crossing a moral boundary

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060720/ap_on_go_pr_wh/stem_cells

>> House fails to override stem cell veto
>>
>> By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer
>>
>> WASHINGTON -
>> President Bush rejected legislation Wednesday that could
>> have multiplied the federal money going into embryonic
>> stem cell research, using the first veto of his presidency
>> to underscore his stand on the emotionally charged,
>> life-and-death issue.
>>
>> A few hours later, the House voted 235-193 to overturn
>> Bush's veto, 51 short of the required two-thirds majority.
>>
>> "This bill would support the taking of innocent human life
>> in the hope of finding medical benefits for others," Bush
>> said. "It crosses a moral boundary that our decent society
>> needs to respect."

Meanwhile, this is the same Bush who ordered the invasion
of a sovereign nation which posed no immediate threat to
the USA, and who currently supports the bloodbath Isreal
is creating in Lebanon.

To see this asshole talk about the need to respect
moral boundaries really makes me want to puke.

-monz

he is a dictator at this point and even his own party can't seem to get it.
they look at him like a deer in headlights.
I can only assume he might have forced the Israeli to act such hoping it will escalate to the point he can suspend the next elections

the blockage of the justice dept. for his own spying on citizenry reeks that the homeland security has become the information gathering center for corporations to continue the economical inquisition on those citizen who are not willing slaves to a god that demand the human sacrifice of his son.
Abraham wasn't enough . and the apocalypse points to the fact that even this does not necessarily appease this sadist in the sky.

If hizbollah kills my kid i will go after them. if the israeli kill me kid i will go after them too.
Neither brutes are going to make me submit or anyone else by such tactics.

monz wrote:
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060720/ap_on_go_pr_wh/stem_cells
>
> >>> House fails to override stem cell veto
>>>
>>> By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer
>>>
>>> WASHINGTON -
>>> President Bush rejected legislation Wednesday that could
>>> have multiplied the federal money going into embryonic
>>> stem cell research, using the first veto of his presidency
>>> to underscore his stand on the emotionally charged,
>>> life-and-death issue.
>>>
>>> A few hours later, the House voted 235-193 to overturn
>>> Bush's veto, 51 short of the required two-thirds majority.
>>>
>>> "This bill would support the taking of innocent human life
>>> in the hope of finding medical benefits for others," Bush
>>> said. "It crosses a moral boundary that our decent society
>>> needs to respect."
>>> >
>
> Meanwhile, this is the same Bush who ordered the invasion
> of a sovereign nation which posed no immediate threat to
> the USA, and who currently supports the bloodbath Isreal
> is creating in Lebanon.
>
> To see this asshole talk about the need to respect
> moral boundaries really makes me want to puke.
>
>
> -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
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
> -- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

If Hezbollah surrendered this would end immediately.

If rockets rained down on your town at random, you might
have a different reaction to Israel's recent defensive
actions.

Monz, I'm truly sorry that you see Israel as the bad
guy in this. Israel never wanted this situation, but She
can't just take rocket fire daily for an indefinite future.
Those is the middle east that don't defend themselves are
regarded as prey. If Israel did nothing about the rocket
attacks and just 'took it', they would never stop.

Sorry that we disagree on this matter,

-Stephen

.. .and who currently supports the bloodbath Isreal
> is creating in Lebanon.
>

>
>
> -monz
>

why bomb people who are not in hezbollah and the israeli started their bombing first after the kidnapping of two soldiers.
But let me be clear there are only bad guys in this situation

stephenszpak wrote:
> If Hezbollah surrendered this would end immediately.
>
> If rockets rained down on your town at random, you might
> have a different reaction to Israel's recent defensive
> actions. >
> Monz, I'm truly sorry that you see Israel as the bad
> guy in this. Israel never wanted this situation, but She
> can't just take rocket fire daily for an indefinite future.
> Those is the middle east that don't defend themselves are
> regarded as prey. If Israel did nothing about the rocket
> attacks and just 'took it', they would never stop.
>
> Sorry that we disagree on this matter,
>
> -Stephen
> >
>
>
> .. .and who currently supports the bloodbath Isreal
> >> is creating in Lebanon.
>>
>> >
> >> -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
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
> -- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

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

United Nations Resolution 1559 calls for the end
of Hezbollah in Lebanon.

'Calls for the disbanding and disarmament of all
Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias;'

http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_resolutions04.html

See Security Council Resolution 1559

-------------------------------------------------------

Countries that voted for Resolution 1559 include
France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, all well as
others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolution_1559

------------------------------------------------------

What does Hezbollah want anyway?

"Hezbollah supports the destruction of the state of Israel..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah#Ideology

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

-Stephen

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>
wrote:

Kraig

It is impossible to kill only Hezbollah terrorists. I think
this is a seldom thought of concept in the war against these
murders.

One also has to remember that many in Lebanon *support* Hezbollah.
This is something we can't even imagine in the U.S. Who here
can even consider al-Qaeda having seats in the Senate.

This information is somewhat dated considering the pace of recent
events, yet it gives one a idea of the influence of Hezbollah:

----------------------------------------------------------------

Along with the Amal movement, Hezbollah is the main political party
and military organization representing the Shia community, Lebanon's
largest religious bloc.[7] and it is a recognized political party in
Lebanon, where it has participated in government.[8] The civilian
wing participates in the Parliament of Lebanon, taking 18% of the
seats (23 out of 128) and the bloc it forms with others,
the "Resistance and Development Bloc", 27.3% (see Lebanese general
election, 2005). It is a minority partner in the current Cabinet.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

To those that want free medical care:

Hezbollah not only has armed and political wings. it also boasts an
extensive social development programme. The civilian wing also runs
hospitals, news services, and educational facilities. Its
Reconstruction Campaign (Jihad al-Bina) is responsible for numerous
economic and infrastructural development projects in Lebanon.[9] The
group currently operates at least four hospitals, 12 clinics, 12
schools and two agricultural centres that provide farmers with
technical assistance and training. It also has an environmental
department and an extensive social assistance programme. Medical
care is also cheaper than in most of the countries private hospitals
and free for Hezbollah members.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

-Stephen

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

>
> why bomb people who are not in hezbollah and the israeli started
their
> bombing first after the kidnapping of two soldiers.
> But let me be clear there are only bad guys in this situation
>
> stephenszpak wrote:
> > If Hezbollah surrendered this would end immediately.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "stephenszpak" <stephen_szpak@...>
wrote:
> It is impossible to kill only Hezbollah terrorists.

So, just to be clear: you think it is perfectly acceptable to kill
innocent men, women and children as long as your intended purpose is
to kill terrorists. No one should question your methods. No one should
speak out against these killings. Naturally, by this token, you are
saying that Israeli lives are worth more than Lebanese lives (or
Canadian, or anyone else who gets killed in the mayhem).

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

What I said is that:

"It is impossible to kill only Hezbollah terrorists."

-Stephen

> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "stephenszpak" <stephen_szpak@>
> wrote:
> > It is impossible to kill only Hezbollah terrorists.
>
> So, just to be clear: you think it is perfectly acceptable to kill
> innocent men, women and children as long as your intended purpose
is
> to kill terrorists. No one should question your methods. No one
should
> speak out against these killings. Naturally, by this token, you are
> saying that Israeli lives are worth more than Lebanese lives (or
> Canadian, or anyone else who gets killed in the mayhem).
>

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "stephenszpak" <stephen_szpak@...>
wrote:
> What I said is that:
>
> "It is impossible to kill only Hezbollah terrorists."

Right, I read that. And, like Kraig, I want to make it clear that I
don't support them or condone their actions. But I believe that the
manner in which the IDF has decided to "defang" them (to use the
lovely phrase from an American diplomat) is crude and inhumane, and
should stop.

Jon

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

I can only assume you have a better way to stop the
rocket attacks on Israel? There is no such thing as
a war that kills only your enemies. It is easy for us
in the States to look at the deaths on both sides and
say "Why don't they just stop?" This is a question not
an answer.

Here is another:

"Why has it been up to Israel alone, without
help from the international communnity, to deal with
these Muslim nutcases?"

-Stephen

> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "stephenszpak" <stephen_szpak@>
> wrote:
> > What I said is that:
> >
> > "It is impossible to kill only Hezbollah terrorists."
>
> Right, I read that. And, like Kraig, I want to make it clear that I
> don't support them or condone their actions. But I believe that the
> manner in which the IDF has decided to "defang" them (to use the
> lovely phrase from an American diplomat) is crude and inhumane, and
> should stop.
>
> Jon
>

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "stephenszpak" <stephen_szpak@...>
wrote:
> I can only assume you have a better way to stop the
> rocket attacks on Israel?

Not really, but that doesn't mean I have to stop critical thinking. I
think there are a lot of paths to a more just and peaceful Middle
East, and I think the rockets raining on northern Israel are in part a
reflection of the Israeli government's political decisions over the
last number of years. Sometimes you reap what you sow.

> There is no such thing as a war that kills only your enemies.

Well, yeah, so why even try to minimize the collateral damage? Hell,
why not use tanks to fire on families on the beaches in Gaza to try to
knock out a couple of terrorists? A couple of innocents get killed?
Aw, who told them to live there anyway, don't stand in the way of our
shells.

Stephen, I doubt that you and I would be able to sort this out between
us, much less come up with a solution that the international community
and parties involved would see fit to try! But that doesn't stop me
from being completely revolted at the unbelievably callous manner that
Israel has dealt with this, the totally over-reaching response that is
leading to (potentially) a humanitarian problem in Lebanon of great
proportions. And the total lack of any concern for the havoc that is
being wreaked upon innocents is difficult to take.

On both sides.

> "Why has it been up to Israel alone, without
> help from the international communnity, to deal with
> these Muslim nutcases?"

That statement is complete rubbish. It ignores the conflicts in both
Afghanistan and Iraq, which AFAIK are not utilizing any Israeli
forces. It also ignores the fact that it is *not* Israel alone: just
today the powers-that-be have fast-tracked a new shipment of armaments
to be sent from the US to Israel to rain down on targets in Lebanon.
All the outcry about terrorists getting missiles from Iran - should we
decry the fine people of the communities in the United States that
build the bombs and missiles Israel will soon be using?

