I have to confess a terrible bad feeling I have! I need to share it with you:
I fear the coming up of a Third World War; the biggest ever in this earth I guess, because our technology is much more advanced today than yesterday!
Haven’t we had enough with TWO of them?
Thinking about that, I try hard to be cold-hearted, because I want to be able to watch the situation with objectivity, separated from my emotional perception of the world, people I love, etc. I have thought much about that, and don’t think there is a stop to it this time.
I feel really sick, ill… broken and extremely sad for what is going to happen in short, it is so stupidly obvious… many countries against many other countries, without REAL intelligence or sense, without anybody knowing what they have to kill each other for. Wars are never completely understood.
To make what I feel more comprehensible and direct to you, I want to ask you a question: Can you see us – friends and partners on this forum - killing each other, just because we pertain to a different country or culture, cos our leaders want to get some profit out of it? Can you SERIOUSLY imagine any of us being a soldier and killing each other? I think and feel very fondly on you guys, even more after having seen some of you in photography lately.
Which would be the difference of killing anybody else we don’t know? None, I guess! I mean, you cannot kill somebody you don’t know, you cannot kill for ideas, for economical profits, I refuse to participate on this stupid war, I won’t. There is no difference on killing one or other person in the world, because we all are human beings, and we all have defects and virtues, this is nonsense to me, and I feel wrecked about this.
Unfortunately, THE WAR IS AGAIN HERE
-
snoopy4ever
- Posts: 367
- Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 4:00 pm
- Location: Costa Rica
I found my self one day in Atlanta GA. trying to find a good deal for several hardware I was trying to get.., I was getting into this famous store and found another customer, he was smiling all the time, and we found each other trying to get the same gear. We started to joke and laughing about it, he ask me about where I came from (Costa Rica), and he told me something that made sense : "If we all were musicians there would be no war or violence at all".. yes he made a good point there. If we only could be as transparent as music.
By the way, in my country we shut down the army 50 years ago. yes it sounds crazy for some people but we've survived without it almost half a century, think about it.
peace to all.
Snoopy
By the way, in my country we shut down the army 50 years ago. yes it sounds crazy for some people but we've survived without it almost half a century, think about it.
peace to all.
Snoopy
Nestor,
i'm totally with you,
i don't know if i have to be most scared of violence itself, or about the lies that we must stand.
the very sad thing is that we must live with fear, and this is propedeutical to hate....
to be anlytical, i think that people like mr. s. hussein and various dictators would never be where they are today without some hidden (but not so much) support from the western powers.
and you know, enemies have been always a great insurance for power, in every place.
i'm totally with you,
i don't know if i have to be most scared of violence itself, or about the lies that we must stand.
the very sad thing is that we must live with fear, and this is propedeutical to hate....
to be anlytical, i think that people like mr. s. hussein and various dictators would never be where they are today without some hidden (but not so much) support from the western powers.
and you know, enemies have been always a great insurance for power, in every place.
-
algorhythm
- Posts: 1139
- Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: Tennessee, USA
- Contact:
Nestor - you sound totally fatalistic; that is not the charachter I know.
DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
There is a national march in Washinton D.C. on October 26th to stop the War on Iraq before it happens. I'm going. I'm also help organize an event here on United Nations Day, October 24 to lead up to the D.C. rally . . .
Nations make wars, but nations are nothing other than a collection of people who, ultimately carry out these actions. It is these same people that can stop war in the first place. I'm not gonna rant (any more than this) though. Its a MUSIC forum
DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
There is a national march in Washinton D.C. on October 26th to stop the War on Iraq before it happens. I'm going. I'm also help organize an event here on United Nations Day, October 24 to lead up to the D.C. rally . . .
Nations make wars, but nations are nothing other than a collection of people who, ultimately carry out these actions. It is these same people that can stop war in the first place. I'm not gonna rant (any more than this) though. Its a MUSIC forum
-
algorhythm
- Posts: 1139
- Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: Tennessee, USA
- Contact:
-
lifechanger
- Posts: 89
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: Chicago
- Contact:
Motive for Massacre: It's not about "the West." It's about religious beliefs
Opinion Journal ^ | 09/27/2002 | PAUL MARSHALL
Posted on 09/26/2002 9:20 PM Pacific by Pokey78
On Wednesday, gunmen entered a Christian charity in Karachi, Pakistan, separated Christian from Muslim workers and methodically shot seven Christians in the head. Although this massacre is the sixth in a series of attacks aimed at Christian targets in Pakistan, much of the media has played down religion's role in favor of a secular storyline.
