Egypt' was the Nile. It might be
and seems to be a much smaller river in the
Sinai Peninsula.

>
> > As far as taking possession of the land that is now
> > commonly called Israel, one could look at a map of
> > what was Israel around 1000 to 925 B.C. (the Kingdom
> > of Solomon).
>
> Exactly what relationship is there supposed to be
> between the Kingdom of Solomon and modern-day Israel?

++++++++ This is regarding:

/metatuning/topicId_10490.html#10525

Where you ask:

""I'm not sure when in history the land now marked as Israel
was occupied exclusively by jews, but its current iteration
is very recent, right?""

This map:

http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/solkingd.htm

is similar to the one in the back of my Bible.
At any rate it includes modern day Israel and much
more (this was in about 1000 B.C.). The Kingdom of Solomon
was Israel at the peak of its power.

-Stephen

🔗stephenszpak <stephen_szpak@...>

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...> wrote:
>
> > > I'm not sure when in history the land now marked as Israel
> > > was occupied exclusively by jews...

> > Contract made about 2000 B.C. or so.
> >
> > Genesis Chapter 15
> >
> > On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying,
> > "To your descendants I have given this land..."
> > >
> Hey, this is amazing. I've got a contract right here that
> says I own all your stuff. Apparently, my god, whose name
> is FlyingRubberChicken, says he created it for me, not you.

++++++++ I think it's better to be straight with you and
to show you why I believe what I believe. I can't
make you believe the scriptures. Not my job.

>
> > > The successful defense of Israeli territory adds to its
> > > legitimacy in my eyes, while the settlement of the occupied
> > > Palestinian area detracts from it.
> >
> > Israel doesn't occupy Palestinian land. The West Bank
> > is sometimes called 'occupied' by most media outlets.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_territories

++++++++++++++++ From your link:

Because nearly all Palestinians (along with the bulk of the nations
in the United Nations) consider these territories to be under
occupation, they frequently refer to them as the occupied
Palestinian territories, or, simply, Occupied Territories.

This term is seen by supporters of Israel as connoting much more
than a definition, but a host of related propositions that amount to
a preventive political argument about the disposition and status of
the land:

that these territories are under the military control of a nation
that does not have sovereignty over them;
that the nation in control of these territories, i.e., Israel, is
thus obliged (as a matter of right as well as by international law)
to return these territories to their rightful owners; and
that these territories belong by right to the Palestinians, i.e.,
the stateless indigenous Arabs of Palestine.

The United Nations can say what it wants. At least I read
some of your link Carl.

Stephen

🔗Afmmjr@...

Gene: As to their genetic distinctions, have you seen data that says the
Dalits are of the same DNA as the Brahmins?

JR: It is still not clear whether you have actually seen any DNA data on the Dalits and other Indians. You do realize that the Vedas and Great Andamanese are genetically different. Regardless, it is only more uniform as a result of rape, itself a form of warfare.

-----Original Message-----
From: Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@...>
To: metatuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 03:13:20 -0000
Subject: [metatuning] Re: One bright light

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@... wrote:

> I have been reading Dalit sites on the Internet. They claim to be
1/4 of the population.

Perhaps, but other sources say 1/6.

As to their genetic distinctions, have you seen data that says the
Dalits are of the same DNA as the Brahmins?

So, Brahmins and Kshatriya are a little different, but not greatly.
The other castes, not very much at all.

> On the other hand, Jews in Israel share the same DNA as the
Palestinian Arabs. Even Israelis from far-flung places show middle
eastern origins.

There are similarities, but it isn't the same. If you count it as the
same, you certainly will need to count Dalits as the same as other
Indians, especially the lower-caste ones.

Meta Tuning meta-info:

To unsubscribe, send an email to:
metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/

To post to the list, send to
metatuning@yahoogroups.com

You don't have to be a member to post.

Yahoo! Groups Links

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗stephenszpak <stephen_szpak@...>

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...> wrote:
>
> > You support Israel bombing Iran? Thousand of Iranians
> > are going to die. Are you just indifferent to what Israel
> > does to Iran or Iran to Israel?
>
> I support them doing it before us. I don't think conditions
> for bombing Iran have obtained, but I could be wrong.

++++++++ You already have my opinion on this.
>
> When you get a threat from a madman, it's best to ignore it.
> A threat from a madman who's the leader of a country, it is
> probably appropriate to make a counter-threat. Hopefully
> Israel has put Iran on notice.

++++++++ Iran should expect Israel to defend herself.
I'm sure they are familiar with the destruction
of the Osirak reactor in Iraq. (Something widely
condemned by the international communnity.)

Basic info. No need to click on it really:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osiraq

>
> Nuclear arms do add a wrinkle because an attacker, if they
> really knew what they were doing, could wipe a country out
> before it could defense itself. But a country like Israel,
> that won't even admit it has nukes, can hardly expect Iran
> to agree not to develop them.

+++ Iran, sitting on a ocean of oil with which to make
electricity, has always said it would never make nulcear
bombs. (What a joke!)

+++ Israel has never used nuclear bombs.

If Iran did have them -- and
> ALL countries should be forced to submit to UN inspections
> on that point -- AND threatened a first strike, then they
> should most definitely be bombed, hopefully by the country
> they threatened, or if that country were willing but unable,
> then by the US.

