|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
Ed Ziomek
Joined: 07 Jun 2005
Posts: 521
Location: Stamford, Connecticut
|
 Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 8:49 am Post subject: Antidote to hate? Good Question... |
    |
|
Solidred... I am not sure of your point yet, but you ask an excellent question.
Educate me...I am in ignorance territory, not knowing all the facts of Scotland's history...
Scotland has a massive history of "barbarians", i.e., Picts, who were never conquered by the Romans. In fact, Hadrian's wall was built to try and keep the barbarians contained in the northern part of Britain, with almost no success...or maybe you know better.
The Picts were alleged to have come from Thessaly in Greece, and ruthlessly fought in the - spammed by idiots -, both male and female.
When a certain indian tribe was observed in the Viriginia frontier areas, the exact same snake tatoos of the Picts was seen on the Indian tribes by the Minister who catalogued their appearances, giving rise to the rumors that the Picts not only settled in Scotland and Ireland, but also in the ancient Americas.
The legend of St. Patrick has it that he "rid Ireland of the snakes", but the undersided story is that he expelled/defeated the barbarian Picts.
And the ancient legends also speak of "Fairy Princesses" being brought back to Ireland and Scotland from "the land beneath the waves", the "land of the setting sun", which indicates some form of intercontinental ocean-going traffic in ancient times. Note: The "Fairies" term of the ancient British Isles, I believe is identical to the Egyptian term "Phares" which meant "spirits of the forests".
But back to the subject, how did the Picts and Romans and Saxons and English eventually manage to coexist? Was it simply a matter of "they got tired of fighting", or "the Romans just left out of sheer frustration"? Or have they virtually NEVER stopped arguing, fighting, criticizing each other?
How did two (or three, or four) warring cultures eventually learn to coexist, in roughly the same real estate?
_________________
Ed Ziomek |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1716
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 11:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ["Land of the setting sun" might refer to a place where the sun seems always to be setting -- ie, near the Arctic Circle ?] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ed Ziomek
Joined: 07 Jun 2005
Posts: 521
Location: Stamford, Connecticut
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 11:37 am Post subject: Probably meant the West |
|
|
I think it meant "the West", the "otherworld", the "underworld", the "land of the Fairies", from which you probably would not return, and travelled to with great peril.
Arctic North was called..."land of the midnight sun", which the sailors were well aware of, the land where the sun might never set.
One of the phenomeni of history is that Chinese-asiatic peoples populated the arctic areas, literally around the world, and an example of this is that southern Norway is Caucasian today, and Northern Norway is asiatic looking today.
The Viking tribes probably were the "Dina" tribes of Greece/Macedonia, followers of Ishtar, Inanna, the "Danes". Also, there is the plausible Dine, 13th tribe of Israel, which was the sole female tribe.
Ancient Scottish and Irish legends mention that every multitude of years, fishing boats with asiatic looking peoples would wash onto their shores in small fishing boats, blown off course by North Atlantic storms. It probably gave what we call the Viking cultures, the nerve to try sailing (hop-scotching) the Northern connectivity route of Ireland, Greenland, Iceland, Northern Canada, scientifically never more than 200 miles or so apart.
And what stopped the Vikings in the Americas? It is well documented of the success that Viking tribes had in England and Ireland, where most of the inhabitants were farmers. But in the Americas, where Norse/Viking relics are found as far as Minnesota, the Vikings definitly met with and competed with hunter-gatherer cultures, who were at constant war with their neighbors, and the blonde intruders were just one more fight, and heavily outnumbered. Then again, there is speculationg that the Vikings found nothing in the Americas they couldn't duplicate in Europe, with a fraction of the trouble. Why bother with the Americas?
Which raises an interesting theory...the Viking culture, a warlike ocean going culture, met their match...not by docile farmer cultures, but by equally ruthless warlike cannibals.
Horrific Brutality Defeated Mild Brutality?
Nice guys finished last, or never finished at all. They were eaten "in the West", and except in very few cases, they never returned to talk about it.
Sailing West meant... "sailing off the end of the earth"...