The New York Times described this latest attack as ending a lull in assaults on "Western targets" and suggested that the charity was chosen because it was not as well guarded as "foreign embassies and Western companies." It quoted a police official saying that the attack was designed to drive away "Western business." Agence France-Presse quoted a human-rights worker arguing that the violence was not against Christians but against those "striving for a tolerant society." CNN International opined that there "is no indication of a motive."
This approach is typical. After the massacres at a Pakistani Christian school and hospital in August, Reuters headlined its story "Pakistan attack seen aimed at West, not Christians," while the BBC said: "The attack appears aimed at Western interests, rather than Pakistan's Christian minority." The Associated Press argued that the assaults were "directed against western interests."
The people believed to be behind the attacks, though, have made their motives plain. Members of Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, the terrorist group claiming responsibility for an October 2001 massacre in a Christian church, said that "they planned to kill Christians" in revenge for Muslim deaths in Afghanistan. The men who claimed responsibility for attacking the school in August announced that they "killed the nonbelievers." Daniel Pearl, the Wall Street Journal reporter kidnapped in Pakistan in January, was killed not only because he was a Westerner but also because he was Jewish, as his murderers made explicit.
Similarly, the Taliban made Hindus and Buddhists put distinguishing marks on their clothing and demolished the two largest Buddhist statues in the world. Recent intelligence reports suggest that al Qaeda members are involved in anti-Christian violence in eastern Indonesia. Extremist Islamists are attacking indigenous people in dozens of countries--including fellow Muslims--who do not share their extremist beliefs.
The key in each case is not a geopolitical affiliation but an unacceptable religious belief. When al Qaeda was formed in 1998, it was named the "World Islamic Front for Holy War Against Jews and Crusaders." Osama bin Laden stressed in an Al-Jazeera interview at the time that his target was "World Christianity, which is allied with Jews and Zionism."
While al-Qaeda makes its religious views explicit, religious terms in the West are avoided or hedged. Policy makers, diplomats, journalists and scholars, writes the defense expert Edward Luttwak, are ready to "dissect social differentiations" and "minutely categorize political affiliations," but they regularly disregard "the role of religion, religious institutions, and religious motivations in explaining politics."
Instead of taking religion seriously, we redefine it as "ethnic," coining the term "ethnic cleansing" to describe, say, the murder of Muslims in the Balkans. Or we use "fundamentalist" and "right-wing" as vague, catch-all terms to characterize militant groups who are actually defined by very particular beliefs. After all, pious, nonmilitant Sufi Muslims are "fundamentalist," and the designations "left" and "right" have nothing to do with abhorring "infidel" Western troops in Saudi Arabia or resisting attempts to build a Hindu temple on the site of a mosque in northern India.
Religion shapes politics from Palestine to Chechnya, from the Sudan and Nigeria to Sri Lanka and Indonesia. At the moment, we face a politicized religious fanaticism, one that each day announces its rationale. Al Qaeda and its imitators in Algeria, Uzbekistan and the Philippines--and in Pakistan as well--do not trade in euphemism. They state their desire to impose an extreme version of Islam on, first, Muslim countries and then the rest of the world. Their particular hatred is directed at nonbelievers, not at "the West," whatever the headline writers and analysts may say the next time a massacre happens. And it will.
Mr. Marshall, the author of "Islam at the Crossroad," is a fellow at the Center for Religious Freedom in Washington, a division of Freedom House.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Lifechanger on 2002-09-27 00:31 ]</font>
Opinion Journal ^ | 09/27/2002 | PAUL MARSHALL
Posted on 09/26/2002 9:20 PM Pacific by Pokey78
On Wednesday, gunmen entered a Christian charity in Karachi, Pakistan, separated Christian from Muslim workers and methodically shot seven Christians in the head. Although this massacre is the sixth in a series of attacks aimed at Christian targets in Pakistan, much of the media has played down religion's role in favor of a secular storyline.