+++ If Iran says it has nulcear bombs then it's too late.
If Iran says it doesn't have nuclear bombs and DOES
it is also too late.
If we begin to bomb them then, they would retaliate
hitting Israel (possibly Iraq, Turkey, Kuwait, Saudi
Arabia as well).

>
> What Israel definitely should do is get its settlers out of
> the West Bank immediately. It should fund the relocation
> of each and every settler there back inside its internationally
> agreed-upon borders or the US (I'd be happy to have them);
> their choice. Then, if not strategically suicidal, withdraw
> its military from the area gradually.

+++ If Israel leaves the West Bank entirely the map is here:

http://www.geocities.com/gemiio/Map_Israel_politics.html

+++ There is no way such a border could be defended.
Israel could be crossed by foot soldiers in about
one hour at the narrowest point (about 9 miles) cutting
northern and southern Israel in two.

Then, the next bomb
> that goes off in an Israeli restaurant, the nation through
> which the responsible persons are believed to have entered
> Israel should be burned to the ground.

+++ If the attack is carried out by Al-Qaeda with Muslims
that are all U.S. citizens (or British or French or
or or or or etc.) I think that would be a problem.

> In such a situation Israel has every right to expect peace
> and security. And as for being squeezed out by Arabs, not a
> worry. In the next 50 years or so, the Arab world will accept
> cooperation with the West one way or the other (either before
> or after destroying itself).

+++ You certainly seem optimistic regarding Israel. As far as
the next 50 years go...I think the average Israeli citizen
is feeling trepidation looking forward just 50 months (or
even this year and the next).

-Stephen

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@...>

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@... wrote:
>
> Gene: As to their genetic distinctions, have you seen data that says the
> Dalits are of the same DNA as the Brahmins?

"Of the same DNA" is pretty much meaningless in general, because there
are many genes, which vary from one population to another in terms of
frequency. Nor did I say the genetic mix of Dalits was the same as
Brahmans, in fact, I said the opposite. However, in the case of
mitochondrial or Y chromosome DNA, each inherited from only one
parent, "of the DNA" makes a little more sense.

> JR: It is still not clear whether you have actually seen any DNA
data on the Dalits and other Indians.

Check this out:

http://jorde-lab.genetics.utah.edu/elibrary/Bamshad_2001a.pdf

By looking at the Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA, it is clear the
upper castes are more European-like, or West Eurasian as this paper
puts it, than the lower castes. However, this study did not consider
the Dalits, though some tribal populations were examined, which is
unfortunate. The article below refers to them by the term "non-caste
tribes", and their relation to the rest of the population of India is
clear and strong.

http://www.tamilnation.org/caste/dna.pdf

>You do realize that the Vedas and Great Andamanese are genetically
different.

What's the relevance of that?

> Regardless, it is only more uniform as a result of rape, itself a
form of warfare.

If that were true it would be flagged by a high proportion of European
Y chromosomes, but I don't see any evidence for that.

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

> > Then, the next bomb
> > that goes off in an Israeli restaurant, the nation through
> > which the responsible persons are believed to have entered
> > Israel should be burned to the ground.
>
> +++ If the attack is carried out by Al-Qaeda with Muslims
> that are all U.S. citizens (or British or French or
> or or or or etc.) I think that would be a problem.

What's the evidence there is any "Al-Qaeda" activity in
the US or Britain or France?

There are generic muslim fundamentalists in those countries,
perhaps even calling themselves "Al Qaeda", so your point
stands.

I also realized my proposal would incentivize radicals in
neighboring countries wanting to start a big war. So
much for armchair politics.

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

> that the nation in control of these territories, i.e., Israel,
> is thus obliged (as a matter of right as well as by
> international law) to return these territories to their
> rightful owners; and
>
> that these territories belong by right to the Palestinians,
> i.e., the stateless indigenous Arabs of Palestine.

I don't believe these things. The issue here is settlement
without the proper statement of intention.

> The United Nations can say what it wants. At least I read
> some of your link Carl.

Was the West bank was part of Israel when it was created?
Did or did not the area come under Israeli control through
military action?
Has Israel formally announced its intentions to annex the
region?
Didn't Israel sign numerous agreements recognizing
Palestinian authority to various degrees?

-Carl

🔗stephenszpak <stephen_szpak@...>

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...> wrote:
>
> > that the nation in control of these territories, i.e., Israel,
> > is thus obliged (as a matter of right as well as by
> > international law) to return these territories to their
> > rightful owners; and
> >
> > that these territories belong by right to the Palestinians,
> > i.e., the stateless indigenous Arabs of Palestine.
>
> I don't believe these things. The issue here is settlement
> without the proper statement of intention.
>
> >

>
> Was the West bank was part of Israel when it was created?
> Did or did not the area come under Israeli control through
> military action?
> Has Israel formally announced its intentions to annex the
> region?
> Didn't Israel sign numerous agreements recognizing
> Palestinian authority to various degrees?
>
+++ It's past 1 AM so I'm getting tired. I'd like to see
Israel's borders be the way they used to be (around 1000 B.C).
It's not like the Arabs have no place to call home.

I don't see any big push in this country to give Texas back
to Mexico.