_________________
Ed Ziomek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ed Ziomek
Joined: 07 Jun 2005
Posts: 521
Location: Stamford, Connecticut
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 7:22 pm Post subject: Scotlands History? Imagination, Fantasy, Wishful thinking? |
|
|
Solidred and all...
Since you are from Scotland, let me unload another "over the top" theory, tied into the present day lies we hear from our governments, AND the carnage of Jerusalem and Lebanon and Iraq...the motherland of all of us...
Of how, in my research of the ancients, we cannot ignore the Templars, and the 18 ships that left France in escape on the morning of October 13, 1307, and their subsequent disappearance.
And how, 18 years later in 1325, white men, with hair the "color of the sun" and beards showed up and organized a minority tribe of Aztecs in the Valley of Mexico, and taught them how to organize their surrounding tribes... and how the chief name of these blonde haired persons has a funny-French meaning name..."Bird-serpent", aka Feathered serpent... "Oeasal"-coatl...Quetzal-coatl...
And how the primary temple of the Valley of Mexico has a French sounding name... Atza-coalco, plausibly... Atza-Kah-lee-so, "chalice of creation"...
And how a plausible Temple of Solomon exists in the Aztec Valley of Mexico, and the facade on that present-day Christian temple has no cross on it, but more like a tabernacle, Acolman.
And how iconic symbolism of the Roslyn Chapel in Scotland is chock full of similar Pythagorian, Hermetic, Templar symbolism, identical with Tehotee/Djeheuty/Hermes of ancient Egypt and Greece, and AZTEC Mexico!
And Rosyln is not the only Templar iconic chapel in Scotland, but only one of many, and within the Seton Chapel is a facade called the "Ogilve monument", which has an uncanny resemblance to the Acolman facade of Aztec Mexico...
Compare these two architectural facades....
Seton Chapel in Scotland
http://www.rosslyntemplars.org.uk/ogilvie_monument.htm
Acolman Chapel, in Valley of Mexico
http://www.colonial-mexico.com/Central%20Mexico/acolman.html
see also the stone-masonry...uncanny resemblance to Aztec construction, I believe...
http://www.rosslyntemplars.org.uk/seton.htm
At what point does observation (as a taxidriver/tourist that I am), collide with historical facts (like the Templar iconic symbols of Rosyln and Seton), with amazing "coincidental similarities" of the Valley of Mexico?
Did the Scots, and the Templars, and the Irish monks (Brendan-558AD), and maybe even Marco Polo... did they all have knowledge of the Western Hemisphere hundreds of years before Columbus? Is that how they got rich virtually overnight?
Or should I just cut back on my caffeine intake?
Background information...
Pythagoras, Templars, Sacred Geometry, Hermes... Tehotu/Thoth/Hermes, Pentagrams, etc. etc.
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=pythagoras+%2Btemplars&fr=FP-tab-web-t500&toggle=1&cop=&ei=UTF-8
Tehotu/Thoth/Djeheuty, on Temple of Teoti-huacan..., Mexico
http://www.world-mysteries.com/gw_edziom3.htm
ten pages down...
Tehotu carries a staff, and also has faint "wings" on his back. He is "projecting his magic" and his actions are explained by Wallis Budge in the book "Egyptian Magic", 1904 pg 143...
"If thou wouldst read a book possesses of magic powers, come with me and I will show it to thee, the book was written by Thoth himself, and in it were two formulae. The recital of the first will enchant (or bewitch) heaven, earth, hell, sea, and mountains, and by it thou shalt see all the birds, reptiles and fish, for its power will bring the fish to the top of the water."
_________________
Ed Ziomek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
solidred
Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Posts: 621
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ed,
I'd been particularly enjoying your contributions to this thread and I felt inclined to say something... So I thought that, to start with, I'd try thinking of the basic emotions that underpin these neverending guerilla-type wars such as we in the UK had at least until very recently in Northern Ireland.
Anyway, you've just expanded the topic historically I see so I'll leave a reply 'till I get home and think about it all (here I'm at work).