The New York Times described this latest attack as ending a lull in assaults on "Western targets" and suggested that the charity was chosen because it was not as well guarded as "foreign embassies and Western companies." It quoted a police official saying that the attack was designed to drive away "Western business." Agence France-Presse quoted a human-rights worker arguing that the violence was not against Christians but against those "striving for a tolerant society." CNN International opined that there "is no indication of a motive."
This approach is typical. After the massacres at a Pakistani Christian school and hospital in August, Reuters headlined its story "Pakistan attack seen aimed at West, not Christians," while the BBC said: "The attack appears aimed at Western interests, rather than Pakistan's Christian minority." The Associated Press argued that the assaults were "directed against western interests."
The people believed to be behind the attacks, though, have made their motives plain. Members of Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, the terrorist group claiming responsibility for an October 2001 massacre in a Christian church, said that "they planned to kill Christians" in revenge for Muslim deaths in Afghanistan. The men who claimed responsibility for attacking the school in August announced that they "killed the nonbelievers." Daniel Pearl, the Wall Street Journal reporter kidnapped in Pakistan in January, was killed not only because he was a Westerner but also because he was Jewish, as his murderers made explicit.
Similarly, the Taliban made Hindus and Buddhists put distinguishing marks on their clothing and demolished the two largest Buddhist statues in the world. Recent intelligence reports suggest that al Qaeda members are involved in anti-Christian violence in eastern Indonesia. Extremist Islamists are attacking indigenous people in dozens of countries--including fellow Muslims--who do not share their extremist beliefs.
The key in each case is not a geopolitical affiliation but an unacceptable religious belief. When al Qaeda was formed in 1998, it was named the "World Islamic Front for Holy War Against Jews and Crusaders." Osama bin Laden stressed in an Al-Jazeera interview at the time that his target was "World Christianity, which is allied with Jews and Zionism."
While al-Qaeda makes its religious views explicit, religious terms in the West are avoided or hedged. Policy makers, diplomats, journalists and scholars, writes the defense expert Edward Luttwak, are ready to "dissect social differentiations" and "minutely categorize political affiliations," but they regularly disregard "the role of religion, religious institutions, and religious motivations in explaining politics."
Instead of taking religion seriously, we redefine it as "ethnic," coining the term "ethnic cleansing" to describe, say, the murder of Muslims in the Balkans. Or we use "fundamentalist" and "right-wing" as vague, catch-all terms to characterize militant groups who are actually defined by very particular beliefs. After all, pious, nonmilitant Sufi Muslims are "fundamentalist," and the designations "left" and "right" have nothing to do with abhorring "infidel" Western troops in Saudi Arabia or resisting attempts to build a Hindu temple on the site of a mosque in northern India.
Religion shapes politics from Palestine to Chechnya, from the Sudan and Nigeria to Sri Lanka and Indonesia. At the moment, we face a politicized religious fanaticism, one that each day announces its rationale. Al Qaeda and its imitators in Algeria, Uzbekistan and the Philippines--and in Pakistan as well--do not trade in euphemism. They state their desire to impose an extreme version of Islam on, first, Muslim countries and then the rest of the world. Their particular hatred is directed at nonbelievers, not at "the West," whatever the headline writers and analysts may say the next time a massacre happens. And it will.
Mr. Marshall, the author of "Islam at the Crossroad," is a fellow at the Center for Religious Freedom in Washington, a division of Freedom House.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Lifechanger on 2002-09-27 00:31 ]</font>
The chemical weapons was given to Sadamm Hussein by the US to support the Irak-Iran war, in the cold war years.On 2002-09-26 21:22, algorhythm wrote:
actually, alfonso - S. Hussein had *more* than hidden support from the United States.
I´d like to know here what does the U.S. people think about S Hussein, the war in Afghanistan, the war in Irak, the 11-s, what does Bush does to avoid it, and how does Bush "won" the elections to be US president.
I have my own opinion about all that, but is good compairing with people who is "in the eye of the storm"...
DHATWORK!
Luis Maria Gonzalez Lentijo
DjatWork! Optimizaciones
Buenos Aires
Argentina
DjatWork! Optimizaciones
Buenos Aires
Argentina
-
algorhythm
- Posts: 1139
- Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: Tennessee, USA
- Contact:
Nestor, I´m sorry to tell you that the III War had starteda year ago in Afghanistan...On 2002-09-26 19:19, Nestor wrote:
I have to confess a terrible bad feeling I have! I need to share it with you:
I fear the coming up of a Third World War;
Like in the 1st and in the 2nd the War is the only way that the "system" finds to get alive in the deep economical crisis that we are merged.