Signing off,

Stephen

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

> Carl, have you ever been to Germany?

Munich, Berlin (East and West, before reunification), Leipzig,
Dresden, and a few small towns here and there.

>They have taken responsibility in a way no nation ever has
>for a great magnitude of a tragedy.

How have they done this?

>Truly they acknowledge they are culpable,

They acknowledge, yes of course.

>Do you (dare I ask) deny the Holocaust?

I don't think so!

>I bring up a world responsibility for an endagered people
>just I would for an endagered animal.

I don't think the Jewish people are endangered.

-Carl

🔗Afmmjr@...

Dear Carl,

Thanks for your response(s). It must seem a strange thing to imagine that someone (e.g., an American Jew) could have such a different experience in Germany. I have been to all the cities you mentioned, and some more, often treated as a kind of prodigal son. (it can be embarrassing)

I remember the concentration camp visit outside Dresden. Reading the commentary and seeing how the Germans dealt with this dark inheritance, I found myself somewhat "assured" that they recognized their responsibility to own up to the horrors. Austria, on the contrary, has not. Nor for that matter has Japan as regards China.

I stayed one week with the head librarian of the famous library of Wolfenbuttal while doing research on Bach. My friend would recount his crying with visitors on all his trips to neighboring countries. My esteemed friend would point out which houses had formerly been Jewish and indicated their subsequent histories (to NAZI's, to something else again). The only time we disagreed was when he argued loudly that the German destruction in the Holocaust was unique in the world. I feel that there have been other Holocausts and that the term is best not reserved for a single group of people. He believed that the technololgical power, such as through gas chambers, transport, IBM sponsored bar code checking of prisoners, etc., earned Germany special recognition. Germany has paid lots of money in compensation to Israel.

As for Jewish endangerment, I was referring to World War II. Would you agree Jews were endangered then?

Johnny

-----Original Message-----
From: Carl Lumma <clumma@...>
To: metatuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 00:11:54 -0000
Subject: [metatuning] Re: One bright light

> Carl, have you ever been to Germany?

Munich, Berlin (East and West, before reunification), Leipzig,
Dresden, and a few small towns here and there.

>They have taken responsibility in a way no nation ever has
>for a great magnitude of a tragedy.

How have they done this?

>Truly they acknowledge they are culpable,

They acknowledge, yes of course.

>Do you (dare I ask) deny the Holocaust?

I don't think so!

>I bring up a world responsibility for an endagered people
>just I would for an endagered animal.

I don't think the Jewish people are endangered.

-Carl

Meta Tuning meta-info:

To unsubscribe, send an email to:
metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/

To post to the list, send to
metatuning@yahoogroups.com

You don't have to be a member to post.

Yahoo! Groups Links

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@... wrote:
>
> Dear Carl,
>
> Thanks for your response(s). It must seem a strange thing to
> imagine that someone (e.g., an American Jew) could have such a
> different experience in Germany. I have been to all the cities
> you mentioned, and some more, often treated as a kind of
> prodigal son. (it can be embarrassing)

I mean, what are they doing to make up for it? I said they're
sorry for it, why do you seem to be claiming I said otherwise?

>Germany has paid lots of money in compensation to Israel.

Aha.

> As for Jewish endangerment, I was referring to World War II.
> Would you agree Jews were endangered then?

Yes.

-Carl

🔗Afmmjr@...

Carl, lets sharpen our powers of examination; it is certainly vital for our work with microtonality. Could you compare the proportions of Jews in Iran to the 1/5th of the population of non-Jews in Israel? How many Jews are there, not counting your friend that left?

Also, there were likely more Jews in pre-Israel for the last millennia than there are now in Iran. Besides why are we even talking about Iran (because you surely consider Iran fully legitimate)? You had stated that Israel was less legitimate than India, but you have not been able to designate any other country as less legitimate than India.

I do agree that people should have a "right to live where they were born and raised."

Johnny

-----Original Message-----
From: Carl Lumma <clumma@...>
To: metatuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 05:33:22 -0000
Subject: [metatuning] Re: One bright light

They're the majority. Let's not forget, there are jews in
Iran. A friend of mine was born there (ok, I'll grant you,
he moved).

They have no ancient claim to that land. It's not different
from the US, but then again, most americans don't claim such
a claim to this land.

> Everyone should have the right to live where they are born
> and raised, I think.

I agree.

-Carl

Meta Tuning meta-info:

To unsubscribe, send an email to:
metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/

To post to the list, send to
metatuning@yahoogroups.com

You don't have to be a member to post.

Yahoo! Groups Links

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗stephenszpak <stephen_szpak@...>

They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me,
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

--Pastor Martin Niemöller

I came across this today. I always wondered who said it.

full text at bottom

From wikipedia:

He is most known for a single quotation "First they came..." a
warning about the consequences of not opposing tyranny at the first
instances of its rising.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Niem%C3%B6ller

They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

--Pastor Martin Niemöller

-Stephen

🔗stephenszpak <stephen_szpak@...>

I came across this site yesterday. I'm not saying it
is the best but I think it's neat.

Want to see something
about the Hamas Charter, it's here.

Excerpt:

http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will
obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."

Want a one hour history lesson? (Like, how come Israel is
in the West Bank anyway?)

http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm

This is a lot here. I've read very little but it looks like
a place to start for any interested in Israel, recent history,
the region, the players, etc.