It did occur to me afterwards that my short contribution earlier could seem a tad glib / trite whatever... but I'm glad to see that no-one's taken it that way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Haut
millennium club
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 1152
Location: Nice, France
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 10:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
there is nothing glib or trite in wondering about the origins of hatred - what matters at least at some stages is to bring justice and fairness - to bring those who attempt to stir up hatred to account.
Some in Scotland are doing their best (and much more than in many other places).
The strangely isolated and derided voice of George Galloway or using the legal system for what it was always intended - as the article below outlines. I particularly enjoyed hearing about the recent "invasion" of a US plane at Prestwick.
Walls have two sides - and the view that I have heard from Scots was that Hadrian's Wall did help to keep some of the barbarians out for a while, those from the south.
| Quote: | Lebanon government joins forces with bid to have Blair tried in Scotland for war crimes
By Neil Mackay
08/06/06 "Sunday Herald" -- -- THE Lebanese government is working behind the scenes to bring Tony Blair before the Scottish courts, charged with war crimes for aiding and abetting the Israeli onslaught against Lebanon.
Ali Berro, the Lebanese government’s special adviser on legal affairs, is assisting Lebanese nationals living in Scotland, and their legal team, in their attempt to take the Scottish Executive and the UK government to court for allowing US aircraft to fly “bunker-buster bombs” from America to Israel via Scottish airports.
Berro is providing the legal team, led by the Glasgow-based human rights lawyer Aamer Anwar, with detailed information about alleged Israel war crimes, and also forwarding information on the casualty rates of Lebanese civilians and the type of weapons being deployed by the Israeli army. In total, some 30 lawyers, including QCs, in Scotland and England are helping prepare the case against the government.
Along with his briefing, Berro sent Anwar and his clients this message: “We are laying before you all these facts and we count on you to use all possible means of pressure to put an end to the destruction targeting civilians. We are counting on you and thank you.”
The team is accusing Blair of assisting Israel in carrying out war crimes against civilians, citing various pieces of international legislation, including the Geneva Conventions, which say that it is a war crime to aid and abet a nation carrying out attacks targetted against civilians.
Berro has said he is “angry and astonished” that the UK is “assisting” Israel, claiming the UK can no longer be seen as an “honest broker” in the Middle East.
Anwar said: “The Lebanese government have made it clear that they want this conflict to stop. Both they and us are aware that every time more weapons are supplied to Israel, more Lebanese civilians will die. We wish to indict Tony Blair for war crimes as he is complicit in the war crimes of Israel by allowing the passage of arms through Scotland. This will take time, and that is why the Lebanese government is helping to catalogue information.”
Berro has also supplied a legal briefing to Anwar and his clients outlining which pieces of international law have been violated. Berro said: “Since July 12, 2006, the Israeli army, which has the largest and most advanced military machinery in the region, has committed all kinds of crimes: crimes against humanity, war crimes and mass killings.”
Some 750 Lebanese civilians have died in the attacks – many women and children. Berro said: “Human shreds are scattered amid the destruction.” He also outlined Israeli attacks on petrol stations, warehouses, electricity companies, places of worship, bridges, hospitals and ambulances.
Berro said the Israelis were using phosphorous bombs, and “sending ultimatums to the inhabitants of villages, waiting for them to get out and then hunting them on their way to safety”.
International legislation, which Berro said was breached by Israel, included The Hague Convention, The 1948 Convention Against Mass Killings and The Geneva Conventions.
Azam Mohamad, one of the Scottish-based Lebanese nationals taking the case against the Scottish Executive and the UK government, said: “We took this action as US aircraft are going through Prestwick airport with bombs bound for Israel that will be used to shell our families. We want to stop those bombs.”
Mohamad, the director of Glasgow’s Middle East Society, added: “We are shocked that Tony Blair has allowed aircraft carrying bombs bound for Israel to come through this country. These weapons are illegal as they are used to kill civilians. I cannot find words to explain my unhappiness at Blair’s decision. If we get a chance to take Tony Blair to court, we will do so.