DJATWORK!
Luis Maria Gonzalez Lentijo
DjatWork! Optimizaciones
Buenos Aires
Argentina
DjatWork! Optimizaciones
Buenos Aires
Argentina
-
algorhythm
- Posts: 1139
- Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: Tennessee, USA
- Contact:
actually, Bush lost the popular election. Representative "Democracy" was preserved in name only. There is significant dissent in the United States regarding the U.S. Empire's War on Terror - I hear it every friday in front of the Federal Building in Akron, OH. I hold a sign that says "Honk if War Sucks" and LOTS of people honk. Search Google for "not in our name" - it is a national movement for peace in post 9-11 US.On 2002-09-26 21:53, DJATWORK wrote:
I´d like to know here what does the U.S. people think about S Hussein, the war in Afghanistan, the war in Irak, the 11-s, what does Bush does to avoid it, and how does Bush "won" the elections to be US president.
And War on Iraq? That's old news; we've been killing Iraqi children for years with economic sanctions, which it has been admitted are not working. Over 2 million children dead now. and we still bomb them every few weeks since the gulf war.
Brothers, be at peace, for it is in emotional turmoil that war takes root. I believe and I know that if enough people were harmonious inside, and would forcefully ask to the Forces of the Sacred Fire and the Angelic Legions to consume all consciousness and memory of war, it would be done before we know it!
You can doubt about that statement, but it is nevertheless true. It is thanks to repeated Divine Interventions that the Americas are not in the same vortex of destruction as the rest of the world today, and this must be in order for mankind to survive. Please, be grateful for the Freedom we enjoy and for the hope we represent for the rest of the world... I'm not saying that all is pure, but thanks God we have no dictatorship!
Nestor- have you ever heard about Saint-Germain's Violet Consuming flame? I suggest that you take all your fears, worries, despair and all inharmonious feeling and, like if you were taking off an old garment, cast it into the consuming fire. Take definite time to feel and see this act and liberate you from all the useless emotional garbage, and see how you feel after doing this 3 times a day for 10 days! Once someone takes the habit of getting rid of interference through the action of the Sacred Fire, then it opens the way for amazing things to happen... And it must be done if we ever are to stop war!
You can doubt about that statement, but it is nevertheless true. It is thanks to repeated Divine Interventions that the Americas are not in the same vortex of destruction as the rest of the world today, and this must be in order for mankind to survive. Please, be grateful for the Freedom we enjoy and for the hope we represent for the rest of the world... I'm not saying that all is pure, but thanks God we have no dictatorship!
Nestor- have you ever heard about Saint-Germain's Violet Consuming flame? I suggest that you take all your fears, worries, despair and all inharmonious feeling and, like if you were taking off an old garment, cast it into the consuming fire. Take definite time to feel and see this act and liberate you from all the useless emotional garbage, and see how you feel after doing this 3 times a day for 10 days! Once someone takes the habit of getting rid of interference through the action of the Sacred Fire, then it opens the way for amazing things to happen... And it must be done if we ever are to stop war!
-
Music Manic
- Posts: 1739
- Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 4:00 pm
- Contact:
I like many people agree with you.I will not kill anyone who believes or looks different to me for the sake of a few egotistical selfish greedy bastards.This has happened century after century.I have met nearly all cultures and religions and we all are the same underneath,but are guided by our superiors and the identity our history have given us.If America feels so much about weapons of mass destruction why is the only country that has dropped the Atom bomb.How can this constitution have a moral right to talk about Peace.I think some Americans are very free and lovely people and are very open hearted,but they don't know what's really going on.Why should our beatiful kids on both side have to settle an argument with to PRICKS who don't give a damn about us.
Let me realize you people out there who have had a nose turned up by there own people.
I believe that equal and opposite reaction always comes into play;the weaker and smaller you become the nastier and harder you fight.If you know someone is as tough as you you think twice.Right or wrong guys.
Peace to you all,and I hope this all blows over.
P.S.What happened to Bin Laden?
