Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup metatuning Fisk and terrorism

I find Fisk mildly entertaining, appropriate for a journalist. However, he
certainly leans a particular way, while he could be more straight. Chomsky
leans so far over that he is practically horizontal.

I think that the history of every country in the Western world has its hands
covered in blood. No matter how many years back you go--it doesn't really
matter since human history is all fairly recent on the scheme of things--each
and every country of the West--committed "evil" to innocent people "who were
in the way." What I can see, and so few are capable of seeing, is that
governments change, and a nation evolves. Yes, we may carry scars from the
past, and yes, our President is the son of a previous President. But why
does everyone argue from the point of view of history repeating itself? It
needn't.

I agree that repeating mistakes is worst than making new mistakes. However,
the variables here are distinctive. The U.S. can and must protect itself
against "hate." Becoming like one's enemy is seductive but not likely in
this particular case.

I would like to take a "stab" at a definition of terrorism: Brutal and
intended massacre of innocents on a large scale in order to make a political
point. Suicide is but one method.

When I read Chomsky, I also see hatred for the reason that there is never any
balance: there is always one aggrieved party and only one terrorist (the
U.S.)

Brooklyn had its share of bullies when I was a teenager. There was always a
special way of dealing with them, especially if you were relatively small.
Bullies felt unloved and deprived of what they "should" have (basically low
self-esteem). Many of these people are dead, as I recall. The reason I am
not is that when it became necessary to stand up for myself, I projected more
might than I actually possessed. Usually, putting up the dukes is enough to
dissuade any bully. Loud noise and confusing babble also help, as does fast
feet. Asthma was a distinct liability.

What happened on September 11th is different from an oncoming bully. Here,
the collective American was "stabbed" and suffered a collective amputation.
If you don't feel that connection, nothing I say can change your mind. If
Iraq is invaded because it is deemed a threat because of its biological
weapons reserve, then it won't be because of oil, will it?

The Taliban are a sect, like the Koresh Dravidians. Religion makes them see
doom where others see opportunity. Let us treat each other with the
knowledge that people feel differently about how they would act in certain
life threatening situations. Here, the decision was made by a democratically
elected government. I see evidence for the need based on my experiences in
New York. Some feel as I do, while for some, it was just another movie.

Johnny Reinhard

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

🔗dante.interport@...

> I think that the history of every country in the Western world
> has its hands
> covered in blood.

History, and current events too. The more things change, the more they stay
the same.

> I agree that repeating mistakes is worst than making new
> mistakes. However,
> the variables here are distinctive. The U.S. can and must protect itself
> against "hate." Becoming like one's enemy is seductive but not likely in
> this particular case.

There are those that believe that violence only begets more violence, either
sooner or later. It is not protection, it is guarantee of further harm to
one's self and one's children. This is simply the "smart selfish" view. If
you add a sense of morality, then violent reaction to violence becomes an
impossibility. There are things worse than death- like killing someone else.

> I would like to take a "stab" at a definition of terrorism: Brutal and
> intended massacre of innocents on a large scale in order to make
> a political
> point. Suicide is but one method.

and sitting in the cockpit of a bomber @ 60,000 feet and dropping bombs
anywhere near civilians is another.

> When I read Chomsky, I also see hatred for the reason that there
> is never any
> balance: there is always one aggrieved party and only one terrorist (the
> U.S.)

then you don't read very carefully- he has never said (to my knowledge) that
the US is the only terrorist state, just that it is the biggest and best
organized.

> What happened on September 11th is different from an oncoming
> bully. Here,
> the collective American was "stabbed" and suffered a collective
> amputation.
> If you don't feel that connection, nothing I say can change your
> mind. If
> Iraq is invaded because it is deemed a threat because of its biological
> weapons reserve, then it won't be because of oil, will it?

The last time we attacked Iraq it was supposed to be about "freedom" for
Kuwait, but was obviously about oil. We and many countries have biological
weapons, we also have nuclear arsenals. Why is it ok for us and our friends
to have them, but not Iraq? (it >was< ok for Saddam to have them when he did
our bidding- fuck, we >gave< them to him- now that he doesn't "heel" when we
call him, he's a "terrorist"). Also don't forget about the fact that those
who go into the military, and especially those who rise in the ranks are for
the most part war mongers. They have all these neat toys- don't you think
they are just itching to use them on anyone at the drop of a hat? You spend
your whole life practicing your instrument- aren't you happy to "do your
thing" as much, and as often, as you can? If you listen carefully to
interviews with special forces et al, you can hear them talk about the
frustration of training all the time and not getting to do it for real.