“The Lebanese government will help our cause by giving us as much information as they can. Even the prime minister of Lebanon will help us in our attempt to stop these bombs being sent through Britain to destroy Lebanon. The government in Lebanon appreciates what we are doing to help protect the freedom and democracy of Lebanon.”
The Lebanese community in Scotland and England is now collectively raising the money needed to fund the legal challenge. Members of the 20-strong group of Lebanese, who have put their names to the suit against the government, have lost loved ones in the conflict, had property destroyed and seen their relatives and friends turned into refugees.
Another Lebanese national living in Scotland who is taking the case against the government, Mohamad Saadi, lost his aunt, 55-year-old Khadija, last Friday. She died of a heart attack when her area came under heavy Israeli bombing.
“It is very hard for us,” Saadi said. “Every family is suffering. This is not just about my family – everyone in Lebanon is now my family. We are calling our relatives every hour. While I am talking now something could be happening to my family back in Lebanon. A humanitarian disaster is happening.
“Blair is helping terrorism because what Israel is doing to Lebanon is terrorism – they are attacking and killing civilians. He is utterly in the wrong.”
Both Mohamad and Saadi have raised their children in Scotland and started thriving businesses in Glasgow. They say they have been overwhelmed by support from the people of Scotland towards the people of Lebanon, and on Friday launched a Scottish-Lebanese friendship society. They said that many in the large Christian community in Lebanon were now supporting Hezbollah as the Islamic militia were “the only ones fighting for us and the country”.
Zouheir Swade, another member of Glasgow’s Lebanese community backing the legal action, told how he lost nine members of his extended family just over a week ago when his brother-in-law’s house was hit by an Israeli shell.
“This is just one of many massacres in Lebanon,” Swade said. “A friend and his wife and two children were also killed in their car by an Israeli bomb. I sleep for no more than two hours before I get up and turn on the news. I’m phoning my family all the time. When I hear my mother’s voice I cry.”
06 August 2006
©2006 newsquest (sunday herald) limited. all rights reserved |
_________________
Richard Haut has worked with the architectural profession for over 25 years and produces the weekly Richard Haut's Competitions, which has given architects details of many thousands of projects for which they can apply across Britain and Europe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
solidred
Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Posts: 621
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 2:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I had ambitions to write some extended piece here on Israel / Lebanon.
I have insufficient information at my disposal.
I read through this thread more thoroughly and it's about a surprising number of different things: fireside chat indeed!
Stray observations:
The Romans quite possibly left ancient Scotland (Dalriada?) alone because of the awful weather in comparison to what they were used to. England's 'green and pleasant land' was probably slightly more do-able.
I was researching the Mexican dog-god xolotl a few years ago and the surrounding mythology I found strikingly reminiscent of ancient Greece: 9 rivers around the underworld etc.
But back to the fighting...
Firstly, even people who love each other fight: take your average married couple, for example.
Guerilla / civil wars tend to drag out longer than full-scale wars but, maybe they end up in fewer casualties overall? Perhaps a greater proportion of women and children amongst the casualties, though.
I've never been tested by war close to my own circumstances, so I lack a detailed understanding of what it feels like: what hatred of another group of people feels like. Still, I suppose blanket hatred is a priviledge of the under-educated in peacetime or war. Paradoxically, it is these 'under-educated' who tend to be more innocent, because innocence and ignorance amount to much the same thing, except for the aspect of culpability.
What holds stronger appeal: harmony or power? The latter, if one agrees with Nietzsche.
The theory of Big Number: i.e. big numbers, in certain operations, act in a qualitatively, not merely quantitatively, different manner to small numbers. Ergo, the behaviour of peoples is not necessarily just an extension of the behaviour of people: human understanding may not be a basis for nation understanding.
Does God have anything to do with it? God must be awfully confused what with these multiple demands on his loyalty. One True God has an awfully human ring to it, like 'absolutely, totally, reliable.'
- Thou dost protest too much, as I think Lady Macbeth said.
Is war more the result of Stupidity or Machiavellianism?