What a joke!
Let me realize you people out there who have had a nose turned up by there own people.
I believe that equal and opposite reaction always comes into play;the weaker and smaller you become the nastier and harder you fight.If you know someone is as tough as you you think twice.Right or wrong guys.
Peace to you all,and I hope this all blows over.
P.S.What happened to Bin Laden?
What a joke!
On the brilliant album "Amused to Death" Roger Waters has a song called: "The Bravery of Being Out of Range". This is a great line, but I think it doesn't just apply to warmongers and armchair generals, it also has meaning for people who apply simplistic "do-good" philosophies to a harsh world.
It's easy to say "no war" and make it sound good and right. But there are just wars and just causes and times when fighting and killing has been the only answer to tyranny. The problem is, of course, making the determination of when a cause is right.
The current policy of pre-emptive strikes is also good in theory. How many times have you heard "if only the world had of stopped Hitler in 1936". Well yeah, but in 1936 he was almost universally perceived as having only done good for his people and his country.
So the war in Afghanistan I believe was just. Didn't the Taliban offend most of basic principles of human dignity? denying education to women, denying free speech, even banning MUSIC !
Not to mention blowing up ancient monuments.
And so now it's Iraq. I'm not convinced by the evidence against them, but no one has been able to tell me what the motive is. Surely Bush and Blair would not risk massive public backlash unless there was a good reason ? War wih Iraq is not popular, so why are they persisting? Oil is at present plentiful and supplies safe so that's not the reason. (And please don't say "because Bush and Blair are idiots" - you try to become PM.) So why do they risk destroying their domestic popularity by pursuing an unpopular war ?
This is what has me stumped. Please enlighten me if you have a theory.
And in response to some of the classic America-bashing: In the long sweep of history you'd be hard-pressed to find many examples of a power so supreme, yet so benevolent. Sure they dropped Atom bombs, so what ? The US was predicting more than one million US deaths if Japan was invaded (and many millions of Japanese) - against that the atom bombs killed about two-hundred thousand. Now tell me: if you were a drafted US marine in the Pacific what would you have wanted ? How about the parents or sister of that Marine ? And if you were a Japanese mother issued with a bamboo pole to kill Marines if they landed (and then told to kill herself if necessary) what would you prefer ? It was a war-winning and life-saving act.
The world is a harsh place full of aggressive and competing philosophies carried forward by zealots not open to middle-class lounge-room debate. Tough decisions must be taken every day. Closing your eyes in a field of flowers and deciding "all war is bad" may be right, but it's not a solution.
A favourite analogy is the Roman Empire. As Gibbon writes, it was internal decay that was the primary downfall of the Roman Empire. Their strong credo of service to the State and the obligations of citizenship was fatally underminded by Christianity. Instead of action and resolute courage they were told to submit, turn away from conflict, abandon war, and forget their loyalty to the State.
The result was the fall of the Roman Empire, the reign of barbarian chieftans, the end of Roman learning and culture, and a dark age over Europe that lasted hundreds of years.
I'd argue that the pacifist ideal failed miserably and led only to despair and devastation.
Let's not make the same mistake.
It's easy to say "no war" and make it sound good and right. But there are just wars and just causes and times when fighting and killing has been the only answer to tyranny. The problem is, of course, making the determination of when a cause is right.
The current policy of pre-emptive strikes is also good in theory. How many times have you heard "if only the world had of stopped Hitler in 1936". Well yeah, but in 1936 he was almost universally perceived as having only done good for his people and his country.
So the war in Afghanistan I believe was just. Didn't the Taliban offend most of basic principles of human dignity? denying education to women, denying free speech, even banning MUSIC !
Not to mention blowing up ancient monuments.And so now it's Iraq. I'm not convinced by the evidence against them, but no one has been able to tell me what the motive is. Surely Bush and Blair would not risk massive public backlash unless there was a good reason ? War wih Iraq is not popular, so why are they persisting? Oil is at present plentiful and supplies safe so that's not the reason. (And please don't say "because Bush and Blair are idiots" - you try to become PM.) So why do they risk destroying their domestic popularity by pursuing an unpopular war ?
This is what has me stumped. Please enlighten me if you have a theory.