The site map is here. I think it's better than the home page:

http://www.mideastweb.org/sitemap.htm

-Stephen

🔗monz <monz@...>

Hi Stephen,

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "stephenszpak" <stephen_szpak@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@> wrote:
> >
> > > We have nukes, and we've used them.
> >
> >
> > And in fact, the USA is the only country in history
> > which has ever *used* nuclear weapons against an enemy.
>
> Hi Monz
>
> The reason why Japan had to be nuked is because a invasion
> of Japan would have cost 1,000,000 American dead and wounded
> by, what I believe, were reasonable estimates. Even with
> this, the nulcear attack was done with some reservation
> by the Truman administration.

You say "Japan had to be nuked", and i'm guessing that
it was just a bad choice of words on your part. As the
"reservation by the Truman administration" makes clear,
the nuking of Japan was a *decision* and not a necessity.

My real point is that the USA only has the authority
to decide which world powers can and can't have nukes
*because* it is the only country which has ever used them!

-monz

🔗stephenszpak <stephen_szpak@...>

> > Hi Monz
> >
> > The reason why Japan had to be nuked is because a invasion
> > of Japan would have cost 1,000,000 American dead and wounded
> > by, what I believe, were reasonable estimates. Even with
> > this, the nulcear attack was done with some reservation
> > by the Truman administration.
>
>
>
> You say "Japan had to be nuked", and i'm guessing that
> it was just a bad choice of words on your part. As the
> "reservation by the Truman administration" makes clear,
> the nuking of Japan was a *decision* and not a necessity.

+++ America was at war then (now too). It was a
necessary decision.

>
> My real point is that the USA only has the authority
> to decide which world powers can and can't have nukes
> *because* it is the only country which has ever used them!

+++ I've never thought of it that way.
Is al-Qaeda a world power?

-Stephen

🔗Jon Szanto <jszanto@...>

🔗J.Smith <jsmith9624@...>

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <jszanto@...> wrote:
>
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "stephenszpak" <stephen_szpak@>
> wrote:
> > It was a necessary decision.
>
> That is disgusting. To unleash a nuclear holocaust, not once but
> twice, on a civilian (not military) populace shows how low the
human
> race can sink. And even as this is still within our collective
memory,
> we have the bald hypocrisy of attempting to deny other
> countries/governments these weapons while still maintaining ours.
>
> This is civilization? This is the best that we can do? Disgusting.
>
> Jon
>

That's the point, Jon. It's NOT civilized; nor are any civilized,
who endorse the use of nuclear holocaust on human beings -- be their
reasoning military or religious. Hypocrisy and self-deceit are their
true gods; and when those evil beasts dwell in the soul unchecked,
MURDER dwells there also.

jlsmith

🔗stephenszpak <stephen_szpak@...>

If Japan had nulcear ICBMs then, they would have used
them. There would be no San Diego. Sending U.S. ground
forces to take Japan would have resulted in 1,000,000
dead and wounded on our side alone (just a estimate,
but I think it is true enough).

Maybe Japan should have surrendered sooner.

8/6/45: Excerpt from public statement by President Truman. This was
the first time he publicly gave a reason for using the atomic bomb
on Japan:

"The Japanese began the war from the air at Pearl Harbor. They have
been repaid many fold.

"If they do not now accept our terms they may expect a rain of ruin
from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth."
(Public Papers of the Presidents, Harry S. Truman, 1945, pg. 197,
199).

8/9/45: Excerpt from public statement by President Truman. This was
the second time he had publicly given reasons for using the atomic
bomb on Japan:

"The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on
Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first
attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians. But
that attack is only a warning of things to come. If Japan does not
surrender, bombs will have to be dropped on her war industries and,
unfortunately, thousands of civilian lives will be lost.

"Having found the bomb we have used it. We have used it against
those who attacked us without warning at Pearl Harbor, against those
who have starved and beaten and executed American prisoners of war,
against those who have abandoned all pretense of obeying
international laws of warfare. We have used it in order to shorten
the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and
thousands of young Americans.

"We shall continue to use it until we completely destroy Japan's
power to make war. Only a Japanese surrender will stop us." (Public
Papers of the Presidents, Harry S. Truman, 1945, pg. 212).

[Even before Hiroshima was a-bombed, hundreds of thousands of
civilians had been killed in the conventional bombings of over 60 of
Japan's largest cities (Michael Sherry, "The Rise of American Air
Power", pg. 314-315, and pg. 413, note 43). Was President Truman
unaware that Hiroshima was primarily a city of civilians and that
they would be the a-bomb's main victims? Note his reason (8/10/45
below) for halting the atomic bombings.]

http://www.doug-long.com/hst.htm

-Stephen

🔗Jon Szanto <jszanto@...>

Stephen,

Your reasonings do absolutely nothing to change my thoughts.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "stephenszpak" <stephen_szpak@...>
wrote:
> If Japan had nulcear ICBMs then, they would have used them.

They didn't, and you don't know that. Fantasy and speculation.

> Sending U.S. ground forces to take Japan would have resulted in
1,000,000 dead and wounded on our side alone (just a estimate, but I
think it is true enough).