Would people be happier with the concept of war if there were a Really Good Reason for it? Or is the lack of one simply the attitude of one who is distant from said war?
Perhaps war is inevitable. But if this is the case then it remains true that the fewer people there are who are inclined to get involved, the better. Perhaps, then, it is a pity that America, Syria, Britain and Iran seem to want to join in, albeit behind the scenes, with Israel and Hezbollah. As a result, Palestine and the Muslim Middle East get in on the action too. The Bush / Blair project of 'democratising' (sic) the world is, in another sense, an expression of power. This encourages other powers to resist, no matter how 'well intentioned' the original motive, and power v power tends to degenerate into... war.
If there were a single, dominant, power in the world, what man, woman or comittee be wise enough to wield it?
If the world were, instead, reduced to small tribes again, would the constant bickering be preferable?
Very personally, I see things this way: The discomfort that I feel as a Westerner is not the threat of the Muslim world and its values, nor the threat of terrorism, but the threat of two leaders of the Western world whose motives I despise and whose capacity to do their job is suspect. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1716
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 4:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm down with that (as the kids say) !
SDR
_________________
"I'm the commander . . . see, I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation." GWB |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ed Ziomek
Joined: 07 Jun 2005
Posts: 521
Location: Stamford, Connecticut
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 9:12 am Post subject: Somewhere between stupidity and Machiavellian... |
|
|
Between psychotic/stupidity and brilliant suicidal/Machiavellian...
Couldn't there be some area in-between?
Instead, we have three brilliant brothers stand toe-to-toe and punch, scrape, claw each other into senselessness, neither being able to eliminate each other?
On a related subject...two NY Post page 11 quotes from the Lieberman/Lamont Senatorial race in Connecticut...where either could potentially win...
Lieberman: "If we just pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to do, get out by a certain date, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the people who wanted to blow up planes in this plot hatched in England...It will strengthen them and they will strike again."
Lamont: ...'Lamont blasted backat Lieberman that the world wasn't "stronger and safer because of Iraq. Just the opposite is unfortunately true....Potential attacks like the one that appears to have been foiled today are clear and present dangers..." He added that the focus of foreign policy needs to be shifted from Iraq toward stopping Osama bin Laden and "building a credible, effective foreign policy with our allies."
One candidate is worrying about the emboldened 'enemy'.
One candidate is much bigger "picture", worrying about the present and future path of America, and what makes enemies in the first place.
One candidate had 17 years to come to this point, in the Senate.
One candiate has less than 6 months as a candidate.
Who is talking common sense?
To me, it strongly illustrates the divisions of America, near-sightedness from a brilliant statesman, and far-sighted common sense from the young newcomer...
Common sense, and communications, and empathy, and sensitivities, and compromise, and at the EXTREME LAST RESORT -military violence, should sit in the middle between stupidity and machiavellian.
_________________
Ed Ziomek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ed Ziomek
Joined: 07 Jun 2005
Posts: 521
Location: Stamford, Connecticut
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 28, 2006 7:08 am Post subject: Duplicity among the Democrats? |
|
|
Todays news... reported that Hillary Clinton has donated $5000 to the Lamont campaign (running under the Democratic ticket, anti Iraq war), and $10,000 to the Lieberman campaign (running as an independent, stay the course in Iraq).
To me, this represents the crushing duplicity and impotence of the Democratic Party.
What is the single message of the Democrats? There is none?
Who is the single candidate of the Democrats? There is none?
What is the single Iraqi Plan of the Democrats? There is none?
What is the single Democratic course of action for the Palestinian/Lebanese/Israeli situation? There is none.
To me, from my ignorant vantage point, it seems like the most dangerous situation for America today, this minute, this month, is not a failed Republican strategy, but a failed balance of policies that should be provided by the Democrats... who dispute each other!
What is America's single message to the world? There is none, or it is all bad?
I am miserably confused. Everybody lies to us, every single time!??