And in response to some of the classic America-bashing: In the long sweep of history you'd be hard-pressed to find many examples of a power so supreme, yet so benevolent. Sure they dropped Atom bombs, so what ? The US was predicting more than one million US deaths if Japan was invaded (and many millions of Japanese) - against that the atom bombs killed about two-hundred thousand. Now tell me: if you were a drafted US marine in the Pacific what would you have wanted ? How about the parents or sister of that Marine ? And if you were a Japanese mother issued with a bamboo pole to kill Marines if they landed (and then told to kill herself if necessary) what would you prefer ? It was a war-winning and life-saving act.
The world is a harsh place full of aggressive and competing philosophies carried forward by zealots not open to middle-class lounge-room debate. Tough decisions must be taken every day. Closing your eyes in a field of flowers and deciding "all war is bad" may be right, but it's not a solution.
A favourite analogy is the Roman Empire. As Gibbon writes, it was internal decay that was the primary downfall of the Roman Empire. Their strong credo of service to the State and the obligations of citizenship was fatally underminded by Christianity. Instead of action and resolute courage they were told to submit, turn away from conflict, abandon war, and forget their loyalty to the State.
The result was the fall of the Roman Empire, the reign of barbarian chieftans, the end of Roman learning and culture, and a dark age over Europe that lasted hundreds of years.
I'd argue that the pacifist ideal failed miserably and led only to despair and devastation.
Let's not make the same mistake.
Neither is bombing the crap out of innocent people. It just leads to the ridiculous cycle of wartime-peacetime we've been experiencing ever since we gained opposable thumbs.On 2002-09-27 01:08, Spirit wrote:
Closing your eyes in a field of flowers and deciding "all war is bad" may be right, but it's not a solution.
Despite the billions of dollars being spent on defense technology we still can't even target the instigators of war without decimating their unwilling/uneducated followers. Despite centuries of exploring the human heart, mind and soul, we still can't stop the maggots of society from rising to power and controlling entire nations. Despite the endless trouble we find ourselves in when we get greedy, we still want more and more.
The root of all this is ego, but hell, why bother explaining? It's like telling a madman he's insane and hoping the realisation will cure him.
Yep, we're stuffed alright. Party on while you still can.
Western methods of war have moved on a long way from the carpet-bombing technique of WWII. The theory then was to cause mass destruction and many deaths in the hope of demoralising the civilian population. Huge effort is now put into avoiding civilian casualties - that's at least a step in the right direction.On 2002-09-27 02:29, Retro wrote:
Neither is bombing the crap out of innocent people.
It's the new cheap weapons of mass destruction that are a greater menace to civilians. They're a reversion to a policy of mass death as method of war, which seems to me a much darker evil.
-
Gordon Gekko
- Posts: 1085
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2002 4:00 pm
- Location: paname
A great thread!
I could easily kill any of you. If they told me.
Not seriously
. I couldn't kill anyone. I haven't even gone to military service, have you?
"If we all were musicians..." yes. I've often thought any of the guys I know couldn't do anything bad. Well, who are they that really could? I want to believe that vast majority of all people are not evil-minded. What makes them blind?. Somebody mentioned Hitler. He didn't kill anyone himself. German people elected him. Who is the evil here?
I could easily kill any of you. If they told me.
Not seriously
. I couldn't kill anyone. I haven't even gone to military service, have you?"If we all were musicians..." yes. I've often thought any of the guys I know couldn't do anything bad. Well, who are they that really could? I want to believe that vast majority of all people are not evil-minded. What makes them blind?. Somebody mentioned Hitler. He didn't kill anyone himself. German people elected him. Who is the evil here?
-
algorhythm
- Posts: 1139
- Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: Tennessee, USA
- Contact:
Spirit says - "I'd argue that the pacifist ideal failed miserably and led only to despair and devastation." - OK, if you would argue it, then argue it.
To the contrary, I think Ghandi did quite an excellent job of mobilizing India through non-violent means. ML King did a pretty swell job in the U.S.A. advocating peace . . .
There is no way to peace. Peace is the way.
and Just War? Your examples sound more like internal struggles, civil wars at best. I think revolution is an altogether different matter than war . . . But ousting the Taliban? - If only our motives were things like the good of the Afghani people! It was self-interest and revenge that took us there.