Meaningless. Who said that was the only other strategy? How on Eartch
could one come up with that casualty figure? It seems like an absurd
number grasped from the air.

> Maybe Japan should have surrendered sooner.

Sure would have been nice.

> "The Japanese began the war from the air at Pearl Harbor. They have
> been repaid many fold.

I'm sure that is great consolation to the thousand of civilians that
died, that Truman was so eloquent.

> "If they do not now accept our terms they may expect a rain of ruin
> from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth."
> (Public Papers of the Presidents, Harry S. Truman, 1945, pg. 197,
> 199).

Even if - Even IF - it was determined that nuclear destruction was the
one and only option, why not demonstrate a show of force some other
way than bombing cities in Japan?

> "The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on
> Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first
> attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians.

Yeah, like no civilians died there? Or the many bombing raids before
then? Look, I'm not interested in debating this. I find wanton
killing, and the espousal of such for whatever reasoning, to be a
clear example of what a failed species we can be. Killkillkill. I'm
sick of it.

Jon

🔗stephenszpak <stephen_szpak@...>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall

Operation Downfall was the overall Allied plan for the invasion of
Japan...Following the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and
the Soviet declaration of war against Japan, Japan surrendered and
the operation was cancelled.

Japan's capabilities then:

Ground threat

Through April, May, and June, Allied intelligence followed the
buildup of Japanese ground forces, including five divisions added to
Kyushu, with great interest but some complacency, still projecting
that in November the total for Kyushu would be about 350,000
servicemen. That changed in July, with the discovery of four new
divisions and indications of more to come. By August, the count was
up to 600,000, and Magic had identified nine divisions in southern
Kyushuthree times the expected number; and in fact this was still a
serious underestimate of Japanese strength;

Estimated casualties for Downfall

Given the Japanese predilection for fanatical resistance, the fact
that Japanese civilians were being encouraged to become suicide
attackers, and the large number of Japanese troops to be faced, high
casualties were seen to be inevitable, but nobody knew with
certainty how high.

In a study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April, the figures
of 7.45 casualties/1000 man-days and 1.78 fatalities/1000 man-days
were developed. This implied that a 90-day Olympic campaign would
cost 456,000 casualties, including 109,000 dead or missing. If
Coronet took another 90 days, the combined cost would be 1,200,000
casualties, with 267,000 fatalities.

A study done by Adm. Nimitz's staff in May estimated 49,000
casualties in the first 30 days, including 5,000 at sea. A study
done by Gen. MacArthur's staff in June estimated 23,000 in the first
30 days and 125,000 after 120 days. When these figures were
questioned by Gen. Marshall, MacArthur submitted a revised estimate
of 105,000, in part by deducting wounded men able to return to duty.

A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William
Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.74 million
American casualties, including 400,000800,000 fatalities, and five
to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-
scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan.

For context, the Battle of Normandy had cost 63,000 casualties in
the first 48 days. The Battle of Okinawa caused 72,000 casualties,
of whom 18,900 were killed or missing over about 82 days . Several
thousand soldiers who died indirectly whether because of wounds or
other causes at a later date are not included.

Nearly 500,000 Purple Heart medals were manufactured in anticipation
of the casualties resulting from the invasion of Japan. As of 2005,
all the American military casualties of the following sixty years
including the Korean and Vietnam Warshave not exhausted that
stockpile.

(Things should get quiet now, heading out for a few days.)

-Stephen

🔗Jon Szanto <jszanto@...>

🔗J.Smith <jsmith9624@...>

🔗Pete McRae <peteysan@...>

http://www.muslim-refusenik.com/index.html

Afmmjr@... wrote: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/13/america/web.0313sultan.php

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Meta Tuning meta-info:

To unsubscribe, send an email to:
metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/

To post to the list, send to
metatuning@yahoogroups.com

You don't have to be a member to post.

Yahoo! Groups Links

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗Afmmjr@...

You are most welcome. Carl.

Johnny

p.s. thanks Gene for the info on India (still to be read)

-----Original Message-----
From: Carl Lumma <clumma@...>
To: metatuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 05:27:11 -0000
Subject: [metatuning] Re: One bright light

Let me just say that I appreciate your thoughts and our
discussion on this, Johnny, and I'll be giving it further
thought in the coming months.

-Carl

Meta Tuning meta-info:

To unsubscribe, send an email to:
metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/

To post to the list, send to
metatuning@yahoogroups.com

You don't have to be a member to post.

Yahoo! Groups Links

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗monz <monz@...>

Hi Jon and Stephen,

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <jszanto@...> wrote:

> > Sending U.S. ground forces to take Japan would have
> > resulted in 1,000,000 dead and wounded on our side alone
> > (just a estimate, but I think it is true enough).
>
> Meaningless. Who said that was the only other strategy?
> How on Eartch could one come up with that casualty figure?
> It seems like an absurd number grasped from the air.

I did a whole bunch of reading about the atomic bombs
dropped on Japan about a month ago. I remember reading
somewhere that same estimate of about 1 million casualties
in a ground-based attack on Japan.

> ... I find wanton killing, and the espousal of such
> for whatever reasoning, to be a clear example of what
> a failed species we can be. Killkillkill. I'm sick of it.