Jon

i think you can find a myriad of UN resolutions that Israel ignores

stephenszpak wrote:
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "stephenszpak" > <stephen_szpak@...> wrote:
>
> >
> United Nations Resolution 1559 calls for the end
> of Hezbollah in Lebanon.
>
> 'Calls for the disbanding and disarmament of all
> Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias;'
>
>
>
> http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_resolutions04.html
>
> See Security Council Resolution 1559
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> Countries that voted for Resolution 1559 include
> France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, all well as
> others.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolution_1559
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> What does Hezbollah want anyway?
>
> "Hezbollah supports the destruction of the state of Israel..."
>
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah#Ideology
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah
>
>
>
> -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
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> -- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

possibly the police should bomb south central since it harbors the crips, or england should should level Belfast since it harbors the IRA,
rome and the vatican since it protects the mafia

stephenszpak wrote:
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...> > wrote:
>
> Kraig
>
> It is impossible to kill only Hezbollah terrorists. I think
> this is a seldom thought of concept in the war against these
> murders.
>
> One also has to remember that many in Lebanon *support* Hezbollah.
> This is something we can't even imagine in the U.S. Who here
> can even consider al-Qaeda having seats in the Senate.
>
> This information is somewhat dated considering the pace of recent
> events, yet it gives one a idea of the influence of Hezbollah:
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Along with the Amal movement, Hezbollah is the main political party > and military organization representing the Shia community, Lebanon's > largest religious bloc.[7] and it is a recognized political party in > Lebanon, where it has participated in government.[8] The civilian > wing participates in the Parliament of Lebanon, taking 18% of the > seats (23 out of 128) and the bloc it forms with others, > the "Resistance and Development Bloc", 27.3% (see Lebanese general > election, 2005). It is a minority partner in the current Cabinet.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > To those that want free medical care:
>
> Hezbollah not only has armed and political wings. it also boasts an > extensive social development programme. The civilian wing also runs > hospitals, news services, and educational facilities. Its > Reconstruction Campaign (Jihad al-Bina) is responsible for numerous > economic and infrastructural development projects in Lebanon.[9] The > group currently operates at least four hospitals, 12 clinics, 12 > schools and two agricultural centres that provide farmers with > technical assistance and training. It also has an environmental > department and an extensive social assistance programme. Medical > care is also cheaper than in most of the countries private hospitals > and free for Hezbollah members.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> -Stephen
>
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah
>
>
> >> why bomb people who are not in hezbollah and the israeli started >> > their > >> bombing first after the kidnapping of two soldiers.
>> But let me be clear there are only bad guys in this situation
>>
>> stephenszpak wrote:
>> >>> If Hezbollah surrendered this would end immediately.
>>> >
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
> -- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

you are not going to find them in the all Christian neighborhoods in Lebanon

stephenszpak wrote:
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <jszanto@...> wrote:
> > Jon
>
> What I said is that:
>
> "It is impossible to kill only Hezbollah terrorists."
>
> -Stephen
>
> >
>
> >> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "stephenszpak" <stephen_szpak@>
>> wrote:
>> >>> It is impossible to kill only Hezbollah terrorists.
>>> >> So, just to be clear: you think it is perfectly acceptable to kill
>> innocent men, women and children as long as your intended purpose >> > is
> >> to kill terrorists. No one should question your methods. No one >> > should
> >> speak out against these killings. Naturally, by this token, you are
>> saying that Israeli lives are worth more than Lebanese lives (or
>> Canadian, or anyone else who gets killed in the mayhem).
>>
>> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
> -- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

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

Jon

> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "stephenszpak" <stephen_szpak@>
> wrote:
> > I can only assume you have a better way to stop the
> > rocket attacks on Israel?
>
> Not really, but that doesn't mean I have to stop critical thinking.

+++ So you don't have a solution.

I
> think there are a lot of paths to a more just and peaceful Middle
> East, and I think the rockets raining on northern Israel are in
part a
> reflection of the Israeli government's political decisions over the
> last number of years. Sometimes you reap what you sow.

+++ I'd say Hezbollah is reaping what it sowed.

>
> > There is no such thing as a war that kills only your enemies.
>
> Well, yeah, so why even try to minimize the collateral damage?
Hell,
> why not use tanks to fire on families on the beaches in Gaza to
try to
> knock out a couple of terrorists? A couple of innocents get killed?

++ Muslim terrorists hide among school childern. They don't go
a desolate areas, then send us a e-mail that tells us where they
are.

> Aw, who told them to live there anyway, don't stand in the way of
our
> shells.
>
> Stephen, I doubt that you and I would be able to sort this out
between
> us, much less come up with a solution that the international
community
> and parties involved would see fit to try! But that doesn't stop me
> from being completely revolted at the unbelievably callous manner
that
> Israel has dealt with this, the totally over-reaching response
that is
> leading to (potentially) a humanitarian problem in Lebanon of great
> proportions. And the total lack of any concern for the havoc that
is
> being wreaked upon innocents is difficult to take.

+++ If the response by Israel is over-kill and disproportionate
why haven't the rocket attacks been silenced?

>
> On both sides.
>
> > "Why has it been up to Israel alone, without
> > help from the international communnity, to deal with
> > these Muslim nutcases?"
>
> That statement is complete rubbish. It ignores the conflicts in
both
> Afghanistan and Iraq, which AFAIK are not utilizing any Israeli
> forces. It also ignores the fact that it is *not* Israel alone:
just
> today the powers-that-be have fast-tracked a new shipment of
armaments
> to be sent from the US to Israel to rain down on targets in
Lebanon.

+++ The signers of U.N. resolution 1559, which demands the
the disarmament of Hezbollah have offered to send NO troops
to help Israel to my knowledge. Where are the French and
Germans? Where are the troops from the other countries?
They don't want to get involved. Much easier to blame both
sides instead of taking a side and risking your own people.

> All the outcry about terrorists getting missiles from Iran -
should we
> decry the fine people of the communities in the United States that
> build the bombs and missiles Israel will soon be using?

+++ If I knew the addresses of these people in the U.S. I'd
be sending them 'Thank You!' cards.

We can contine Jon, but I think we are not even going to agree
on any common ground, unless
you feel you want to continue.

-Stephen

>
> Jon
>

these people see the whole thing as a bunch of Europeans taking their land and abusing those who were there.
this is not the argument of nutcases
stephenszpak wrote:
>
>
> Here is another:
>
> "Why has it been up to Israel alone, without
> help from the international communnity, to deal with
> these Muslim nutcases?"
>
> -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
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> -- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

Israel refuses to have any peace keeping troops from the UN, and always have

stephenszpak wrote:
>
>
>
> >
> +++ The signers of U.N. resolution 1559, which demands the
> the disarmament of Hezbollah have offered to send NO troops
> to help Israel to my knowledge. Where are the French and
> Germans? Where are the troops from the other countries?
> They don't want to get involved. Much easier to blame both
> sides instead of taking a side and risking your own people.
>
> >> All the outcry about terrorists getting missiles from Iran - >> > should we
> >> decry the fine people of the communities in the United States that
>> build the bombs and missiles Israel will soon be using?
>> >
> +++ If I knew the addresses of these people in the U.S. I'd
> be sending them 'Thank You!' cards.
>
> We can contine Jon, but I think we are not even going to agree
> on any common ground, unless
> you feel you want to continue. >
> -Stephen
>
> >> Jon
>>
>> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> -- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "stephenszpak" <stephen_szpak@...>
wrote:
> +++ So you don't have a solution.

No, and neither do you. So we have to have some kind of dialogue to
see what might possibly work.

> +++ I'd say Hezbollah is reaping what it sowed.

Exactly: violence begets violence. People who see killing as the only
way out never seem to get this.

> ++ Muslim terrorists hide among school childern. They don't go
> a desolate areas, then send us a e-mail that tells us where they
> are.

Well, there you go, it makes it perfectly acceptable to kill *as many*
innocent people to get one of the bad guys. That is what you are implying.

> +++ If the response by Israel is over-kill and disproportionate
> why haven't the rocket attacks been silenced?

How foolish: because the approach hasn't worked. How many innocent
bystanders have to be killed to get the one terrorist you are aiming
at? Easy: the two don't have anything to do with each other. You could
kill thousands of non-combatants in collateral damage without hitting
a missile launcher.

> We can contine Jon, but I think we are not even going to agree
> on any common ground, unless you feel you want to continue.

How about this for common ground: "Thou shalt not kill."

Jon

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

Thank you for your comments on this matter.

-Stephen

Hi Stephen,

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "stephenszpak" <stephen_szpak@...>
wrote:
>
>
>
> If Hezbollah surrendered this would end immediately.
>
> If rockets rained down on your town at random, you might
> have a different reaction to Israel's recent defensive
> actions.
>
> Monz, I'm truly sorry that you see Israel as the bad
> guy in this. Israel never wanted this situation, but She
> can't just take rocket fire daily for an indefinite future.
> Those is the middle east that don't defend themselves are
> regarded as prey. If Israel did nothing about the rocket
> attacks and just 'took it', they would never stop.
>
> Sorry that we disagree on this matter,

Woah! ... i never said that i see Israel as the bad guy!

But yes, we certainly do disagree. I'm a pacifist, and
will never accept war as a solution to anything.

It's ridiculous that a country which had only partially
rebuilt its fragile infrastructure after a lenghty civil war
(Lebanon) now has to see all of that work destroyed in a
matter of days ... and of course, there are so many
innocent civilians who die in the process.

You bet we disagree.

And please don't redirect this into something which
dissipates my original point: Bush is an asshole for
mouthing off about respecting moral boundaries when
he does exactly the opposite. Change the subject line
if you need to.

-monz

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...> wrote:
>
> possibly the police should bomb south central since it harbors
> the crips, or england should should level Belfast since it
> harbors the IRA, rome and the vatican since it protects the mafia

Good for you, Kraig -- that gets the point across perfectly.

-monz

Hi Jon (and Stephen),

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <jszanto@...> wrote:
>
> just today the powers-that-be have fast-tracked a new shipment
> of armaments to be sent from the US to Israel to rain down on
> targets in Lebanon. All the outcry about terrorists getting
> missiles from Iran - should we decry the fine people of the
> communities in the United States that build the bombs and
> missiles Israel will soon be using?

Well, as a matter of fact, yes, we should.