FYI carpet bombing is alive and well in the West. The U.S. put down a SHIT-TON of cluster bombs in Afghanistan. Europe is far more progressive about banning certain types of weapons. What about banning land mines? Blocked by the U.S.. What about banning spent-uranium in bullets? Blocked by the U.S. . . .
And lifechanger - thank you for removing your hate speech. Quoting a converservative intellectual is probably a wiser choice instead to keep the community free.
_________________
algorhythm its coming!
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: algorhythm on 2002-09-27 08:39 ]</font>
To the contrary, I think Ghandi did quite an excellent job of mobilizing India through non-violent means. ML King did a pretty swell job in the U.S.A. advocating peace . . .
There is no way to peace. Peace is the way.
and Just War? Your examples sound more like internal struggles, civil wars at best. I think revolution is an altogether different matter than war . . . But ousting the Taliban? - If only our motives were things like the good of the Afghani people! It was self-interest and revenge that took us there.
FYI carpet bombing is alive and well in the West. The U.S. put down a SHIT-TON of cluster bombs in Afghanistan. Europe is far more progressive about banning certain types of weapons. What about banning land mines? Blocked by the U.S.. What about banning spent-uranium in bullets? Blocked by the U.S. . . .
And lifechanger - thank you for removing your hate speech. Quoting a converservative intellectual is probably a wiser choice instead to keep the community free.
_________________
algorhythm its coming!
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: algorhythm on 2002-09-27 08:39 ]</font>
-
lifechanger
- Posts: 89
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: Chicago
- Contact:
(Nashville) -- Executives from The Nashville Network and Al-Jazeera News were all smiles at a news conference this morning to announce the co-production of a new comedy series entitled "Gee-Hawd." The new show, according to TNN Director of Programming Wayne Travis, will combine down-home family entertainment and country music along with Muslim terrorist propaganda.
"We think it's a win-win situation for both networks," said Walid al-Fazeri, Vice President in charge of Affiliate Relations for Al-Jazeera. "TNN has been wanting to enter the Arab market where artists such as Billy Ray Cyrus and The Dixie Chicks have a big following, and Al-Jazeera has been looking for some time to gain a toehold among the Great Satanic media markets of the United States, especially in the crucial 18-35 demographic."
Although plans for "Gee-Hawd" have not been finalized, rumor has it that the show's producers are looking for a big name to host the show, perhaps even Yassir Arafat. Network officials, however, are downplaying speculation about the Palestinian leader. "Arafat has name recognition out the wazoo, but his Q rating is a little on the weak side," added Wayne Travis.
Regular features for the show will include a segment called "Celebrity Suicide Bombing," where each week a star of the entertainment industry will be selected by the studio audience and home viewers who will be able to vote by dialing a 900 number. The chosen celebrity will then strap on explosives and blow him- or herself up at a crowded public venue. "But in the best traditions of 'Hee-Haw' and 'The Grand Ol' Opry' there will be plenty of cavorting with girls, girls, girls!" said Walid Al-Fazeri, "Who, of course, will be flogged for inciting the lusts of the faithful."
"We think it's a win-win situation for both networks," said Walid al-Fazeri, Vice President in charge of Affiliate Relations for Al-Jazeera. "TNN has been wanting to enter the Arab market where artists such as Billy Ray Cyrus and The Dixie Chicks have a big following, and Al-Jazeera has been looking for some time to gain a toehold among the Great Satanic media markets of the United States, especially in the crucial 18-35 demographic."
Although plans for "Gee-Hawd" have not been finalized, rumor has it that the show's producers are looking for a big name to host the show, perhaps even Yassir Arafat. Network officials, however, are downplaying speculation about the Palestinian leader. "Arafat has name recognition out the wazoo, but his Q rating is a little on the weak side," added Wayne Travis.
Regular features for the show will include a segment called "Celebrity Suicide Bombing," where each week a star of the entertainment industry will be selected by the studio audience and home viewers who will be able to vote by dialing a 900 number. The chosen celebrity will then strap on explosives and blow him- or herself up at a crowded public venue. "But in the best traditions of 'Hee-Haw' and 'The Grand Ol' Opry' there will be plenty of cavorting with girls, girls, girls!" said Walid Al-Fazeri, "Who, of course, will be flogged for inciting the lusts of the faithful."