> The Taliban are a sect, like the Koresh Dravidians. Religion
> makes them see
> doom where others see opportunity.

Yes, the Tailban are nuts, yes the Branch Dravidians were nuts, and yes,
Bush and Rumsfeld are nuts.

Let us treat each other with the
> knowledge that people feel differently about how they would act
> in certain
> life threatening situations. Here, the decision was made by a
> democratically
> elected government. I see evidence for the need based on my
> experiences in
> New York. Some feel as I do, while for some, it was just another movie.

just because you find yourself living in a horror movie doesn't mean you
have to become another Freddy.

Dante

🔗Afmmjr@...

JR:
> I think that the history of every country in the Western world
> has its hands
> covered in blood.
Dante:
History, and current events too. The more things change, the more they stay
the same.

My point is that we are all guilty for past wrongs. (I called kids names which I regret.)
> I agree that repeating mistakes is worst than making new
> mistakes. However,
> the variables here are distinctive. The U.S. can and must protect itself
> against "hate." Becoming like one's enemy is seductive but not likely in
> this particular case.

There are those that believe that violence only begets more violence, either
sooner or later.

JR: So, you have your own belief systems? I hope to see violence end collectively, as it has for me individually.

Dante:
It is not protection, it is guarantee of further harm to
one's self and one's children. This is simply the "smart selfish" view. If
you add a sense of morality, then violent reaction to violence becomes an
impossibility. There are things worse than death- like killing someone else.

JR: Thankfully, I have never killed anyone. My father told me that he is most thankful that after 4 years in the Korean War, he had not killed anyone. It is a complicated thing, since war is so ingrained in the human psyche. I'm sure we agree that one need not succumb totally to human instinct, however.

> I would like to take a "stab" at a definition of terrorism: Brutal and
> intended massacre of innocents on a large scale in order to make
> a political
> point. Suicide is but one method.

and sitting in the cockpit of a bomber @ 60,000 feet and dropping bombs
anywhere near civilians is another.

JR: Ah, you are not reading too carefully, here. The bomber does not intend to kill civilians. We could argue this fruitlessly, or accept it. These guys had to be taken out and sadly, innocents were lost. There was no intention to inflict massacre.

> When I read Chomsky, I also see hatred for the reason that there
> is never any
> balance: there is always one aggrieved party and only one terrorist (the
> U.S.)

then you don't read very carefully- he has never said (to my knowledge) that
the US is the only terrorist state, just that it is the biggest and best
organized.

JR: Try reading his stuff on Dawn Newspaper. I've heard Chomsky live. If anything, he is consistent. And frankly, one shouldn't have to try harder than I have to understand what he is saying regarding world blame, guilt, and punishment. He is rather blatant, no?

The last time we attacked Iraq it was supposed to be about "freedom" for
Kuwait, but was obviously about oil.

JR: Dante, my point is that this time would be different.
Dante:
We and many countries have biological
weapons, we also have nuclear arsenals. Why is it ok for us and our friends
to have them, but not Iraq?
JR: because of what he has done to his own people, the Kurds, and the Kuwaitis. And because he is the likely staging ground for future U.S. attacks in the wake of the Taleban's demise.

(it >was< ok for Saddam to have them when he did
our bidding- fuck, we >gave< them to him- now that he doesn't "heel" when we
call him, he's a "terrorist"). Also don't forget about the fact that those
who go into the military, and especially those who rise in the ranks are for
the most part war mongers.
JR: I will try to forget this, because it is only coloring the situation with prejudice. The soldiers follow orders and it is not necessary to impugn their collective motives. Obviously, you have some bad experiences. I have not so I give them the benefit of the doubt. I am glad it is a volunteer army.

Dante:
They have all these neat toys- don't you think
they are just itching to use them on anyone at the drop of a hat? You spend
your whole life practicing your instrument- aren't you happy to "do your
thing" as much, and as often, as you can?
JR: Actually, no. I like a varied, and mixed life. I have some neat instrument toys I have never used in concert.

If you listen carefully to
interviews with special forces et al, you can hear them talk about the
frustration of training all the time and not getting to do it for real.
JR: This I believe. The Canadaias were ranting about having an army ready for Afghanistan, but which never went. It's a big issue, and they were to go only for humanitarian reasons...and not to fight!

> The Taliban are a sect, like the Koresh Dravidians. Religion
> makes them see
> doom where others see opportunity.

Yes, the Tailban are nuts, yes the Branch Dravidians were nuts, and yes,
Bush and Rumsfeld are nuts.
JR: This is not a direct equation. As creepy as these guys may seem to you (or me), they are more centered than the religous sects aforementioned.