Certainly a case could be argued which justifies the use
of armaments in the past, for whatever reasons. But in today's
global village they're absolutely unnecessary and wrong, and
i will maintain that position until the day i die.

The main thing that make we humans different from all the
other animals is our ability to utilize verbal communication.
That will always be a better (go ahead, call it "more humane")
means of effecting good solutions to any problems.

-monz

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@...> wrote:
>
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@> wrote:
> >
> > possibly the police should bomb south central since it harbors
> > the crips, or england should should level Belfast since it
> > harbors the IRA, rome and the vatican since it protects the mafia
>
>
> Good for you, Kraig -- that gets the point across perfectly.

In fact, it's already been done, in my lifetime, in my own city:

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

>> "The plan called for a mixture of civilian and military
>> explosives to be dropped on the fortification that had
>> been built by MOVE on top of the house in order to destroy
>> it. ... The bomb did not significantly damage the rooftop
>> structure, but did start a fire which destroyed the
>> entire block and killed eleven people. City hoses,
>> deployed as a part of the original entry plan, were not
>> turned on until 40 minutes after the fire started burning.
>> Ironically, the city's best firefighting equipment had
>> been trained on the rooftop bunker all morning, but
>> "the decision was made to let the fire burn" in the words
>> of Sambor. About 10,000 rounds of ammunition were fired by
>> the police in to the house. 62 houses burned to the ground;
>> only Ramona Africa and Michael Ward (aka Birdie Africa)
>> escaped alive. Six adults and five children in the MOVE
>> house were killed.
>>
>> Aftermath
>>
>> In the aftermath of the catastrophe the city launched a
>> special investigation which found, among other things, that
>> "Dropping a bomb on an occupied row house was unconscionable."
>> The mayor was re-elected in the next election, and no
>> police officer was fined, fired or suspended.
>>
>> Philadelphia has paid over $32 million to the victims,
>> including $840,000 to Michael Ward, $1.5 million to
>> Ramona Africa and the relatives of John and Frank Africa,
>> and has been ordered to pay $29 million to residents of
>> Osage Avenue and Pine Street whose homes were destroyed
>> by the fire. (The city of Philadelphia is appealing the
>> latter award.)

Osage Avenue was only a few blocks from where i grew up,
and the entire block of houses burned to the ground.

It's horrible that the City of Philadelphia killed five
innocent children in this fiasco.

The city eventually built a whole new block of brand-new
homes.

But i'll tell you what: if i were living on that block when
that happened, no matter *how* much money the city paid me,
and no matter how nice my new house were made, it would never
replace what i would have lost -- namely, the scores of
my own compositions and folders and folders of music-theory
paperwork.

"Unconscionable" is exactly right.

-monz

this this perfectly illustrates what the powers will do once there propaganda doesn't

monz wrote:
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@...> wrote:
> >> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@> wrote:
>> >>> possibly the police should bomb south central since it harbors
>>> the crips, or england should should level Belfast since it
>>> harbors the IRA, rome and the vatican since it protects the mafia
>>> >> Good for you, Kraig -- that gets the point across perfectly.
>> >
>
> In fact, it's already been done, in my lifetime, in my own city:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE
>
>
>
> >>> "The plan called for a mixture of civilian and military
>>> explosives to be dropped on the fortification that had
>>> been built by MOVE on top of the house in order to destroy
>>> it. ... The bomb did not significantly damage the rooftop
>>> structure, but did start a fire which destroyed the
>>> entire block and killed eleven people. City hoses,
>>> deployed as a part of the original entry plan, were not
>>> turned on until 40 minutes after the fire started burning.
>>> Ironically, the city's best firefighting equipment had
>>> been trained on the rooftop bunker all morning, but
>>> "the decision was made to let the fire burn" in the words
>>> of Sambor. About 10,000 rounds of ammunition were fired by
>>> the police in to the house. 62 houses burned to the ground;
>>> only Ramona Africa and Michael Ward (aka Birdie Africa)
>>> escaped alive. Six adults and five children in the MOVE
>>> house were killed.
>>>
>>> Aftermath
>>>
>>> In the aftermath of the catastrophe the city launched a
>>> special investigation which found, among other things, that
>>> "Dropping a bomb on an occupied row house was unconscionable."
>>> The mayor was re-elected in the next election, and no
>>> police officer was fined, fired or suspended.
>>>
>>> Philadelphia has paid over $32 million to the victims,
>>> including $840,000 to Michael Ward, $1.5 million to
>>> Ramona Africa and the relatives of John and Frank Africa,
>>> and has been ordered to pay $29 million to residents of
>>> Osage Avenue and Pine Street whose homes were destroyed
>>> by the fire. (The city of Philadelphia is appealing the
>>> latter award.)
>>> >
>
> Osage Avenue was only a few blocks from where i grew up,
> and the entire block of houses burned to the ground.
>
> It's horrible that the City of Philadelphia killed five
> innocent children in this fiasco.
>
> The city eventually built a whole new block of brand-new
> homes.
>
> But i'll tell you what: if i were living on that block when
> that happened, no matter *how* much money the city paid me,
> and no matter how nice my new house were made, it would never
> replace what i would have lost -- namely, the scores of > my own compositions and folders and folders of music-theory
> paperwork.
>
> "Unconscionable" is exactly right.
>
>
>
> -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
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> -- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

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

Monz

(Well at least you're still talking to me.)

Monz wrote:

Woah! ... i never said that i see Israel as the bad guy!

Monz wrote:

and who (ie. Bush) currently supports the bloodbath Isreal
is creating in Lebanon.

I can't reconcile the two statements. That's ok I guess.

Monz wrote:

But yes, we certainly do disagree. I'm a pacifist, and
will never accept war as a solution to anything.

I was a pacifist myself when I was younger. Probing into your
psyche...are you a pacifist regarding yourself and those you
love? This is where is becomes much harder. Not using force
(or calling law enforcemnet) when you see those you love being
brutalized.

These are personal matters. You certainly don't have to
reply.

Monz wrote:

The main thing that make we humans different from all the
other animals is our ability to utilize verbal communication.

{{Taken out of context.}}

What does one do when the opposing
side (ie. Al-Qaeda eg.) wants to talk, but they offer only death,
and slavery (they want the entire world to be a Muslim state).
What can be said to them?

-Stephen

Various excerpts:

Criticisms/paradoxes of Pacifism

In some cases, it is possible that committing an act of violence
might actually prevent further acts of violence (and reduce
something like a "net-sum" of violence). For example, invading a
country might bring an end to a dictator's violent oppression and
save millions of lives, even if many thousands died in the war.
However, most pacifists would be against taking such violent action.
Some think situations like these provide an argument against
pacifism.

Being a pacifist between wars is as easy as being a vegetarian
between meals. - Ammon Hennacy

The concept of nonviolence is a false ideal. It presupposes the
existence of compassion and a sense of justice on the part of one's
adversary. When this adversary has everything to lose and nothing to
gain by exercising justice and compassion, his reaction can only be
negative. - George Jackson.

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

-Stephen

On 7/29/06, stephenszpak <stephen_szpak@...> wrote:

> In some cases, it is possible that committing an act of violence
> might actually prevent further acts of violence (and reduce
> something like a "net-sum" of violence). For example, invading a
> country might bring an end to a dictator's violent oppression and
> save millions of lives, even if many thousands died in the war.
> However, most pacifists would be against taking such violent action.
> Some think situations like these provide an argument against
> pacifism.

This wouldn't be a problem for me 70 years ago, but it is now. Why?
The new paradigm of war. It used to be that when a war was fought,
yes, there were civilian deaths, but *more soldiers died than
civilians*

Nowadays (see: Lebanon, Palestine, Isreal, Iraq) in a trend started at
Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, etc, it is common for far more civilians to
die than soldiers.

Remember: The majority of victims in WTC had nothing to do with Arab
grievances against America. The majority of victims in Beirut had
nothing to do with the two (TWO!) kidnapped soldiers. The majority of
victims in Iraq had nothing to do with the sectarian violence.

The new commodity of war is BABIES. An 18 month old doesn't even know
what Sunniism is.

I don't object to necessary violence, I object to unnecessary,
overreaching violence. That includes nearly any time a bomb is
detonated.

Why do some people think that war is better than assasination?
Assasination is infinitely cleaner and saves civilian lives.

--TRISTAN
(http://dreamingofeden.smackjeeves.com/)

exactly.
the IRA picked up on this one. finally

Rozencrantz the Sane wrote:
>
>
> Why do some people think that war is better than assasination?
> Assasination is infinitely cleaner and saves civilian lives.
>
>
>
>
> -- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

Hi Stephen,

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "stephenszpak" <stephen_szpak@...>
wrote:
>
> Monz wrote:
>
> Woah! ... i never said that i see Israel as the bad guy!
>
> Monz wrote:
>
> and who (ie. Bush) currently supports the bloodbath Isreal
> is creating in Lebanon.
>
> I can't reconcile the two statements. That's ok I guess.

You can't reconcile them because you believe that war
is an acceptable solution to some problems.

I don't believe that, and so therefore there is no dichotomy
for me. Israel and Hezbollah are *both* bad guys, and the
supporters of both sides are also bad guys ... because both
sides are instigating violence to achieve their ends.

There's only one reason why both sides can't discuss the
situation and reach an acceptable solution:
they don't want to.

> But yes, we certainly do disagree. I'm a pacifist, and
> will never accept war as a solution to anything.
>
> I was a pacifist myself when I was younger. Probing into your
> psyche...are you a pacifist regarding yourself and those you
> love? This is where is becomes much harder. Not using force
> (or calling law enforcemnet) when you see those you love being
> brutalized.
>
> These are personal matters. You certainly don't have to
> reply.

Of course there's always the possibility that an ugly
situation may reach the point where one agent insists
on using violence to "win", and in that case there is
no alternative but to defend oneself, usually with a
similarly violent defensive action.

But we're not talking here about personal aggression,
we're talking about politics and mass psychosis.

> Monz wrote:
>
> The main thing that make we humans different from all the
> other animals is our ability to utilize verbal communication.
>
> {{Taken out of context.}}
>
> What does one do when the opposing side (ie. Al-Qaeda eg.)
> wants to talk, but they offer only death, and slavery
> (they want the entire world to be a Muslim state).
> What can be said to them?