_________________
Ed Ziomek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Haut
millennium club
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 1152
Location: Nice, France
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 28, 2006 3:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ed, it isn't an answer, but the following is an interesting view from Jimmy Carter:
| Quote: | Compliant and subservient:
Jimmy Carter's explosive critique of Tony Blair
By John Preston and Melissa Kite
08/27/06 "The Telegraph" -- -- Tony Blair's lack of leadership and timid subservience to George W Bush lie behind the ongoing crisis in Iraq and the worldwide threat of terrorism, according to the former American president Jimmy Carter.
"I have been surprised and extremely disappointed by Tony Blair's behaviour," he told The Sunday Telegraph.
"I think that more than any other person in the world the Prime Minister could have had a moderating influence on Washington - and he has not. I really thought that Tony Blair, who I know personally to some degree, would be a constraint on President Bush's policies towards Iraq."
In an exclusive interview, President Carter made it plain that he sees Mr Blair's lack of leadership as being a key factor in the present crisis in Iraq, which followed the 2003 invasion - a pre-emptive move he said he would never have considered himself as president.
Mr Carter also said that the Iraq invasion had subverted the fight against terrorism and instead strengthened al-Qaeda and the recruitment of terrorists.
"In many countries where I meet with leaders and private citizens there is an equating of American policy with Great Britain - with Great Britain obviously playing the lesser role.
"We now have a situation where America is so unpopular overseas that even in countries like Egypt and Jordan our approval ratings are less than five per cent. It's a shameful and pitiful state of affairs and I hold your British Prime Minister to be substantially responsible for being so compliant and subservient."
The outspoken attack by the former Democratic president shows the extent of the alienation between the Labour Party and its traditional Democrat allies in America.
It will embarrass the Prime Minister on his return from his summer family holiday in Barbados and comes as Mr Blair prepares to make a defiant speech warning his party that it risks losing the next election if it does not unite behind him.
As friends of the Prime Minister mounted frenzied briefings in his defence yesterday, the Downing Street spin machine appeared to run out of control. A statement first put out on Friday was reissued, in which Mr Blair made a desperate defence of his Government, insisting that "after nearly a decade in office the PM is convinced that his Government has the experience and authority to meet these challenges".
Later officials at Downing Street admitted that they had simply redated the identical statement before sending it out to the press.
At 81, Mr Carter - the 39th American president, from 1977 to 1981, and the winner of the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize - plainly has no intention of sitting on his porch and nodding quietly away as the sun goes down over his peanut farm. He has just published a book, Faith and Freedom, in which he savages the American administration for leading the country into insularity and intolerance.
"We've never before had an administration that would endorse pre-emptive war - that is a basic policy of going to war against another country even though our own security was not directly threatened," he said. In his book, President Carter writes: "I have been sorely tempted to launch a military attack on foreigners."
But had he still been president, he says that he would never have considered invading Iraq in 2003.
"No," he said, "I would never have ordered it. However, I wouldn't have excluded going into Afghanistan, because I think we had to strike at al-Qaeda and its leadership. But then, to a major degree, we abandoned the anti-terrorist effort and went almost unilaterally with Great Britain into Iraq."
This, Mr Carter believes, subverted the effectiveness of anti-terrorist efforts. Far from achieving peace and stability, the result has been a disaster on all fronts. "My own personal opinion is that the Iraqi people are not better off as a result of the invasion and people in America and Great Britain are not safer."
Asked why he thinks Mr Blair has behaved in the way that he has with President Bush's belligerent regime, Mr Carter said he could only put it down to timidity. Yet he confessed that he remains baffled by the apparent contrast between Mr Blair's private remarks and his public utterances.
"I really believe the reports of former leaders who were present in conversations between Blair and Bush that Blair has expressed private opinions contrary to some of the public policies that he has adopted in subservience."
© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2006. |
_________________
Richard Haut has worked with the architectural profession for over 25 years and produces the weekly Richard Haut's Competitions, which has given architects details of many thousands of projects for which they can apply across Britain and Europe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ed Ziomek
Joined: 07 Jun 2005
Posts: 521
Location: Stamford, Connecticut
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 8:45 am Post subject: If this isn't Civil War...? |
|
|
There has been so many useless questions about ...is Iraq a civil war or not, on a daily basis it is said 100 or more Iraqi civilians die...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060923/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
One of many pathetic quotes...