What an amazing coincidence -- just before i read this
post, i was going to respond to your previous one by
mentioning something my father said when i was a kid,
which i never forgot: he reasoned that because of the
continued existence of warfare, human beings are a
failure as a species. His exact words.

I'm just a bit more optimistic than him -- just because
either a majority of humans or the minority in power
keep causing and promoting war, it doesn't mean that
as a species we are a failure. At least, i keep suspecting
(or at the *very* least, hoping) that the more enlightened
among us will eventually win out.

-monz

🔗stephenszpak <stephen_szpak@...>

>
>
> Does that make it OK? Is some report - which, heaven's knows, can
be
> spun however one wants to spin - a really nice, tidy justification
for
> absolute incineration of tens of thousands of people?
>
> Jon
>

+++++++++++ Jon

In a study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff...

A study done by Adm. Nimitz's staff...

A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff...

Outside the government, well-informed civilians were also making
guesses. Kyle Palmer, war correspondent for the Los Angeles Times,
said...

The Battle of Okinawa caused 72,000 casualties, of whom 18,900 were
killed or missing over about 82 days . Several thousand soldiers who
died indirectly whether because of wounds or other causes at a later
date are not included.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall

-Stephen

🔗stephenszpak <stephen_szpak@...>

>>
> What an amazing coincidence -- just before i read this
> post, i was going to respond to your previous one by
> mentioning something my father said when i was a kid,
> which i never forgot: he reasoned that because of the
> continued existence of warfare, human beings are a
> failure as a species. His exact words.
>
> I'm just a bit more optimistic than him -- just because
> either a majority of humans or the minority in power
> keep causing and promoting war, it doesn't mean that
> as a species we are a failure. At least, i keep suspecting
> (or at the *very* least, hoping) that the more enlightened
> among us will eventually win out.
>
>
> -monz
>
+++++++++++ Monz

War can be merely a reasonable response to a threat of
slavery.

No one knows the future, but I think this is a logicial
probability, if Iran is allowed nulcear weapons:

********************************************************

Iran continues its nulcear program, saying as always, that
it is for peaceful purposes.

Iran has first successful detonation of a nulcear device
(on its own soil).

Iran announces to the world its is now a nuclear power,
yet says it would never use its nuclear capability to
atttack another nation preemptively. Iran says it will use
its nuclear arsenal only if attacked.

Iran builds nuclear arsenal up to 50 nukes and places
them on its (Shahab-3 (?)) missiles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahab-3

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/shahab-4.htm

Nulcear truck bomb (boat bomb, helicopter bomb) destroys
a port, or city somewhere. Al-Qaeda takes 'credit'.
Al-Qaeda doesn't say where they got the bomb.
Iran strongly denies involvement of any sort and
comdemns the attack.

Al-Qaeda states demands:

1) All those that don't believe the teachings of Mohommad,
and sign a document to that effect, must leave Israel
withing 2 weeks.

2) Any nation that opposes this militarily or via political
pressures will be attacked with a nuke.

Decisions are made by countries around the globe and
statements made by some (most?) world leaders to support
Al-Qaeda's demands. They capitulate, regarding the matter
of Israel, perhaps not realizing they have surrendered
all their own freedoms by doing so. After all why should
Al-Qaeda stop here? The entire world could be a single
Muslim state.

-Stephen

🔗J.Smith <jsmith9624@...>

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "stephenszpak"
<stephen_szpak@...> wrote:
>

> War can be merely a reasonable response to a threat of
> slavery.
>

LOL!

> No one knows the future, but I think this is a logicial
> probability, if Iran is allowed nulcear weapons:
>
> ********************************************************
>
> Iran continues its nulcear program, saying as always, that
> it is for peaceful purposes.
>
> Iran has first successful detonation of a nulcear device
> (on its own soil).
>
> Iran announces to the world its is now a nuclear power,
> yet says it would never use its nuclear capability to
> atttack another nation preemptively. Iran says it will use
> its nuclear arsenal only if attacked.
>
> Iran builds nuclear arsenal up to 50 nukes and places
> them on its (Shahab-3 (?)) missiles.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahab-3
>
> http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/shahab-4.htm
>
> Nulcear truck bomb (boat bomb, helicopter bomb) destroys
> a port, or city somewhere. Al-Qaeda takes 'credit'.
> Al-Qaeda doesn't say where they got the bomb.
> Iran strongly denies involvement of any sort and
> comdemns the attack.
>

LOL!!

> Al-Qaeda states demands:
>
>
> 1) All those that don't believe the teachings of Mohommad,
> and sign a document to that effect, must leave Israel
> withing 2 weeks.
>
> 2) Any nation that opposes this militarily or via political
> pressures will be attacked with a nuke.
>
> Decisions are made by countries around the globe and
> statements made by some (most?) world leaders to support
> Al-Qaeda's demands. They capitulate, regarding the matter
> of Israel, perhaps not realizing they have surrendered
> all their own freedoms by doing so. After all why should
> Al-Qaeda stop here? The entire world could be a single
> Muslim state.

LOL!!!

Yes, and the entire world could be a single "Christian" state as
well....sometime after the various sects sort out theological
differences with cold-blooded MURDER. Fanatic Muslims and fanatic
Christians have that in common, at least.