The reason why the situation in the Middle-East has gotten
to the point that it has, is because parties which *could*
have helped avoid this have refused to do so, by refusing
to talk to certain other parties (Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, etc.).

Look back on the history of the "Cold War": the USSR and
the USA both had enough nuclear weapons to destroy all
human life on the planet many times over, and while both
parties kept the world living in fear that it might happen,
there was never any real perceived threat that it would,
because both parties engaged in diplomacy to establish detente.

Unfortunately that policy has not been carried out with
the Muslim/terrorist threat (and no, i'm not equating the two,
just lumping them together for convenience), and now the
world is in a situation where there is a very real possibility
of imminent nuclear annihilation.

-monz

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Stephen,
>
> Monz

>
> You can't reconcile them because you believe that war
> is an acceptable solution to some problems.

++++ I certainly support self-defense. It is not
pretty.

>
> I don't believe that, and so therefore there is no dichotomy
> for me. Israel and Hezbollah are *both* bad guys, and the
> supporters of both sides are also bad guys ... because both
> sides are instigating violence to achieve their ends.
>
> There's only one reason why both sides can't discuss the
> situation and reach an acceptable solution:
> they don't want to.

+++ Hezbollah wants Israel destroyed. It seems you don't
believe that.

If you believe this I don't get your point here.

The current war Israel is fighting
wasn't started by Israel. It is totally unacceptable
for a nation to live with rocket attacks for an indefinite
time. They had to defend themselves. Hezbollah's arsenal
of these rockets (the small ones, with the 80 pound high
explosive warheads) is around 10,000. That's a lot of
pot shots.

>
>
> > But yes, we certainly do disagree. I'm a pacifist, and
> > will never accept war as a solution to anything.
> >
> > I was a pacifist myself when I was younger. Probing into your
> > psyche...are you a pacifist regarding yourself and those you
> > love? This is where is becomes much harder. Not using force
> > (or calling law enforcemnet) when you see those you love being
> > brutalized.
> >
> > These are personal matters. You certainly don't have to
> > reply.
>
>
> Of course there's always the possibility that an ugly
> situation may reach the point where one agent insists
> on using violence to "win", and in that case there is
> no alternative but to defend oneself, usually with a
> similarly violent defensive action.
>
> But we're not talking here about personal aggression,
> we're talking about politics and mass psychosis.

+++ If you aren't a pacifist at a man to man level you can't
be one on a country to country level.

>
>
>
> > Monz wrote:
> >
> > The main thing that make we humans different from all the
> > other animals is our ability to utilize verbal communication.
> >
> > {{Taken out of context.}}
> >
> > What does one do when the opposing side (ie. Al-Qaeda eg.)
> > wants to talk, but they offer only death, and slavery
> > (they want the entire world to be a Muslim state).
> > What can be said to them?
>
>
> The reason why the situation in the Middle-East has gotten
> to the point that it has, is because parties which *could*
> have helped avoid this have refused to do so, by refusing
> to talk to certain other parties (Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, etc.).
>
> Look back on the history of the "Cold War": the USSR and
> the USA both had enough nuclear weapons to destroy all
> human life on the planet many times over, and while both
> parties kept the world living in fear that it might happen,
> there was never any real perceived threat that it would,
> because both parties engaged in diplomacy to establish detente.

+++ I *strongly* suggest you read about the Cuban missle crisis:

General info here in a dry view:

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

We were close indeed.

>
> Unfortunately that policy has not been carried out with
> the Muslim/terrorist threat (and no, i'm not equating the two,
> just lumping them together for convenience), and now the
> world is in a situation where there is a very real possibility
> of imminent nuclear annihilation.

++++ That's why the Iranian nuclear bomb program has to
be stopped before it starts.

Well, my 2 cents,

Thanks for responding,

-Stephen

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Rozencrantz the Sane"
<rozencrantz@...> wrote:
>
> On 7/29/06, stephenszpak <stephen_szpak@...> wrote:
>
> > In some cases, it is possible that committing an act of violence
> > might actually prevent further acts of violence (and reduce
> > something like a "net-sum" of violence). For example, invading a
> > country might bring an end to a dictator's violent oppression and
> > save millions of lives, even if many thousands died in the war.
> > However, most pacifists would be against taking such violent
action.
> > Some think situations like these provide an argument against
> > pacifism.

TRISTAN

>
> This wouldn't be a problem for me 70 years ago, but it is now. Why?
> The new paradigm of war. It used to be that when a war was fought,
> yes, there were civilian deaths, but *more soldiers died than
> civilians*

+++ If Bush advocated invading Afghanistan well before the
Sept. 11, 2001 attacks everyone would have thought he
was crazy. Yet it *might* have stopped the attacks of
that day, we'll never know for sure. We'll never know if we
could have got Osama bin Laden in the invasion.

>
> Nowadays (see: Lebanon, Palestine, Isreal, Iraq) in a trend
started at
> Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, etc, it is common for far more
civilians to
> die than soldiers.
>
> Remember: The majority of victims in WTC had nothing to do with
Arab
> grievances against America. The majority of victims in Beirut had
> nothing to do with the two (TWO!) kidnapped soldiers.

+++ It's not about the *number* of soldiers kidnapped anymore
than the American revolution was about a tax increase.

The majority of
> victims in Iraq had nothing to do with the sectarian violence.
>
> The new commodity of war is BABIES. An 18 month old doesn't even
know
> what Sunniism is.
>
> I don't object to necessary violence, I object to unnecessary,
> overreaching violence. That includes nearly any time a bomb is
> detonated.
>
> Why do some people think that war is better than assasination?
> Assasination is infinitely cleaner and saves civilian lives.

+++ Israel tries to assassinate the leadership of Hezbollah
but it is extremely difficult. One might be in Sryia. Where?
What house on what street in what city this hour?

Nice to hear from you,

-Stephen

no one from Afghanistan was involved in 9/11. no members of the taliban
as i stated before even the FBI warrant for Bid laden does not mention 9/11 because there is no evidence that he was involved.
this is the offical statement from the FBI
the project of the new century advocated moving into this region before 9/11

>
>
> +++ If Bush advocated invading Afghanistan well before the > Sept. 11, 2001 attacks everyone would have thought he
> was crazy. Yet it *might* have stopped the attacks of > that day, we'll never know for sure. We'll never know if we
> could have got Osama bin Laden in the invasion. > >
>
> >
>
>
>
>
> -- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

the Israeli started bombing BEFORE the use of missiles

the hizbollah then according to your own logic are defending themselves

stephenszpak wrote:
>
> The current war Israel is fighting
> wasn't started by Israel. It is totally unacceptable
> for a nation to live with rocket attacks for an indefinite
> time. They had to defend themselves. Hezbollah's arsenal
> of these rockets (the small ones, with the 80 pound high
> explosive warheads) is around 10,000. That's a lot of > pot shots.
>
> > -Stephen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

i guess this is why we slaughtered 5,000 poor people when we went into panama. Even though these people did in no way support noreiga

stephenszpak wrote:
> Various excerpts:
>
> Criticisms/paradoxes of Pacifism
>
> In some cases, it is possible that committing an act of violence > might actually prevent further acts of violence (and reduce > something like a "net-sum" of violence). For example, invading a > country might bring an end to a dictator's violent oppression and > save millions of lives, even if many thousands died in the war. > However, most pacifists would be against taking such violent action. > Some think situations like these provide an argument against > pacifism.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...> wrote:
>
> no one from Afghanistan was involved in 9/11. no members of
> the taliban as i stated before even the FBI warrant for
> Bid laden does not mention 9/11 because there is no evidence
> that he was involved.
> this is the offical statement from the FBI
> the project of the new century advocated moving into this
> region before 9/11

Please read all about it, straight from the horse's mouth:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

Note that the opening statement dates from 1997.

-monz

Hi Stephen,

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

> > There's only one reason why both sides can't discuss the
> > situation and reach an acceptable solution:
> > they don't want to.
>
> +++ Hezbollah wants Israel destroyed. It seems you don't
> believe that.
>
> If you believe this I don't get your point here.
>
> The current war Israel is fighting
> wasn't started by Israel. It is totally unacceptable
> for a nation to live with rocket attacks for an indefinite
> time. They had to defend themselves. Hezbollah's arsenal
> of these rockets (the small ones, with the 80 pound high
> explosive warheads) is around 10,000. That's a lot of
> pot shots.

Well, it was my understanding that Israel (and the USA)
wants Hezbollah destroyed -- if i'm wrong, then please
correct me.

> +++ If you aren't a pacifist at a man to man level you can't
> be one on a country to country level.

I agree with that. But i will also say that it's much
easier to maintain a *committment* to pacifism on a
country to country level than it is on a man to man level.
(to be PC, we should say person to person)

I believe that part of the reason why Jesus Christ went
placidly to his crucifixion was because he was committed
to pacifism, and wanted to show the world that committment
by not lifting a finger to defend himself. But for more
ordinary folks, any committment to pacifism on a man to man
level would have ended long before the situation reached
that point.

> > Look back on the history of the "Cold War": the USSR and
> > the USA both had enough nuclear weapons to destroy all
> > human life on the planet many times over, and while both
> > parties kept the world living in fear that it might happen,
> > there was never any real perceived threat that it would,
> > because both parties engaged in diplomacy to establish detente.
>
> +++ I *strongly* suggest you read about the Cuban missle crisis:
>
> General info here in a dry view:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missle_Crisis
>
> We were close indeed.

I know all about that, and yes, we were close indeed.
But nowhere near as close as we are now. The parties
involved then (USSR/Cuba and the USA/NATO) were dealing
with the situation in a much more orderly fashion.

The situation now, in Iraq and Lebanon/Israel/Syria/Iran
(not to mention North Korea, remember them?) is chaotic.
Far too many loose cannons lying about (both literally
and figuratively), and too many people with too strongly
held opinions on both sides, and too much willingness to
kill and be killed regardless of the consequences.

> > Unfortunately that policy has not been carried out with
> > the Muslim/terrorist threat (and no, i'm not equating the two,
> > just lumping them together for convenience), and now the
> > world is in a situation where there is a very real possibility
> > of imminent nuclear annihilation.
>
> ++++ That's why the Iranian nuclear bomb program has to
> be stopped before it starts.