If only everyone could see the "opportunities" of exploitative
capitalism...but wait, exploitative capitalism >needs< a broad based
underclass to support its structure. Without the hoards of starving and
exploited, there can be no ultra-rich. This is economics 101.
JR: Afghan hoards are not the way to capitalist success. We are in recession. Some industries may never recover. My group is endangered and funding has stopped. Audiences no longer travel into NYC for concerts so they shrink further. Waiting around for another attack was not an option. I'm sorry for the death of innocents, but it was not intended...and it is regretted.

just because you find yourself living in a horror movie doesn't mean you
have to become another Freddy.

Dante

This is my point: it is not a horror movie. It is a reality that is new and which is difficult for some to feel empathy with. I don't watch horror movies and have only "heard of" Freddy.

Best to the world, Johnny Reinhard

🔗dante.interport@...

> My point is that we are all guilty for past wrongs. (I called
> kids names which I regret.)

This is not in dispute. Fisk is not lamenting the past actions of the US,
but rather the current actions.

> There are those that believe that violence only begets more
> violence, either
> sooner or later.
>
> JR: So, you have your own belief systems? I hope to see
> violence end collectively, as it has for me individually.

Its funny that you say violence has ended for you when you take every
opportunity to defend it as "necessary", even if you append "unfortunately".

> JR: Thankfully, I have never killed anyone. My father told me
> that he is most thankful that after 4 years in the Korean War, he
> had not killed anyone. It is a complicated thing, since war is
> so ingrained in the human psyche. I'm sure we agree that one
> need not succumb totally to human instinct, however.

I hope so too, but you might have a hard time telling that to the multitudes
of Americans screaming for revenge.

> > I would like to take a "stab" at a definition of terrorism: Brutal and
> > intended massacre of innocents on a large scale in order to make
> > a political
> > point. Suicide is but one method.
>
> and sitting in the cockpit of a bomber @ 60,000 feet and dropping bombs
> anywhere near civilians is another.
>
> JR: Ah, you are not reading too carefully, here. The bomber
> does not intend to kill civilians. We could argue this
> fruitlessly, or accept it.

yes, i know they are "only following orders". where have I heard that
before?

> JR: Try reading his stuff on Dawn Newspaper. I've heard Chomsky
> live. If anything, he is consistent. And frankly, one shouldn't
> have to try harder than I have to understand what he is saying
> regarding world blame, guilt, and punishment. He is rather blatant, no?

I find him very easy to understand (although the report of his talk on Dawn
was obviously written by a English semi-speaker), as well as well backed up
by facts and documentation. If by "blatant" you mean he tells the truth
without mincing words, then I agree.

> Also don't forget about the fact
> that those
> who go into the military, and especially those who rise in the
> ranks are for
> the most part war mongers.
> JR: I will try to forget this, because it is only coloring the
> situation with prejudice.

lets see: you spend your whole life training in how to kill people, how to
use machines to kill people, how to organize large groups of killers to go
and more effectively kill more people... I can't see why that would say
anything about your intent or motivation.

>The soldiers follow orders and it is
> not necessary to impugn their collective motives. Obviously, you
> have some bad experiences. I have not so I give them the benefit
> of the doubt. I am glad it is a volunteer army.

Yeah that way you only get the real nut jobs signing up: "kill 'em all and
let god sort 'em out!" "when do we get the guns?" Just as police and
criminals are basically the same tribe operating on both sides of a
polarity, so our "patriotic" soldiers and their "terrorists" are exact
counterparts. Remember the saying that exists in several cultures: "if you
succeed you are a father of your country, if you fail you are a
bandit/terrorist"

> just because you find yourself living in a horror movie doesn't mean you
> have to become another Freddy.
>
> Dante
>
> This is my point: it is not a horror movie. It is a reality that
> is new and which is difficult for some to feel empathy with. I
> don't watch horror movies and have only "heard of" Freddy.

If sept 11 and blowing up Afghani women and children (oh yeah, and men too)
is not a horror movie, then I don't know what is. But I agree there is no
need for horror movies anymore when reality is more horrible than anything
hollywood could come up with.

> Best to the world, Johnny Reinhard

...unless of course they "unfortunately get in the way" of your bombs.
Luckily the bombs are "just following orders", so they aren't responsible.

Dante

Fisk and terrorism

🔗Afmmjr@...

🔗dante.interport@...

🔗Afmmjr@...

🔗dante.interport@...

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@...>