Unless of course, Jesus comes back in the nick of time to save the
elect from nuclear radiation poisoning......

🔗ambassadorbob <peteysan@...>

Hi kids,

Yup, it's been almost a hundred years since E. D. Morel (for one?)
pointed out that the nature of air war, not to mention "total
war", "war of attrition", etc. IS a war on civilians. Period.
There are no innocents, and no good causes. It's just mass
slaughter, and nobody wins. Not really. In my not-so-humble
opinion, I guess.

One can hope that eventually all these idiots WILL die out. I tend
to think they will, without taking taking too many more of us with
them.

Pete

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Jon and Stephen,
>
>
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <jszanto@> wrote:
>
> > > Sending U.S. ground forces to take Japan would have
> > > resulted in 1,000,000 dead and wounded on our side alone
> > > (just a estimate, but I think it is true enough).
> >
> > Meaningless. Who said that was the only other strategy?
> > How on Eartch could one come up with that casualty figure?
> > It seems like an absurd number grasped from the air.
>
>
> I did a whole bunch of reading about the atomic bombs
> dropped on Japan about a month ago. I remember reading
> somewhere that same estimate of about 1 million casualties
> in a ground-based attack on Japan.
>
> > ... I find wanton killing, and the espousal of such
> > for whatever reasoning, to be a clear example of what
> > a failed species we can be. Killkillkill. I'm sick of it.
>
>
> What an amazing coincidence -- just before i read this
> post, i was going to respond to your previous one by
> mentioning something my father said when i was a kid,
> which i never forgot: he reasoned that because of the
> continued existence of warfare, human beings are a
> failure as a species. His exact words.
>
> I'm just a bit more optimistic than him -- just because
> either a majority of humans or the minority in power
> keep causing and promoting war, it doesn't mean that
> as a species we are a failure. At least, i keep suspecting
> (or at the *very* least, hoping) that the more enlightened
> among us will eventually win out.
>
>
> -monz
>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗stephenszpak <stephen_szpak@...>

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "ambassadorbob" <peteysan@...>
wrote:
>
+++++++++ Pete

Hi, there.

A certain member(s) here thinks my views are stupid.
I was wondering if you consider me an 'idiot' or
not. Just like to know where I stand.

(Actually all those that feel the one way or the other,
can respond here. Specifically I'm refering to my views
regarding dealing with the Iranian nuclear threat [as
I see it] in the very near term, with military action.)

to all:

PLEASE have some class. I don't need nasty comments.

Thanks,

- Stephen

> Hi kids,
>
> Yup, it's been almost a hundred years since E. D. Morel (for one?)
> pointed out that the nature of air war, not to mention "total
> war", "war of attrition", etc. IS a war on civilians. Period.
> There are no innocents, and no good causes. It's just mass
> slaughter, and nobody wins. Not really. In my not-so-humble
> opinion, I guess.
>
> One can hope that eventually all these idiots WILL die out. I
tend
> to think they will, without taking taking too many more of us with
> them.
>
> Pete
>
>

🔗stephenszpak <stephen_szpak@...>

>
> > Nulcear truck bomb (boat bomb, helicopter bomb) destroys
> > a port, or city somewhere. Al-Qaeda takes 'credit'.
> > Al-Qaeda doesn't say where they got the bomb.
> > Iran strongly denies involvement of any sort and
> > comdemns the attack.
>
> That might not work; atomic bombs have slightly different signatures,
> and the US is constantly listening in to all kinds of stuff. Iran
> would have to be careful not to conduct a test leading to any
emission
> of radioactive material.
>
++++++++++ Gene

Iran has first successful detonation of a nulcear device
> (on its own soil)...
>
> Iran announces to the world its is now a nuclear power...

> I was saying that immediately after the test it would be
obvious Iran had nuclear bombs. Therefore they would
immediately announce it. Sorry I was not clearer in that.

- Stephen

🔗stephenszpak <stephen_szpak@...>

> What an amazing coincidence -- just before i read this
> post, i was going to respond to your previous one by
> mentioning something my father said when i was a kid,
> which i never forgot: he reasoned that because of the
> continued existence of warfare, human beings are a
> failure as a species. His exact words.
>>
> -monz

++++ Monz

We are the way we are. (please, I mean no insult to
your dad here)

I can't believe I found this
quote:

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men
stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

George Orwell

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/g/georgeorwe159448.html

Strange isn't it. Men ride around our towns with weapons
capable of taking a life in the blink of an eye,
to keep us safe.

Heading out, take care,

- Stephen

🔗Pete McRae <peteysan@...>

Nope. Didn't mean you in particular, at all. Just a general comment on war. And stuff.

stephenszpak <stephen_szpak@...> wrote:
--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "ambassadorbob"

wrote:
>
+++++++++ Pete

Hi, there.

A certain member(s) here thinks my views are stupid.
I was wondering if you consider me an 'idiot' or
not. Just like to know where I stand.

to all:

PLEASE have some class. I don't need nasty comments.

Thanks,

- Stephen

Meta Tuning meta-info:

To unsubscribe, send an email to:
metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/

To post to the list, send to
metatuning@yahoogroups.com

You don't have to be a member to post.