Yeah, but it's OK for the US and Israel to have nukes, right?

The really unfortunate thing here is that that particular
genie was let out of the bottle in 1945 and is never going
to go back in.

-monz

japan already wanted to surrender dropped a second one.
the one on Nagasaki was dropped on the residential part of the city .
that way the men could watch the plane, too high for fighters drop it on their wifes and children while they were at work on the other side of a hill.
monz wrote:
>
>
>
> Yeah, but it's OK for the US and Israel to have nukes, right?
>
> -- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...> wrote:
> Kraig

Unfamiliar with this matter. No comment. -Stephen

> i guess this is why we slaughtered 5,000 poor people when we went
into
> panama. Even though these people did in no way support noreiga
>
>

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...> wrote:

Kraig

If you said Japan surrendered after the second nuke,
this is correct. -Stephen
>
> japan already wanted to surrender dropped a second one.
> the one on Nagasaki was dropped on the residential part of the city .

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...> wrote:
>
> the Israeli started bombing BEFORE the use of missiles
>
> the hizbollah then according to your own logic are defending
themselves
>
> Kraig

It all started with Hezbollah. They kidnapped x number of men.
Two this time. It would have been easy to write them off. I
wouldn't have wanted to have the job of telling their wifes/family
that myself.

-Stephen

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@...> wrote:
>
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@> wrote:
> >
> > no one from Afghanistan was involved in 9/11. no members of
> > the taliban as i stated before even the FBI warrant for
> > Bid laden does not mention 9/11 because there is no evidence
> > that he was involved.
> > this is the offical statement from the FBI
> > the project of the new century advocated moving into this
> > region before 9/11
>
>
>
> Please read all about it, straight from the horse's mouth:
>
> http://www.newamericancentury.org/
>
> Note that the opening statement dates from 1997.

++++++++++++ Monz

My knowledge of history is not perfect. Your link takes me to
a main page of sorts. Can't find your quotes above there.

-Stephen

>

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Stephen,
>
>
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "stephenszpak" <stephen_szpak@>
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@> wrote:
>
> > > There's only one reason why both sides can't discuss the
> > > situation and reach an acceptable solution:
> > > they don't want to.
> >
> > +++ Hezbollah wants Israel destroyed. It seems you don't
> > believe that.
> >
> > If you believe this I don't get your point here.
> >
> > The current war Israel is fighting
> > wasn't started by Israel. It is totally unacceptable
> > for a nation to live with rocket attacks for an indefinite
> > time. They had to defend themselves. Hezbollah's arsenal
> > of these rockets (the small ones, with the 80 pound high
> > explosive warheads) is around 10,000. That's a lot of
> > pot shots.
>
>
> Well, it was my understanding that Israel (and the USA)
> wants Hezbollah destroyed -- if i'm wrong, then please
> correct me.

+++++ Certainly.

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

Reasons why:

(Nasrallah is the leader of Hezbollah terrorists)

Speaking at a graduation ceremony in Haret Hreik, Nasrallah
announced on October 22, 2002: "if they all gather in Israel, it
will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide."[61][62] The
New York Times qualifies this as "genocidal thinking"[63], whereas
the New York Sun likens it to the 1992 Hezbollah statement, which
vowed, "It is an open war until the elimination of Israel and until
the death of the last Jew on earth."[64] Michael Rubin qualifies his
goal as genocide too, quoting Nasrallah ruling out "co-existence
with" the Jews or "peace", as "they are a cancer which is liable to
spread again at any moment."[65] The Age quotes him like so: "There
is no solution to the conflict in this region except with the
disappearance of Israel."[66]

>
>
>
> > +++ If you aren't a pacifist at a man to man level you can't
> > be one on a country to country level.
>
>
> I agree with that. But i will also say that it's much
> easier to maintain a *committment* to pacifism on a
> country to country level than it is on a man to man level.
> (to be PC, we should say person to person)
>
> I believe that part of the reason why Jesus Christ went
> placidly to his crucifixion was because he was committed
> to pacifism, and wanted to show the world that committment
> by not lifting a finger to defend himself.

++ This subject is complex. (Jesus also beat men on one
occassion.) Defending the weak is a basic principle to
Christianity.

But for more
> ordinary folks, any committment to pacifism on a man to man
> level would have ended long before the situation reached
> that point.

+++ I going to offend you now.

I'm trying to be respectful, but if *you* can't reject violence
at a person to person level you won't be able to on a country
to country level. I could go on but it would be offensive.
I think you see my point, I hope.

>
> > > Look back on the history of the "Cold War": the USSR and
> > > the USA both had enough nuclear weapons to destroy all
> > > human life on the planet many times over, and while both
> > > parties kept the world living in fear that it might happen,
> > > there was never any real perceived threat that it would,
> > > because both parties engaged in diplomacy to establish detente.
> >
> > +++ I *strongly* suggest you read about the Cuban missle crisis:
> >
> > General info here in a dry view:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missle_Crisis
> >
> > We were close indeed.
>
>
> I know all about that, and yes, we were close indeed.
> But nowhere near as close as we are now. The parties
> involved then (USSR/Cuba and the USA/NATO) were dealing
> with the situation in a much more orderly fashion.

++++ I think we both need to learn more about
the Cuban Missile Crisis. Here is some:

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/10/spotlight/

The hot line came into being one year after the Cuban Missile
Crisis. That confrontation, over the presence of Soviet missiles in
Cuba, brought the world to the brink of nuclear conflict. After
diplomacy and cooler heads prevailed, both sides were shaken by the
realization of how close they had come to annihilation -- and at how
primitive their direct communication methods had been. For example,
during the tensest moments of the crisis, Anatoly Dobrynin, the
Soviet ambassador to Washington, was forced to rely on a bicycle
courier to pick up his urgent messages to Moscow and pedal them over
to the local Western Union office.

(((This is from CNN so it might not be valid. Not exactly
what you expected if true I assume.))

Seems to be a true account. Another link below:

library.thinkquest.org/11046/media/fourteen_days.doc

As Robert Kennedy left the building, he held out his hand in despair
and said, "I do not know how this will end." Shortly afterward,
Dobrynin wrote a message summarizing the meeting to be cabled to
Khrushchev. Because communications were still at an infant stage
then, Dobrynin had to call a Western Union telegraph station in
Washington, which sent a bike messenger to pick up the cable.
Dobrynin recalls urging the messenger to travel back to the station
with the utmost speed.

>
> The situation now, in Iraq and Lebanon/Israel/Syria/Iran
> (not to mention North Korea, remember them?) is chaotic.
> Far too many loose cannons lying about (both literally
> and figuratively), and too many people with too strongly
> held opinions on both sides, and too much willingness to
> kill and be killed regardless of the consequences.
>
>
> > > Unfortunately that policy has not been carried out with
> > > the Muslim/terrorist threat (and no, i'm not equating the two,
> > > just lumping them together for convenience), and now the
> > > world is in a situation where there is a very real possibility
> > > of imminent nuclear annihilation.
> >
> > ++++ That's why the Iranian nuclear bomb program has to
> > be stopped before it starts.
>
>
> Yeah, but it's OK for the US and Israel to have nukes, right?

++++ Of course. Israel and the US have had nukes for decades.
Iran and their servants, Hezbollah, want Israel destroyed.
It is NOT ok for Iran to have nukes.

>
> The really unfortunate thing here is that that particular
> genie was let out of the bottle in 1945 and is never going
> to go back in.
>
>
> -monz
>
-Stephen

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@...> wrote:
>
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@> wrote:

Monz

I'm not sure of your point just yet. Originally I commented
on the possibility of killing bin Laden in Afghanistan well
before Sept. 2001.

Though Predator drones spotted Osama bin Laden as many as three
times in late 2000, the Bush administration did not fly the unmanned
planes over Afghanistan during its first eight months and was still
refining a plan...

http://www.helenair.com/articles/2003/06/25/national_top/a01062503_04
.txt

=================================================================

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks

Responsibility

Main article: Responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks

The United States government determined (in part based on classified
information) that al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden bear responsibility
for the attacks. Bin Laden initially denied, but later admitted
involvement in the incidents.
============================================================

-Stephen

> >
> > no one from Afghanistan was involved in 9/11. no members of
> > the taliban as i stated before even the FBI warrant for
> > Bid laden does not mention 9/11 because there is no evidence
> > that he was involved.
> > this is the offical statement from the FBI
> > the project of the new century advocated moving into this
> > region before 9/11
>
>
>
> Please read all about it, straight from the horse's mouth:
>
> http://www.newamericancentury.org/
>
> Note that the opening statement dates from 1997.
>
>
> -monz
>

the point wasthat they were going to surrender after just one.
But i guess you think it was OK , just to make sure they didn't change there mind ( actually they had already sent signals before the first bomb that they wished t osurrender)

stephenszpak wrote:
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...> wrote:
>
> Kraig
> > If you said Japan surrendered after the second nuke,
> this is correct. -Stephen
> >> japan already wanted to surrender dropped a second one.
>> the one on Nagasaki was dropped on the residential part of the city .
>> >
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> -- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

why tell the wife and children when it is much easier to go into some other country and kill a bunch of wives and children
any time any where for any whim of a reason.
stephenszpak wrote:
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...> wrote:
> >> the Israeli started bombing BEFORE the use of missiles
>>
>> the hizbollah then according to your own logic are defending >> > themselves
> >> Kraig
>> >
> It all started with Hezbollah. They kidnapped x number of men.
> Two this time. It would have been easy to write them off. I > wouldn't have wanted to have the job of telling their wifes/family
> that myself. > > -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
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> -- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

figures.

maybe you should look up the number of dead Palestinians to Israeli
especially children.

But i know you think the Israeli have superhuman powers to know exactly who is a terrorist or not
and likewise have the superhuman ability to never miss or use more force than necessary.
never killed an non terrorist.
and of course the Israeli govt doesn't have a big share of individuals who think exactly like hizbollah. that the only solution is to get rid of all the Palestinians.
\ who as was pointed out don't particually like hizbollah
stephenszpak wrote:
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...> wrote:
> >> Kraig
>> >
> Unfamiliar with this matter. No comment. -Stephen
>
> >> i guess this is why we slaughtered 5,000 poor people when we went >> > into > >> panama. Even though these people did in no way support noreiga
>>
>>
>> >
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
> -- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

On 8/2/06, stephenszpak <stephen_szpak@...> wrote:

> It all started with Hezbollah. They kidnapped x number of men.
> Two this time. It would have been easy to write them off. I
> wouldn't have wanted to have the job of telling their wifes/family
> that myself.
>
> -Stephen

So you'd rather leave it up to someone else to tell 87 people that
their wives and children got blown up? Or do Lebanese deaths not
matter (thank you Bolton)?