"In a grisly scene in Beiji, about 155 miles north of Baghdad, gunmen threw the decapitated heads of ten men into a popular open-air market at about 4:30 p.m., police said. They then fled the scene. "
Muslim brother against Muslim brother against Nepales, against Americans... who are condemning these atrocities?
Situation better or worse? (Everybody knows the answer)
Second story...
Armitage denies relaying the message in 2001 to Musharraf, "We will bomb you into the stone age."
He was asked about this quote on TV, and he denies all of it, but he was gulping his denials...and of course, Bush has denied all involvement...
Lies, lies, lies...
...deeper and deeper we flies
Yes means no, good means bad,
Democracy means, more people dies...
Endless fear and war and terrorize...
I don't accept it. We can change it, Peacefully. Just Say NO! and throw the bums out!
_________________
Ed Ziomek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1716
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 11:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Right.
The other day it was my inspiration to get out this message:
"You CAN do something about this. Just [color=red]vote !! "
I wonder what the most effective way would be, to spread such a message, leading up to the election in six weeks ?
_________________
"I'm the commander . . . see, I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation." GWB |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1716
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 11:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
[I see the 'editing' function has been disabled. I'd still love to correct the spelling of "liars" in the title of this thread. . .!
Kevin ? Can you make that correction for me ?]
SDR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1716
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 11:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
And -- here are the letters to the editor of the San Francisco Chronicle (today's edition) on the subject of Mr Chavez's words at the UN:
King of the Hill
Editor -- Do you remember the childhood game "King of the Hill''? The most dangerous position in the game is that of the king on the hill. Every other child desires nothing more than to drag the king off the hill (and to become the new king, thus perpetuating the endless game).
The U.S. is in the position of King of the Hill, as Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez dramatically insisted at the United Nations. It is in the nature of that position that it won't last. There is an easy way, and a hard way, to change. We can generously and graciously share our power and resources with other nations; or we can wait for them to drag us off the hill. The choice is ours.
JOHN STEINHELBER
Fairfax
Editor -- Venezuelan President Chavez claims that President Bush spoke to the United Nations as if he were the owner of the world, that he wishes to impose a false democracy of elites by force, and that peoples around the world are waking up to U.S. imperialism, citing the insightful and thoroughly documented book by Noam Chomsky, which makes this case in telling detail.
Naturally, the usual suspects - including Condi Rice and the British foreign secretary - deplore these vile statements and add the standard refusal "to dignify a comment,'' which is "unbecoming,'' with a reply.
But isn't the real question here not whether these statements are somehow "unbecoming,'' but whether or not they are true? If they are, what then?
Shouldn't they at least be debated by the American people (and the media) during this crucial midterm election, along with the question why so many peoples around the world believe them to be true, and are waking up to U.S. imperialism?
B. E. BERGESEN III
Berkeley
Editor -- Hurrah for President Hugo Chavez! He has succeeded in emphasizing what a great country the United States is. Chavez was allowed to stand in New York City and spew hateful, anti-American, anti-President Bush ravings because we are the land of the free and allow free speech to everyone. This cannot be said about Chavez's country.
DEBORAH McMICKING
San Francisco
Editor -- How admirable of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, to denounce the hate-filled vitriol of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Can we now expect her to turn her attention toward so many members of her party, whose endless attacks on President Bush sound so similar to that of the aforementioned communist dictator? I'm not holding my breath.
ANDY MAREFOS
San Francisco
Editor -- Hugo Chavez's speech at the United Nations was directed at the U.S. government, not the American people. Chavez shoots off his mouth, but his philanthropic efforts throughout Latin America outweigh his faults.
I visited Venezuela recently and learned that the opposition still controls most of the press. People in their 60s and 70s are learning how to read and write. Health clinics and schools are being built where there formerly were none. He is hardly the dictator the media make him out to be.
CURT BENDER
Oakland |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