Yahoo! Groups Links

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗monz <monz@...>

Hi Stephen,

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "stephenszpak" <stephen_szpak@...>
wrote:

> +++++++++++ Monz
>
> War can be merely a reasonable response to a threat of
> slavery.

Sorry, but i am in total disagreement with you.

War may have served a purpose like this in the past,
but in this day and age, there is *no* argument or
proposed scenario that will ever convince me that
war is "reasonable".

I think that both Gandhi and Martin Luther King
showed that non-violent civil disobediance were
a much more effective "response to a threat of
slavery", and certainly much more "reasonable"
than war.

The biggest problem with the evolution of our species
today is the unwillingness of people to think outside
the box. Most folks seem to want to solve problems
they way problems were always solved before, for no
good reason other than the fact that that's how it
was always done before.

The cherished Western way of life will be crumbling
soon anyway, with the depletion of the world's oil
reserves. There's going to have to be a whole lot
of "thinking outside the box" then, and those who
can do it will be the only ones who survive.

-monz

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗monz <monz@...>

🔗Pete McRae <peteysan@...>

I heard Don Cheadle say it (same exact words!), talking about Crash, and I say it, too, 'cause it's true:

"The only time I've ever had a gun pointed at me was by the LAPD."

--P

monz <monz@...> wrote:
--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "stephenszpak"
wrote:

> Strange isn't it. Men ride around our towns with weapons
> capable of taking a life in the blink of an eye,
> to keep us safe.

Remember the Rodney King beating?, which led upon the
acquittal of the policemen to the 1992 Los Angeles riots?

Knowing what i already knew about the history of police
violence in California, i found it unamusingly ironic
upon moving here to find that they are referred to
as "Peace Officers".

-monz

Meta Tuning meta-info:

To unsubscribe, send an email to:
metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/

To post to the list, send to
metatuning@yahoogroups.com

You don't have to be a member to post.

Yahoo! Groups Links

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗stephenszpak <stephen_szpak@...>

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Stephen,
>
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "stephenszpak" <stephen_szpak@>
> wrote:
>
> > +++++++++++ Monz
> >
> > War can be merely a reasonable response to a threat of
> > slavery.
>
>
++++++++ Monz

> Sorry, but i am in total disagreement with you.

++++ I thank you for being polite in your disagreement.
>
> War may have served a purpose like this in the past,
> but in this day and age, there is *no* argument or
> proposed scenario that will ever convince me that
> war is "reasonable".

++++++ Know one will ever know if 9-11 could have been
stopped. I think a pre-emptive war against
Afghanistan well before the year 2001 with the
killing of Osama bin Laden would have at least
given us a little more time.
( I just read Al-Qaeda
existed as early as 1989. I haven't confirmed this.)

> I think that both Gandhi and Martin Luther King
> showed that non-violent civil disobediance were
> a much more effective "response to a threat of
> slavery", and certainly much more "reasonable"
> than war.

+++++ I not positive here, so I will say that right now.

My belief on these two, is that in Great Britan
and the United States, there was overwhelming
outcry against what was being done to them
and their causes.

In a real police state, the
former version of Iraq for instance, they would
have just been killed without a second thought
well before they could have developed a following.
I could have said North Korea, or any number of
other countries here.

>
> The biggest problem with the evolution of our species
> today is the unwillingness of people to think outside
> the box. Most folks seem to want to solve problems
> they way problems were always solved before, for no
> good reason other than the fact that that's how it
> was always done before.

+++++ As you probably suspect, I don't believe in evolution.
Looking back at recorded history I think it is clear
that people 5000 years ago are just like people today.
I think that looking ahead just 500 years, we
will see the same.

> The cherished Western way of life will be crumbling
> soon anyway, with the depletion of the world's oil
> reserves. There's going to have to be a whole lot
> of "thinking outside the box" then, and those who
> can do it will be the only ones who survive.
>
++++ I remember that when I was in communnity college,
I think it was the fall of 77,I took a course that
was something like "Energy, Resources and Policy".
One of the things taught was that in the mid to late 80's
world oil consumption would overtake supply,
causing serious problems worldwide. I'm not going to
believe this one again.

++++ If you don't want to continue here that's fine. I'm
wondering if you think negotiating with Al-Qaeda should
be considered by the U.S. ?

What do you suggest we give up so that they will no
longer be at war with us?

Nice responses Monz,

-Stephen

🔗stephenszpak <stephen_szpak@...>

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@...> wrote:
>
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "stephenszpak" <stephen_szpak@>
> wrote:
>
> > Strange isn't it. Men ride around our towns with weapons
> > capable of taking a life in the blink of an eye,
> > to keep us safe.
>
>
> Remember the Rodney King beating?, which led upon the
> acquittal of the policemen to the 1992 Los Angeles riots?
>
> Knowing what i already knew about the history of police
> violence in California, i found it unamusingly ironic
> upon moving here to find that they are referred to
> as "Peace Officers".
>
>
> -monz

+++++++ Monz

There are certainly bad cops. (There are bad laws too.)

I don't think it is a coincidence that we have such
great liberties in this country. Society would break
down into anarchy without them. I guess until some
super-gang (if one is talking about a individual city)
or outside force ( if one is talking about the counrty )
took over. Then, perhaps ironically, we would have a
'police state'.

Thanks Carl and Monz,

-Stephen
>