--TRISTAN
(http://dreamingofeden.smackjeeves.com/)

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "stephenszpak" <stephen_szpak@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@> wrote:
> > Kraig
>
> Unfamiliar with this matter. No comment. -Stephen
>
> > i guess this is why we slaughtered 5,000 poor people when
> > we went into panama. Even though these people did in no
> > way support noreiga

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

-monz

Hi Stephen,

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "stephenszpak" <stephen_szpak@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@> wrote:
> > >
> > > no one from Afghanistan was involved in 9/11. no members of
> > > the taliban as i stated before even the FBI warrant for
> > > Bid laden does not mention 9/11 because there is no evidence
> > > that he was involved.
> > > this is the offical statement from the FBI
> > > the project of the new century advocated moving into this
> > > region before 9/11
> >
> >
> >
> > Please read all about it, straight from the horse's mouth:
> >
> > http://www.newamericancentury.org/
> >
> > Note that the opening statement dates from 1997.
>
> ++++++++++++ Monz
>
> My knowledge of history is not perfect. Your link takes me to
> a main page of sorts. Can't find your quotes above there.

First of all, the quote is from Kraig Grady.

Secondly, his last sentence is the only thing is was
referring to with that link.

Try reading this page:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

I see that entire page as basically a Newspeak for
American imperial expansion and domination. It specifically
states the policy that "America has a vital role in
maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and
the Middle East."

-monz

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "stephenszpak" <stephen_szpak@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Stephen,
> >
> >
> > --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "stephenszpak" <stephen_szpak@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@> wrote:
> >
> > > > There's only one reason why both sides can't discuss the
> > > > situation and reach an acceptable solution:
> > > > they don't want to.
> > >
> > > +++ Hezbollah wants Israel destroyed. It seems you don't
> > > believe that.
> > >
> > > If you believe this I don't get your point here.
> > >
> > > The current war Israel is fighting
> > > wasn't started by Israel. It is totally unacceptable
> > > for a nation to live with rocket attacks for an indefinite
> > > time. They had to defend themselves. Hezbollah's arsenal
> > > of these rockets (the small ones, with the 80 pound high
> > > explosive warheads) is around 10,000. That's a lot of
> > > pot shots.
> >
> >
> > Well, it was my understanding that Israel (and the USA)
> > wants Hezbollah destroyed -- if i'm wrong, then please
> > correct me.
>
> +++++ Certainly.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah
>
> Reasons why:
>
> (Nasrallah is the leader of Hezbollah terrorists)
>
> Speaking at a graduation ceremony in Haret Hreik, Nasrallah
> announced on October 22, 2002: "if they all gather in Israel, it
> will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide."[61][62] The
> New York Times qualifies this as "genocidal thinking"[63], whereas
> the New York Sun likens it to the 1992 Hezbollah statement, which
> vowed, "It is an open war until the elimination of Israel and until
> the death of the last Jew on earth."[64] Michael Rubin qualifies his
> goal as genocide too, quoting Nasrallah ruling out "co-existence
> with" the Jews or "peace", as "they are a cancer which is liable to
> spread again at any moment."[65] The Age quotes him like so: "There
> is no solution to the conflict in this region except with the
> disappearance of Israel."[66]

There are many ways to deal with hatred, but hating back
is not one of the better ones.

> > > +++ If you aren't a pacifist at a man to man level you can't
> > > be one on a country to country level.
> >
> >
> > I agree with that. But i will also say that it's much
> > easier to maintain a *committment* to pacifism on a
> > country to country level than it is on a man to man level.
> > (to be PC, we should say person to person)
> >
> > I believe that part of the reason why Jesus Christ went
> > placidly to his crucifixion was because he was committed
> > to pacifism, and wanted to show the world that committment
> > by not lifting a finger to defend himself.
>
> ++ This subject is complex. (Jesus also beat men on one
> occassion.)

This is news to me ... please give a citation.

> Defending the weak is a basic principle to
> Christianity.
>
> But for more
> > ordinary folks, any committment to pacifism on a man to man
> > level would have ended long before the situation reached
> > that point.
>
> +++ I going to offend you now.
>
> I'm trying to be respectful, but if *you* can't reject violence
> at a person to person level you won't be able to on a country
> to country level. I could go on but it would be offensive.
> I think you see my point, I hope.

I don't understand why you assume that you are offending me.

And it also seems that you are saying that i personally
cannot reject violince at a person to person level, but the
contrary is true. I believe that the only time one should
consider violence is in personal self-defense, and even
there it should only be the last resort.

I already spelled out the answer in another post:
unconditional love.

The problem is that not enough people believe
either that it works or that it really is possible.

> > > > <snip> now the world is in a situation where there is
> > > > a very real possibility of imminent nuclear annihilation.
> > >
> > > ++++ That's why the Iranian nuclear bomb program has to
> > > be stopped before it starts.
> >
> >
> > Yeah, but it's OK for the US and Israel to have nukes, right?
>
> ++++ Of course. Israel and the US have had nukes for decades.
> Iran and their servants, Hezbollah, want Israel destroyed.
> It is NOT ok for Iran to have nukes.

I'm having a really hard time understanding the double standard
that you apply here. Why is it OK for USA/Israel to have nukes
(regardless of the fact of our priority), but not Iran?

-monz

I've "enjoyed" the banter, but what has become clear to me is that there are different narratives of what is going on, both presently and historically.

It's like asking someone what is on a penny; one person says Abe Lincoln, another says there is a building.

Kraig, you seem to have only one narrative going. Please see:

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/07/hezbollah-israel-war-narratives-and.php

for a Lebanese view that differes from the Christian Science Monitor correspondent.

Here's to the preservation of life!! Johnny

-----Original Message-----
From: kraiggrady@...
To: metatuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 3:35 PM
Subject: Re: [metatuning] Re: pacifism

japan already wanted to surrender dropped a second one.
the one on Nagasaki was dropped on the residential part of the city .
that way the men could watch the plane, too high for fighters drop it
on their wifes and children while they were at work on the other side of
a hill.

monz wrote:
>
>
>
> Yeah, but it's OK for the US and Israel to have nukes, right?
>
>

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

________________________________________________________________________
Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free.

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

Johnny,

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@... wrote:
> I've "enjoyed" the banter...

These issues mean a lot to me, and are affecting me very deeply these
days. I hope your use of the word "banter" is not in any way implying
that the discussion is frivolous or light-hearted. Yes, there are
disagreements and widely-varied viewpoints. But don't for a minute
(and I hope I'm correct that I'm just reading too much into it!) think
that my input to the discussion (since I can only speak for myself) is
just a trifle of my time.

Best,
Jon

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>
wrote:
>
Kraig

I posted this 2 weeks ago:
===========================================================
What I said is that:

"It is impossible to kill only Hezbollah terrorists."

-Stephen
-----------------------------------------------------------
Message #11018
============================================================

> figures.
>
> maybe you should look up the number of dead Palestinians to
Israeli
> especially children.
>
> But i know you think the Israeli have superhuman powers to know
exactly
> who is a terrorist or not
> and likewise have the superhuman ability to never miss or use more
force
> than necessary...

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>
wrote:

Kraig

They surrendered after the second bomb. They did not surrender
after the first. You implying some other sequence of events
occured does not line up with the history known.

One could also point out The Empire of Japan should have
surrended months before. It would have been a good idea
for them not to have bombed Peral Harbor killing 2,400
Americans years before all this.

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

===========================================================
On the morning of August 6, 1945 the United States Army Air Forces
dropped the nuclear weapon "Little Boy" on the city of Hiroshima,
followed three days later by the detonation of the "Fat Man" bomb
over Nagasaki, Japan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasak
i

==============================================================
The surrender of Japan in August 1945 brought World War II to a
close. On August 14, 1945, after the atomic bombings of Hiroshima
and Nagasaki, at a meeting of the emperor and the leaders
(gozenkaigi), the Japanese leadership decided to accept the Potsdam
Declaration. The next day, the Japanese Emperor Hirohito made a
radio speech to the public, the Imperial Rescript on Surrender,
announcing the acceptance.

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

===================================================================

-Stephen

>
> the point wasthat they were going to surrender after just one.
> But i guess you think it was OK , just to make sure they didn't
change
> there mind ( actually they had already sent signals before the
first
> bomb that they wished t osurrender)
>
> stephenszpak wrote:
> > --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@>
wrote:
> >
> > Kraig
> >
> > If you said Japan surrendered after the second nuke,
> > this is correct. -Stephen
> >
> >> japan already wanted to surrender dropped a second one.
> >> the one on Nagasaki was dropped on the residential part of the
city .
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Kraig Grady
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
> The Wandering Medicine Show
> KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles
>

historical records show that the Japaneses had already let the us know they wanted to surrender.
there is a rather extensive book called the decision to drop the bomb.
includes records.
i am one of the people who does not take wikipedia as truth .
anyone can write it, it will in the future be taken over by those who can afford to do so, by hiring people to submit to it.
filerbuster will become truth
stephenszpak wrote:
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...> > wrote:
>
> Kraig
>
> They surrendered after the second bomb. They did not surrender
> after the first. You implying some other sequence of events > occured does not line up with the history known.
>
> One could also point out The Empire of Japan should have
> surrended months before. It would have been a good idea
> for them not to have bombed Peral Harbor killing 2,400
> Americans years before all this.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbor
>
> ===========================================================
> On the morning of August 6, 1945 the United States Army Air Forces > dropped the nuclear weapon "Little Boy" on the city of Hiroshima, > followed three days later by the detonation of the "Fat Man" bomb > over Nagasaki, Japan.
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasak
> i
>
> ==============================================================
> The surrender of Japan in August 1945 brought World War II to a > close. On August 14, 1945, after the atomic bombings of Hiroshima > and Nagasaki, at a meeting of the emperor and the leaders > (gozenkaigi), the Japanese leadership decided to accept the Potsdam > Declaration. The next day, the Japanese Emperor Hirohito made a > radio speech to the public, the Imperial Rescript on Surrender, > announcing the acceptance. >
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan
>
> ===================================================================
>
> -Stephen
>
> >> the point wasthat they were going to surrender after just one.
>> But i guess you think it was OK , just to make sure they didn't >> > change > >> there mind ( actually they had already sent signals before the >> > first > >> bomb that they wished t osurrender)
>>
>> stephenszpak wrote:
>> >>> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@> >>> > wrote:
> >>> Kraig
>>> >>> If you said Japan surrendered after the second nuke,
>>> this is correct. -Stephen
>>> >>> >>>> japan already wanted to surrender dropped a second one.
>>>> the one on Nagasaki was dropped on the residential part of the >>>> > city .
> >>>> >>>> >>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >>> >> -- >> Kraig Grady
>> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
>> The Wandering Medicine Show
>> KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles
>>
>> >
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> -- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>
wrote:

Kraig

(not from wikipedia this time)

Japanese officials immediately recognized that Potsdam was far more
lenient than generally expected and softer than the terms imposed on
Germany -- which was never offered any terms at all. The Japanese
peace faction tried to persuade the emperor that, ipso facto, the
document meant the abandonment of unconditional surrender. The
military faction considered the document proof that America's will
to fight had eroded and demanded its unequivocal rejection to
solidify morale inside Japanese Army ranks. ("For the enemy [the
Allies] to say something like that means circumstances have arisen
that force them also to end the war.")

On 10 August, after America dropped the only other atomic bomb in
its arsenal-but warned of "a rain of ruin from the air, the like of
which has never been seen on this earth" - the emperor overruled the
Imperial Japanese Army. The Japanese Army still had 2.35 million men
under arms inside Japan, not having suffered the massive devastation
that had been inflicted on the Japanese Air Force and Navy. In fact,
the Japanese sneered at their erstwhile Axis ally for surrendering
when only some 2.5 million Russians had fought their way through
Berlin. The Germans lacked the "Bushido" tradition, commented the
Japanese press. Now, the imperial armed forces pleaded for the
chance to "find life in death ... .. If we are prepared to sacrifice
20,000,000 Japanese lives in a special attack [kamikaze] effort,
victory shall be ours!"58

http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/Pearlman/pearlman.asp

-Stephen

==================================================================

>
> historical records show that the Japaneses had already let the us
know
> they wanted to surrender.
> there is a rather extensive book called the decision to drop the
bomb.
> includes records.
>
> i am one of the people who does not take wikipedia as truth .
> anyone can write it, it will in the future be taken over by those
who
> can afford to do so, by hiring people to submit to it.
> filerbuster will become truth
> stephenszpak wrote:
> > --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@>
> > wrote:
> >
> > Kraig
> >
> > They surrendered after the second bomb. They did not surrender
> > after the first. You implying some other sequence of events
> > occured does not line up with the history known.
> >
> > One could also point out The Empire of Japan should have
> > surrended months before. It would have been a good idea
> > for them not to have bombed Peral Harbor killing 2,400
> > Americans years before all this.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbor
> >
> > ===========================================================
> > On the morning of August 6, 1945 the United States Army Air
Forces
> > dropped the nuclear weapon "Little Boy" on the city of
Hiroshima,
> > followed three days later by the detonation of the "Fat Man"
bomb
> > over Nagasaki, Japan.
> >
> >
> >
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasak
> > i
> >
> > ==============================================================
> > The surrender of Japan in August 1945 brought World War II to a
> > close. On August 14, 1945, after the atomic bombings of
Hiroshima
> > and Nagasaki, at a meeting of the emperor and the leaders
> > (gozenkaigi), the Japanese leadership decided to accept the
Potsdam
> > Declaration. The next day, the Japanese Emperor Hirohito made a
> > radio speech to the public, the Imperial Rescript on Surrender,
> > announcing the acceptance.
> >
> >
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan
> >
> >
===================================================================
> >
> > -Stephen
> >
> >
> >> the point wasthat they were going to surrender after just one.
> >> But i guess you think it was OK , just to make sure they
didn't
> >>
> > change
> >
> >> there mind ( actually they had already sent signals before the
> >>
> > first
> >
> >> bomb that they wished t osurrender)
> >>
> >> stephenszpak wrote:
> >>
> >>> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@>
> >>>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>> Kraig
> >>>
> >>> If you said Japan surrendered after the second nuke,
> >>> this is correct. -Stephen
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> japan already wanted to surrender dropped a second one.
> >>>> the one on Nagasaki was dropped on the residential part of
the
> >>>>
> > city .
> >
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 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
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> --
> >> Kraig Grady
> >> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
<http://anaphoria.com/>
> >> The Wandering Medicine Show
> >> KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los
Angeles
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Kraig Grady
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
> The Wandering Medicine Show
> KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles
>

DWIGHT EISENHOWER

"...in [July] 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my
headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing
to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that
there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such
an act. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful
bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my
reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of
a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings,
first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and
that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly
because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion
by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer
mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that
Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a
minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my
attitude..."

- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380

In a Newsweek interview, Eisenhower again recalled the meeting with
Stimson:

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to
hit them with that awful thing."

- Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63

ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. LEAHY
(Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman)

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima
and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan.
The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of
the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with
conventional weapons.

"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are
frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we
had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark
Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be
won by destroying women and children."

- William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441.

> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah
> >
> > Reasons why:
> >
> > (Nasrallah is the leader of Hezbollah terrorists)
> >
> > Speaking at a graduation ceremony in Haret Hreik, Nasrallah
> > announced on October 22, 2002: "if they all gather in Israel, it
> > will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide."[61][62]
The
> > New York Times qualifies this as "genocidal thinking"[63],
whereas
> > the New York Sun likens it to the 1992 Hezbollah statement,
which
> > vowed, "It is an open war until the elimination of Israel and
until
> > the death of the last Jew on earth."[64] Michael Rubin qualifies
his
> > goal as genocide too, quoting Nasrallah ruling out "co-existence
> > with" the Jews or "peace", as "they are a cancer which is liable
to
> > spread again at any moment."[65] The Age quotes him like
so: "There
> > is no solution to the conflict in this region except with the
> > disappearance of Israel."[66]
>
>
> There are many ways to deal with hatred, but hating back
> is not one of the better ones.

++++++++++++++++++ It's not about hate Monz. This is important
to know. It is about America and Israel
defending themselves against Muslim terrorists.
Hate comes into the picture, but even it you
subtract it, it still comes down to self-defense.

>
>
>
> > > > +++ If you aren't a pacifist at a man to man level you can't
> > > > be one on a country to country level.
> > >
> > >
> > > I agree with that. But i will also say that it's much
> > > easier to maintain a *committment* to pacifism on a
> > > country to country level than it is on a man to man level.
> > > (to be PC, we should say person to person)
> > >
> > > I believe that part of the reason why Jesus Christ went
> > > placidly to his crucifixion was because he was committed
> > > to pacifism, and wanted to show the world that committment
> > > by not lifting a finger to defend himself.
> >
> > ++ This subject is complex. (Jesus also beat men on one
> > occassion.)
>
>
> This is news to me ... please give a citation.

More than happy to:

Typed longhand from a NASB version (plain English):

from John Chapter 2:

And the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up
to Jerusalem.And He found in the temple those who were selling
oxen and sheep and doves, and the moneychangers seated. And he
made a scourge of cords, and drove (them) all out of the temple,
with the sheep and the oxen; and He poured out the coins of the
moneychangers, and overturned their tables; and to those who
were selling the doves He said, "Take these things away; stop
making My Father's house a house of merchandise."
=============================================================

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

A scourge (from the Italian scoriada, ultimately from the Latin
excoriare = "to flay" and corium = "skin") is a whip or lash,
especially a multi-tong type used in order to inflict severe
corporal punishment on the back.
===================================================================

>
>
>
> > Defending the weak is a basic principle to
> > Christianity.
> >
> > But for more
> > > ordinary folks, any committment to pacifism on a man to man
> > > level would have ended long before the situation reached
> > > that point.
> >
> > +++ I going to offend you now.
> >
> > I'm trying to be respectful, but if *you* can't reject
violence
> > at a person to person level you won't be able to on a country
> > to country level. I could go on but it would be offensive.
> > I think you see my point, I hope.
>
>
> I don't understand why you assume that you are offending me.

++ Just covering all my bases.

>
> And it also seems that you are saying that i personally
> cannot reject violince at a person to person level, but the
> contrary is true. I believe that the only time one should
> consider violence is in personal self-defense, and even
> there it should only be the last resort.

++ It's all the same. If you were living in Israel (or many
other countries as well) and you and your family were attacked
by several armed men, you state that this is a acceptable time
to use lethal force to defend yourself and those you love.

If you had the option to call for government personnel (local
law enforcment, military etc.) you would do so. If this was in
Israel, we'd be talking about Hezbollah terrorists coming to
kill and kidnap, with the IDF doing its best to kill and capture
them. You and those you love with the Israeli Defense Forces,
against the Iranian backed Hezbollah terrorists.

>
> I already spelled out the answer in another post:
> unconditional love.

++ I haven't read it.

> The problem is that not enough people believe
> either that it works or that it really is possible.
>
> > > > > <snip> now the world is in a situation where there is
> > > > > a very real possibility of imminent nuclear annihilation.
> > > >
> > > > ++++ That's why the Iranian nuclear bomb program has to
> > > > be stopped before it starts.
> > >
> > >
> > > Yeah, but it's OK for the US and Israel to have nukes, right?
> >
> > ++++ Of course. Israel and the US have had nukes for decades.
> > Iran and their servants, Hezbollah, want Israel destroyed.
> > It is NOT ok for Iran to have nukes.
>
>
> I'm having a really hard time understanding the double standard
> that you apply here. Why is it OK for USA/Israel to have nukes
> (regardless of the fact of our priority), but not Iran?

================================================================

++++++ I *think* you don't understand because you can't accept
what Nasrallah (Hezbollah)and Ahmadinejad (Iran) say is
what they believe. I can only assume this.

1) You don't really believe Hezbollah:

the New York Sun likens it to the 1992 Hezbollah statement, which
vowed, "It is an open war until the elimination of Israel and until
the death of the last Jew on earth."

2) You don't really believe Nasrallah (leader of Hezbollah)

The Age quotes him like so: "There
is no solution to the conflict in this region except with the
disappearance of Israel."

3) You don't really belive Ahmadinejad of Iran.

This is about 36 hours old:

Iran's president reiterated his call for Israel's destruction as
a"solution" to the Middle East crisis. Attending a meeting of the 56-
member Organization of the Islamic Conference in Malaysia on
Thursday, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad endorsed a resolution calling for a
cessation of hostilities between Israel and Lebanon, but added his
own proviso.

"Although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist
regime, at this stage an immediate ceasefire must be implemented,"
he said.

http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?
Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=100023847&docId=l:41
4909729&start=1
---------------------------------------------------------------
This is what a previous "president" of Iran stated:

"In December 2001, former Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani
explained that 'the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will
destroy everything.' On the other hand, if Israel responded with its
own nuclear weapons, it 'will only harm the Islamic world. It is not
irrational to contemplate such an eventuality.'

"Rafsanjani thus spelled out a macabre cost-benefit analysis. It
might not be possible to destroy Israel without suffering
retaliation. But, for Islam, the level of damage Israel could
inflict is bearable—only 100,000 or so additional martyrs for Islam"
(ibid.).

http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn65/ahmadinejad.htm
---------------------------------------------------------

Hezbollah is under the guidance of Iran. They are killing
a few Israelis a day. Why just a few? They don't have greater
fire-power. If they had nukes they'd use them without even
thinking about it. They are getting what they now have from
Iran.

-Stephen

>
>
> -monz
>

Some continually attempt to blur the clear distinction between
defeat and a willingness to surrender. Germany was a perfect
example of this difference. The Nazis had been defeated long before
they finally agreed to surrender and hundreds of thousands of people
perished during that period. The very same concept should be
applied to Japan. Though they had certainly been defeated
militarily, Japan was not, as some historians have vainly attempted
to prove, on the verge of surrender.

The Japanese militarists who had started
this war, and comprised the sole, effective government at that time,
steadfastly and senselessly refused to surrender for any reason.
This occurred despite the fact it was certainly obvious to everyone,
including Allied leaders and eventually Emperor Hirohito and members
of the Japanese government peace faction, that they had been
defeated for some time. The problem was that the diehard
militarists, Minister of War General Anami, Army Chief of Staff
General Umezu, and Navy Chief of Staff Admiral Toyoda were the ones
who were in firm control of the government, not the peace faction,
and according to their 2,000-year-old "Death before Surrender" code
of Bushido, surrender was never an option they would even think of
considering.

Patriotic slogans such as "100 million die together
with Honor!" and "We will fight until we have to eat stones," summed
up the extent to which the Japanese were willing to go. The
militarists would accept nothing less than total victory and some of
them were ready to sacrifice the entire population of Japan, if
necessary, to win the war. According to historical records, this
even included a last-ditch plan put forth by Admiral Onishi four
days after Nagasaki was bombed. He boldly stated, "If we are
prepared to sacrifice 20,000,000 Japanese lives, victory will be
ours."[viii]

http://www.childrenofthemanhattanproject.org/EVENTS/WPAFB/Pages/Speec
h.htm
===================================================================

Togo, more than anyone else in the Japanese Cabinet, pushed Japan
toward peace. His efforts were restricted by the military to
petitioning Russia to help Japan end the war. When the Japanese
Cabinet was unmoved to surrender by the Hiroshima and Nagasaki
atomic bombings, Togo worked with Premier Suzuki and Privy Seal Kido
to have the emperor request the Cabinet to surrender. It was this
that brought Japan's surrender.

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

-Stephen
====================================================================

=================================================================

OLD POST BELOW OLD POST BELOW OLD POST BELOW

=================================================================
> They surrendered after the second bomb. They did not surrender
> after the first. You implying some other sequence of events
> occured does not line up with the history known.
>
> One could also point out The Empire of Japan should have
> surrended months before. It would have been a good idea
> for them not to have bombed Peral Harbor killing 2,400
> Americans years before all this.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbor
>
> ===========================================================
> On the morning of August 6, 1945 the United States Army Air Forces
> dropped the nuclear weapon "Little Boy" on the city of Hiroshima,
> followed three days later by the detonation of the "Fat Man" bomb
> over Nagasaki, Japan.
>
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasak
> i
>
> ==============================================================
> The surrender of Japan in August 1945 brought World War II to a
> close. On August 14, 1945, after the atomic bombings of Hiroshima
> and Nagasaki, at a meeting of the emperor and the leaders
> (gozenkaigi), the Japanese leadership decided to accept the
Potsdam
> Declaration. The next day, the Japanese Emperor Hirohito made a
> radio speech to the public, the Imperial Rescript on Surrender,
> announcing the acceptance.
>
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan
>
> ===================================================================
>
> -Stephen
>

"The United States dropped a second atomic bomb on the southern city of Nagasaki on August 9.

"Six days later, Japan surrendered."

The above is from CNN International, today, in reference to the Hiroshima "61 years after" challenge to the world to stop the path that it is on.

Johnny
________________________________________________________________________
Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free.

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

the Japanese told the US they were willing to surrender through third party countries.

As far a pearl harbor
the Japanese code had been broken and Roosevelt knew that the attack was going to happen, that is why the newer vessels were out of the harbor at the time.

just like examination of the wreckage of the Maine shows that the explosion came from the inside not the outside.
The Philippines were attacked by Perry sooner than the word of this could have even reached him
.and on and on.

The US has a consistent history of have these " unprovoked" attacks out of the blue that in our so called 'innocence " we know nothing about
9/11 as if one looks at the data shows was exactly the same.
Insider trading of stocks by a stock company the third highest person in the CIA owned until two weeks before is just one glaring piece of evidence that allot of people knew.
If you really think that planes can fly around for 45 minutes in US airspace and not be found, Russia would have bombed us back to the stone age long ago.
nor does plane fit into a little 7 foot hole into the pentagon without leaving wreckage.
and the supposed wreckage, pictures that did not come out until six months after the fact do not match any airplane part, but if you took a picture of the plane and twisted it around in photoshop and shrink it down to a 3 foot piece it matches. just show you the disinformation of snopes too
or the classic demolition of wtc building no.7 etc etc.
notice they didn't know it was going to happen but they had all these pictures within hours.
where did these pictures come from?
Many of these have been proven to be false. some of these people are still alive.
having their passport stolen or lost

why did we attack the slums in panama, they had nothing to do with noreiga as they hated him as much as anyone else.
so many of these things make not sense they tell usif one just even scratches the surface.
stephenszpak wrote:
> Some continually attempt to blur the clear distinction between > defeat and a willingness to surrender. Germany was a perfect > example of this difference. The Nazis had been defeated long before > they finally agreed to surrender and hundreds of thousands of people > perished during that period. The very same concept should be > applied to Japan. Though they had certainly been defeated > militarily, Japan was not, as some historians have vainly attempted > to prove, on the verge of surrender.
>
>
> The Japanese militarists who had started > this war, and comprised the sole, effective government at that time, > steadfastly and senselessly refused to surrender for any reason. > This occurred despite the fact it was certainly obvious to everyone, > including Allied leaders and eventually Emperor Hirohito and members > of the Japanese government peace faction, that they had been > defeated for some time. The problem was that the diehard > militarists, Minister of War General Anami, Army Chief of Staff > General Umezu, and Navy Chief of Staff Admiral Toyoda were the ones > who were in firm control of the government, not the peace faction, > and according to their 2,000-year-old "Death before Surrender" code > of Bushido, surrender was never an option they would even think of > considering.
>
> Patriotic slogans such as "100 million die together > with Honor!" and "We will fight until we have to eat stones," summed > up the extent to which the Japanese were willing to go. The > militarists would accept nothing less than total victory and some of > them were ready to sacrifice the entire population of Japan, if > necessary, to win the war. According to historical records, this > even included a last-ditch plan put forth by Admiral Onishi four > days after Nagasaki was bombed. He boldly stated, "If we are > prepared to sacrifice 20,000,000 Japanese lives, victory will be > ours."[viii]
>
>
>
>
> http://www.childrenofthemanhattanproject.org/EVENTS/WPAFB/Pages/Speec
> h.htm
> ===================================================================
>
> Togo, more than anyone else in the Japanese Cabinet, pushed Japan > toward peace. His efforts were restricted by the military to > petitioning Russia to help Japan end the war. When the Japanese > Cabinet was unmoved to surrender by the Hiroshima and Nagasaki > atomic bombings, Togo worked with Premier Suzuki and Privy Seal Kido > to have the emperor request the Cabinet to surrender. It was this > that brought Japan's surrender. >
> http://www.doug-long.com/togo.htm
>
>
> -Stephen
> ====================================================================
>
> =================================================================
>
>
>
> OLD POST BELOW OLD POST BELOW OLD POST BELOW
>
> =================================================================
> >> They surrendered after the second bomb. They did not surrender
>> after the first. You implying some other sequence of events >> occured does not line up with the history known.
>>
>> One could also point out The Empire of Japan should have
>> surrended months before. It would have been a good idea
>> for them not to have bombed Peral Harbor killing 2,400
>> Americans years before all this.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbor
>>
>> ===========================================================
>> On the morning of August 6, 1945 the United States Army Air Forces >> dropped the nuclear weapon "Little Boy" on the city of Hiroshima, >> followed three days later by the detonation of the "Fat Man" bomb >> over Nagasaki, Japan.
>>
>>
>>
>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasak
> >> i
>>
>> ==============================================================
>> The surrender of Japan in August 1945 brought World War II to a >> close. On August 14, 1945, after the atomic bombings of Hiroshima >> and Nagasaki, at a meeting of the emperor and the leaders >> (gozenkaigi), the Japanese leadership decided to accept the >> > Potsdam > >> Declaration. The next day, the Japanese Emperor Hirohito made a >> radio speech to the public, the Imperial Rescript on Surrender, >> announcing the acceptance. >>
>>
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan
>>
>> ===================================================================
>>
>> -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
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
> -- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles