Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

I got this on an email, isn't it scary? :


Subject: SOCIAL SECURITY

(Who said life was fair??)

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the federal government to "put away," you may be interested in the following:

Q: Which party took Social Security from an independent fund and put it in the general fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic-controlled House and Senate.

Q: Which party put a tax on Social Security?
A: The Democratic party.

Q: Which party increased the tax on Social Security?
A: The Democratic Party with Al Gore casting the deciding vote.

Q: Which party decided to give money to immigrants?
A: That's right, immigrants moved into this country and at 65 got SSI Social Security. The Democratic Party gave that to them although they never paid a dime into it.

Then, after doing all this, the Democrats turn around and tell you the Republicans want to take your Social Security.

And the worst part about it is, people believe it!

Pass it on please!

2004 Election Issue
This must be an issue in "04". Please! Keep it going.

SOCIAL SECURITY:
(This is worth the read. It's short and to the point.)

Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during election
years. Our Senators and Congress men & women do not pay into Social Security and, of course, they do not collect from it.

You see, Social Security benefits were not suitable for persons of their rare elevation in society. They felt they should have a special plan for themselves. So, many years ago they voted in their own benefit plan.

In more recent years, no congress person has felt the need to change it. After all, it is a great plan.

For all practical purposes their plan works like this:
When they retire, they continue to draw the same pay until they die, except it may increase from time to time for cost of living adjustments.

For example, former Senator Byrd and Congressman White and their wives may expect to draw $7,800,000.00 (that's Seven Million, Eight-Hundred Thousand Dollars), with their wives drawing $275,000.00 during the Last years of their lives.
This is calculated on an average life span for each.

Their cost for this excellent plan is $00.00. Nada.
Zilch.
This little perk they voted for themselves is free to them. You and I pick up the tab for this plan. The funds for this fine retirement plan come directly from the General Funds-our tax dollars at work!

From our own Social Security Plan, which you and I pay (or have paid) into-every payday until we retire (which amount is matched by our employer) --we can expect to get an average $1,000 per month after retirement. Or, in other words, we would have to collect our average of $1,000. monthly benefits for 68 years and one (1) month to equal
Senator Bill Bradley's benefits!

Social Security could be very good if only one small change were made.

That change would be to jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan from under the Senators and Congressmen. Put them into the Social Security plan with the rest of us . then sit back and watch how fast they would fix it.

If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe good changes will evolve.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Now they start to dig up anything that could help to keep the ChickenHawk brigade in the WhiteHouse.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

whats wrong with helping retired immigrants ? I see nothing wrong with that. And I am glad that some of my tax dollars go to helping them pay for their lives. ( In Canada that is how it is, I cannot answer for the States )

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Saw this at /. Just liked it... So posted it.
THE FIFTY STEPS TO WORLD WAR & FASCISM
( an adaptation of Author Thom Hartman"s "When Democracy Failed,

1. THE GOVERNMENT RECEIVED WARNINGS OF AN IMMINENT ATTACK.
2. THE WARNINGS WERE IGNORED.
3. THE NATION'S LEADER WAS ILLEGITIMATE, ELECTED BY A MINORITY.
4. HE WAS A SIMPLETON WHO SAW THINGS IN BLACK AND WHITE ONLY.
5. HIS LANGUAGE WAS COARSE AND OFFENSIVE.
6. AS A YOUNG MAN, HE JOINED A SECRET SOCIETY WHOSE RITUALS
INCLUDED SKULL AND BONES.
7. HE KNEW THE TERRORIST WHO WAS GOING TO STRIKE.
8. HE STOOD ON THE RUBBLE OF THE BUILDING ATTACKED.
9. HE DECLARED ALL-OUT WAR AGAINST EVIL.
10. A DETENTION CENTER FOR TERRORISTS WAS SOON BUILT.
11. LEGISLATION WAS ENACTED BANNING FREE SPEECH, PRIVACY AND HABEAS CORPUS.
12. SUSPECTED TERRORISTS COULD BE IMPRISONED WITHOUT ACCESS TO LAWYERS.
13. A PATRIOTIC "DECREE" WAS PASSED WITH A 4 YEAR SUNSET PROVISION.
14. LEGISLATORS DID NOT HAVE TIME TO READ IT.
15. SUSPICIOUS PERSONS WERE ARRESTED WITHOUT ACCESS TO LAWYERS OR THE COURTS.
16. THOSE OBJECTING WERE IGNORED BY A MAINSTREAM PRESS.
17. PROTESTING CITIZENS WERE FENCED OFF IN ZONES.
18. THE COUNTRY WAS REFERRED TO AS THE "HOMELAND".
19. IT WAS OUR HOMELAND VS. ALL OTHERS.
20. THE LEADER DECLARED THAT AN INTERNATIONAL BODY WHICH DID NOT ACT FIRST IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE NATION WAS IRRELEVANT.
21. HE WITHDREW FROM THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
22. HE CLAIMED HIS MOTIVATIONS WERE ROOTED IN CHRISTIANITY.
23. HE FELT THAT THE VARIOUS AGENCIES WERE NOT COORDINATED TO DEAL WITH THE TERRORIST THREAT.
24. HE PROPOSED A SINGLE AGENCY TO PROTECT THE HOMELAND.
25. HE APPOINTED ONE OF HIS TRUSTED ASSOCIATES TO LEAD THIS NEW AGENCY.
26. THE RADIO AND PRESS WERE AT HIS DISPOSAL.
27. PEOPLE WERE ENCOURAGED TO PHONE IN TIPS ABOUT SUSPICIOUS NEIGHBORS.
28. OPPOSITION LEADERS AND CELEBRITIES WHO SPOKE OUT WERE
DENOUNCED.
29. THE LEADER CONSOLIDATED HIS POWER AND BROUGHT CORPORATE
LEADERS INTO HIGH GOVERNMENT POSITIONS.
30. A FLOOD OF GOVERNMENT MONEY POURED INTO CORPORATE COFFERS.
31. THE LEADER ENCOURAGED LARGE CORPORATIONS TO ACQUIRE MEDIA OUTLETS AND OTHER INDUSTRIAL CONCERNS ACROSS THE NATION,
PARTICULARLY THOSE OWNED BY SUSPICIOUS PEOPLE OF MIDDLE EASTERN
ANCESTRY.
32. HE BUILT POWERFUL ALLIANCES WITH INDUSTRY.
33. DISSENT AROSE WITHIN AND OUTSIDE THE GOVT. LEADERS OF OTHER NATIONS SPOKE OUT AGAINST HIS BELLICOSE RHETORIC.
34. THE LEADER NEEDED A DIVERSION TO DIRECT PEOPLE AWAY FROM CORPORATE CRONYISM.
35. HE BEGAN A CAMPAIGN TO MANIPULATE THE MEDIA TO HYPE A LIMITED WAR.
36. A NATION WHICH HARBORED SUSPICIOUS PEOPLE AND HAD A TENUOUS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE TERRORIST WHO HAD SET AFIRE THE NATIONS MOST IMORTANT BUILDING, HAD THE RESOURCES HE NEEDED.
37. THE LEADER PUBLICLY DELIVERED AN ULTIMATUM.
38. HE CLAIMED THE RIGHT TO PRE-EMPTIVE STRIKE IN SELF-DEFENSE.
39. AFTER MILITARY ACTION BEGAN, THE BRITISH PM DECLARED THAT IT WOULD BRING PEACE IN OUR TIME.
40. THE LEADER DECLARED THAT THOSE HE CONQUERED LOVED HIM.
41. THE PRESS BEGAN TO EQUATE HIS POLICIES WITH PATRIOTISM AND THE NATION ITSELF.
42. THE MEDIA SAID NATIONAL UNITY WAS ESSENTIAL.
43. THOSE QUESTIONING THE LEADER WERE CALLED TRAITORS.
44. DISSENT WAS STIFLED AS INTELLECTUALS AND LIBERALS WERE
THRASHED.
45. VOICES OF OPPOSITION WERE RAISED AFTER THE LIMITED WAR.
46. THE DAILY PROPAGANDA DID NOT TOTALLY SUPPRESS DISSENT.
47. A FULL WAR WAS NECESSARY TO DIVERT ATTENTION FROM GROWING OPPOSITION.
48. ONE YEAR LATER, WORLD WAR II BEGAN.
49. THE BLITZKRIEG OR LIGHTNING WAR "SHOCKED AND AWED" EUROPE.
50. "FASCISM SHOULD MORE PROPERLY BE CALLED CORPORATISM, SINCE

IT IS THE MERGER OF STATE AND CORPORATE POWER." - BENITO MUSSOLINE

FASCISM-
"A SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT THAT EXERCISES DICTATORSHIP BY THE EXTREME RIGHT TYPICALLY THROUGH THE MERGING OF STATE AND
CORPORATE POWER, TOGETHER WITH BELLIGERENT NATIONALISM"

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Aloofi: what is scary about that email? That message has been floating around for quite some time in both email and snail mail. Much of what it says is true, some is definitely hype. It is standard political campaign fare. Why is this one scary, and the gazillion other ones out there not?

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

I've often wondered how exactly it is determined whether an orginization is on the political left or right; Tesco - one of the quotes in your post refers to the extreme right - perhaps you could enlighten me.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Apparently, dividing politics into left/ right is too simplistic. Take the political compass test and see where you are on the up/ down scale.

EDIT: I've just taken the test (hadn't taken it for a few years) and it explains a lot. -7.88, -8.10: That puts me about as far on the chart from george dubbya as I possibly could be. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif I also appear to be further left and further south than Ghandi, the Dalai Lama or Nelson Mandela.

*dogscoff goes off to cook dinner, whistling a happy tune.

[ May 21, 2003, 18:27: Message edited by: dogscoff ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

That's interesting Dogscoff. I took the test. I was actually suprised at how close to the center I am. I would have pegged myself as someone farther right on the left/right scale but close to the line on the up/down scale. I guess I can't make up my mind on anything. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif It's funny cause while I was taking the test there were a few questions that I was wishing had a choice between agree and disagree. I guess that's further confirmation of my wishy-washiness. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Geoschmo

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Dogscoff: Cool site/test. Guess I fit the old right wing/left wing scale, though as I wound up 4 notches to the right of center and almost on the line between authoritarian and libertarian. Oh well, I always have been old fashioned.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Economic Left/Right: -5.50
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -5.59

Now what influenced these scores ??

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

It says that I'm Left/Authoritarian http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Economic Left/Right: -6.62
Authoritarian/Libertarian: 2.15

http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/poli...ntre_cross.gif

None of the personalities in the sample are close to where the table put me. I guess I would be close to Ben Gurion.

.
.
.

[ May 21, 2003, 21:45: Message edited by: Aloofi ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, in some questions I would have chosen "neutral" or no opinion.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

if you read the faq on that site it explains why there is no neutral option.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Oh, I didn't post my numbers did I?

The one was 0.12 and the other was 0.20. The graph showed me dead on the center point. Can't get more non-comittal on any issue than that. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Geoschmo

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

that's not non-commital Geo, it just shows that you feel a balance of extremes is the best way forward.

Of course you're wrong; you should come and join me down in the bottom-left corner.

*dogscoff makes up a "join my anarcho-syndicalist party- free beer and organic carrots" banner and sits expectantly underneath it in the bottom-left corner.

EDIT: That site never fails to amaze. Take a look at the iconochasms page. There is some really amazing material there.

[ May 21, 2003, 22:39: Message edited by: dogscoff ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Economic Left / Right : -3.38 (me), -4.62 (my wife)
Authoritarian / Libertarian : -2.31 (me), -4.05 (my wife)

IE, I'm along the same axis as Gandhi but halfway between him and center (I define myself as a social democrat, which fits). My wife is between Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama.

[ May 21, 2003, 23:04: Message edited by: Erax ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Hmmm, beer, carrots, and hot anarcho-syndacilist women with loose morals....

Geo dons his Groucho Mark glasses/big nose costume and slips in the back door of D's party for a few minutes of drunken debauchery http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Liberals do throw the best parties. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Check out the new addition to my sig http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Get a different answer every time I take that test, heh. Current: -.25, -2

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Economic Left/Right: -4.12
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -2.15

I'm Jean Chretien. Or close to him.

*TC starts to fold his lips and talk with a heavy Quebecois accent*

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Hmmm. I tested at 4.25/1.85, almost dead on with Tony Blair. Somehow I think the late hour had some effect on that. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Economic Left/Right: 1.00
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -4.67

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

same answer twice, -0.75, -0.82
almost neutral. the key word is almost tho http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

EDIT: im almost same as Jean Chretien http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

[ May 22, 2003, 06:32: Message edited by: Taera ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Economic Left/Right: -7.25
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -4.26

Hmmm, on par with Mandela & Gandhi...
ANyway, i think this test also depends a lot on where you come from. In my country im on the left side of the spectrum... ON a world view im almost extreme left http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
Questions like :"Marijuana should be legalised" is already a fact here...
I think that people who are right-winged in my country (the Netherlands) are considered left winged on this scale.

R.

[ May 22, 2003, 11:50: Message edited by: Some1 ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Sepultura, etc. should be called 'expatriate Brazilian rock', there is NO space for their kind of music here (studios and radios want to sell other stuff). That being said, it's not my favorite kind of music but my wife likes them a lot.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Do you mean that the Brazilian radio stations don't play Speed or Death Metal?

That's commun everywhere. Most radio stations only play the more "radio-friendly" alternative rock.
The Heaviest we get is usually Metallica and the sort, with bands like Puddle of Mud, Paparoach or Green Day getting most of the air time.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Please, somebody tell me that these calculations are wrong or that the numbers in which these calculations are based are wrong.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">.
.
.

[ May 22, 2003, 16:12: Message edited by: Aloofi ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

You would have to ask a civil engineer, but I get the feeling that the time required for the weight of the collapsing upper stories to crush the supports of each floor beneath them (which is pretty much a simultaneous process, not sequential as the text implies) would be very short.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">.
.
.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It is his assumptions about each floor taking a full second to shatter that is tripping him up, not the rest of the math. The Twin Towers were designed to be structurally effecient, which means there was very little structural redunancy, and no extra support. The floors were supported basically just at the outer edge, with a small amount in the center around the elavator shafts. Each floor consisted of lots of steel, several inches of concrete, and numerous other things.

The kenetic energy of an object falling from a height h and starting from rest (again, in a vacum, like the guy assumed) is m * g * h (mass times gravity times height). Those floors were all very, very heavy. Once they had fallen the height of a single floor they had sufficint kinetic energy to break every remaining floor of the building, even had gravity been cut off at that point. As gravity didn't go away, after two or three floors get crashed the delay due to the rest is negligable.

Edit: Oh, and the upper end of his estimate for the collapse of the towers (15 seconds) is about 1.67 times his calculation for gravity in a vacum, hardly close.

[ May 22, 2003, 16:45: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

The guy is wrong. He doesn't understand how the building was designed and what sort of stresses were involved.

Modern structures can't be efficently built to withstand stress in every possible direction. Skyscrapers are designed to withstand downward stress from the weight of the building and occupants, and lateral stress from wind and earthquakes. The structure is carefully designed so that each component does it's share and all the pieces support each other.

Basically all the weight of the floors on those buildings was supported by the steel tubing that ran vertically up the outside. All those individual tubes were tied together in effect forming one giant square cylinder. All the floors were mounted to the inside of that cylinder.

As the floors fell there was a force downard of kinetic energy and gravity, but there is also a force outward against those tubes from debris and the explosive outrush of air. The hardware mounting the floors to the tubes wasn't designed to resist that kind of stress pushing outwards. In effect the mass of debris falling down inside this tube was pushing the walls outward and breaking loose several floors at a time.

So, basically he is right that the floors weren't coming loose one at a time, but he is wrong when he says explosives would have been needed to cause that.

Geoschmo

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Same here, some of the questions are too geared towards American issues.

To give two examples, 99% of all Brazilians would not support our government if it was wrong. Every political party in Brazil supports social reform, even if only outwardly. All of this tends to shift us towards the bottom left corner because some of the questions are not the 'right' ones for us.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Economic Left/Right: -1.88
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -1.90

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hey, are you from Brazil?!
Brazilian Metal rocks!!
I love Sepultura, Portrait, Imago mortis, Rebaelliun and Leroy !!!

.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Lol.

If you make a search on anarchist ideology you gonna find that there is a lot more to anarchy than what the name sugest.
It seems that most anarchist movements today are striving for local goverments as oppouse to national goverments.
I've heard that Spain and France have the strongest anarchist movements today.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

A self destruct device for a skyscraper? ROFL! That is too much. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Anybody with the skill to have setup something like that would have known it was useless to try.

Seriously, what that guy doesn't understand is that contrary to popular misconception buildings don't fall over, they fall down. It's not a coincidence or a conspiracy that the collapse of the towers looked very much like a controlled demolition. It's simple physics and engineering. That is the only way they can fall.

The highly skilled demolitions experts you see blowing up stadiums and office buildings have things down to a level of sophistication that they can take them down and not damage a building on the other side of a narrow street. Didn't the WTC collapse take out like 5 or 6 other buildings and damage another dozen? That was pretty much a worst case scenario in action. Not really anyway it could have done any worse damage to the surounding area. If a demo company did that poor of a job they'd be looking at criminal negligence charges.

Here's a good article that explains it in plain terms. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

I think the key point in the article is this: <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Geoschmo

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

I think the only way to knock them over would have been taking out, say, the left side of the first five floors (so all the weight is on the right side).

Hitting from way to heck up there? Nah. Notice how the jets hit and the building barely even moved at first..puts the relative size in perspective.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Yeah, a cousin of mine that is an arquitec said exactly the same.

Now i wonder how many people have fallen for this "theory".

Check out what else they say:

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This guy is missing the point that nobody would rent space in a building with explosives permanently installed in it!!!

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Or that by telling all these neighbouring businesses about the explosives they make it impossible to keep the whole thing a secret.

I'm all for anti-gov/ anti-biz propaganda (us anarcho-syndicalists are like that) but this one just hasn't been thought through. It's this kind of junk that gives conspiracy theorists a bad name! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

I recently watched the "Booling for Columbine" movie. I found it quite intersting, but I wonder about US advices about it.

So what do you think guys ? Comments ?

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's the point Phoenix, even that would not have caused the building to fall over, only down. Taking out one side of the bottom five floors and would have definetly changed the center of gravity enough to tip the building. But before it could reach the point where it could fall over, all the internal weight bearing structures would have collapsed and brought it basically straight down. Very similer to what we saw happen. Perhaps the pile would have been a bit more spread out. Maybe those buildings around it that fell a few hours later would have come down right away. But it wouldn't have landed on wall street or anything.

Geoschmo

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Notice also that the damage from the jet (someone please do the math, because I'm pretty sure that's a <bleep>-load of kinetic energy) did not bring the building down. It was only the burning fuel that damage the structure enough to cause it to colapse. Now that's engineering.

To bad the new one they're going to build will be so much smaller.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Until recently, the most current hypothesis was that the insulation on the floor girders burned off allowing them to soften and thereby loose their ridgidity with the result that the buildings lost their integrity and ridgidity.

About a month or so ago, a TV program (I think it may have been on Discovery) said the above has fallen out of favour and the real reason was that the core around which the elevators were housed weakened to such an extent that it collapsed, which in turn resulted in the collapse of the buildings.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Article:

"Recruiting Jews For Self-Sacrifice"

"I cannot help but feel that there is something in our Jewish DNA which makes a certain Category of Jews rush to line up for 'suicide' missions. Unlike the Arabs who simply strap on an explosive's belt, the Jews chose to die, preceded by an intellectual rationale.

For example, with the failure of Oslo there was a large contingent of Left-liberal Jews desperate for self-sacrifice left with nothing to do. But, then came the slogan of the Arabist State Department "Road Map" which was pushed through the mouth of the American President by Colin Powell. The gaggle of Jews from all corners, Leftists, Breira, New Jewish Agenda, Peace Now, Israel Policy Forum, 'et al', all had a new lease on life before death.

Nothing that preceded the failure of Oslo made any impression. The years of Arab attacks, the build-up of Arab armies, the pledge that Islam would not tolerate a Jewish State, the terror which turned to suicide/homicide bombers - none of this made any impression on these Jews in their delusional state.

In no particular order of importance, we find a column in the New York times speaking to the efforts of the Israel Policy Forum, a decidedly Left-liberal organization, to use Jewish donors to influence Democratic Congressmen to support the so-called "Road Map." Their timing was extraordinary as Islamists blow up buildings in Saudi Arabia that house many Americans.

As the same time, waves of Terrorist attacks were launched across Israel with homicide bombings on buses, checkpoints and other vulnerable civilian locations. Now, this is the stuff that made up the days of Oslo and the day-to-day killing of Jews by the Arab/Muslim Palestinians who comprise Arafat's various Terrorist Groups.

All through that period since the signing of Oslo September 1993, the Osloids, backed (or controlled) by the Arabist U.S. State Department, invariably dribbled a statement of condemnation but, always with the expression: "This will not stop the Peace Process." Indeed, it couldn't stop that which never started.

After I read that Jewish Democratic donors had been recruited for rescuing the already leaded "Road Map" plan, I could smell the stench of the Leftists working the crowd.

With a little looking, I found that the Jewish Federations in America had been quietly recruited to pick up the same mantra "Save the Road Map". That recruitment would have two centers of operations. One would be in the belly of the beast Arabist State Department and the other coming out of the Prime Minister's Office in Israel. Recall it was Sharon was prepared to establish another Arab Palestinian State with "all the pain" it would bring "him" - and, of course, the Israeli people.

In the Last few days, Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has caved, saying that he would accept the Bush "Road Map" with the Bush promise that the would have the Palestinians carry out their commitments. Where have we heard that before?

The main theme to persuade the Jews was NOT that the "Road Map" was a good plan but, rather that Bush will be angry with the Jews for NOT supporting the "Road Map". I recall, in similar times that, when the Jews were too fearful to confront President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the anti-Jewish State Department over their policy NOT to rescue the Jews of Europe lest Roosevelt be insulted and so, the Jews died - 6 million of them were murdered including 1½ million children. Our American Jewish leadership has this unenviable record from the 'Judenrat', through Oslo and now the "Road Map-ists".

Earlier I had heard about Assistant Secretary of State William Burns in Israel, speaking 'confidentially - in secret' with the Ultra-Left of the Left, urging them to not only support the "Road Map" but castigate those Jews in Israel and America who said it was a "Trojan Horse". The stench of perfidy and betrayal was evident even then.

Recently, we heard former Ambassador from America to Israel, Martin Indyk, viewed by many as a spoiler and Left-liberal 'par excellence', doing the Sunday talk shows. He was telling everyone how desperate it was for all Jews and everyone else to support the plan even to force concessions from Israel.

Well, that's not too surprising, given that he was doing that even while he was Ambassador to Israel. Presumably, it is now Daniel Kurtzer of the infamous (former Secretary of State) James Baker's team of Jews who is taking the same line as Indyk when he was Ambassador to Israel.

There is a big push on to legitimize the "Road Map" even as the Palestinians, Muslims, Islamists are blowing up Jews in Israel or anywhere in the world they, the radical Muslims can target. Recruiting aberrant Jews with what must be a defective gene, which calls to them to make for the ultimate sacrifice, is not all that difficult.

Recruitment is almost unnecessary as our self-sacrificers dash about, looking for an opportunity to claim honor for putting the Jewish nation at risk. This is not the first time fearful Jewish leadership has failed the Jewish people;

Watch closely the gaggle of Hollywood Jews who have spent their lives and all their waking moments studying themselves, suddenly break out in support of the peaceful Arab Palestinians and hostility towards the Jewish State of Israel.

These Hollywood type Jews, most of whom barely made it through school and rarely read detailed intelligence on the Middle East suddenly want to be more than inconsequential stars of entertainment but, suddenly, wish to be viewed as informed 'intellectuals' on the grand scale. They, like some Jewish businessmen who sign letters to Congressmen, wish to be seen as more than they are or ever could be.

How they need that adulation, that pat on the head for their chest-pounding 'mea culpa'. Then again, I observe most of the Jews who make up the Boards of Jewish Federations, who also look for a chance to show their readiness to sacrifice Israel in a show of intellectual martyrdom. If they were faced with a real fire fight, as confront the Jews of Israel, our Hollywood poster heroes or Federation talkers would likely wet their pants (or worse) as they scrambled out of harm's way. But, the Federations have been told that Bush will be angry with American Jews if they do not offer a show of support for the Bush "Road Map". Even AIPAC (American-Israel Public Affairs Committee) is showing its soft underbelly as it reverses itself from its initial assessment of the "Road Map" as a bad document to softening their objections.

The Jewish businessmen who were recruited for the letter to Congress want to see themselves as heroes. They mistake doing lunch at Sardis and cutting a deal on real estate with solving Global Terror. They yearn for the day when, like those of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, they are invited to the State Department where they are asked for their vaunted opinions on complex Middle East matters. They hold forth, are given lunch and patted on their broad behinds to be then ushered out - not knowing that whatever they said would be ignored and even laughed at. They were suckered - again and again.

They, like all other Jews of the self-created establishment. have been duly massaged for whatever influence they may have on Jewish public opinion at large and for whatever political campaign contributions they can pour forth. After all, President Bush is going into the 2004 elections and needs the image of a foreign policy that is working - even if it fails and kills Jews. For Bush and family, losing Israel will be merely an "Oops!".

None of them understand that the so-called "Road Map" is merely an old collection of disastrous timelines to which Israel must adhere. None of it solves the real problem of stopping the on-going 'Jihad' (Holy War) Terror, War, the smuggling in of weapons, the teaching Muslim Arab children that their destiny is to hate and kill infidels *(both Jews and Christians) and to establish the ultimate World of Islam, dominating the whole world, as said in many Fatwas and public speeches.

But, they, (the Left-liberal Jews) will tell you there are words in the heretofore secret contract that calls for all that. They do not understand that Israel is expected to fulfill the contract and the Muslim Arabs only obligation is to sign the contract and to try 100% to stop Terror. There is nothing that demands that they succeed in preventing future murderous Terror attacks.

A self-sacrificing Left-Liberal Jew cannot grasp this mode of agreement so common to the Arab Muslim world. All the Arab Muslims have to do is 'talk the talk' but, the Jews must give up tangible territory - homes, factories, farms, vineyards, industries, schools, infrastructure - and to allow millions of Arab Palestinians into Israel because they claim to descend from the 450,000 Arabs who left Israel for safe havens elsewhere when the 7 Arab nations attacked the new born State in 1948.

These gullible Jews do not understand that the 'double standard' is not the exception to the rule when applied to Jews and the Jewish State. Even as President Bush calls for Israel to close her checkpoints, open her borders to so-called Palestinian Arabs, Bush elevates the American Terror Alert to Orange, increases security at American checkpoints in airports and on borders, simply because they have heard increased hostile Muslim 'chatter' in their intelligence listening Posts. Israel is not threatened with chatter. She is being hit with real homicide bombs and rockets but, nevertheless, there is a big push to accept the Quartet's unsafe "Road Map", explosions and all. It will help Bush at the election booths in 2004 - whatever the cost to Israel.

These same Jews who supported the failed Oslo Accords and subsequent agreement which Israel signed and fulfilled, fell silent for a time as the body counts mounted. They now wish to shed their guilt and are preparing to dig a new graveyard for the failure of "Road Map" as inevitably measured by the numbers of dead Jews. The "Road Map" is even a worse solution than Oslo was because a hostile Arab Muslim Palestinian people pledge never to accept a Jewish State in their midst and expect to acquire all that the Jews have built in the past 55 years.

The pacifist general, now Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, speaking at a press conference of the G8 was asked about the "Road Map". He basically said that he would listen to Israel's reservations about the "Road Map" but the "Road Map" document would NOT be changed(!) Sharon is to bring this absurd document to his Cabinet for a vote, pressured to make a suicide pact for the nation so Bush could claim a political victory for his foreign policy as he begins his 2004 re-election campaign. Clearly, the Israeli Cabinet must vote NO! and give Sharon the backbone he discarded when he became a politician.

There is not much more to say about these gullible Jews except to identify them and then ignore their counsel.

Contact your Federation and AIPAC. Demand that they cease supporting the "Road Map" and the weak new Palestinian PM Abu Mazen, an unreconstructed Terror leader along with Yassir Arafat. Contact your Congressmen and let him and her know how you feel. Let them know that the Jewish Federation self-appointed leaders, seeking only safety and comfort for their wealth, do not speak for you or the Jewish State of Israel's safety and sovereignty."

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Stratfor's point of view.

Israel: Bombings To Force Palestinian Crackdown May 19, 2003

Summary

A recent bombing spate in Israel will force new Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas to redirect his energy toward policing the Palestinians.

Analysis

Five suicide bombings in Israel between May 17 and May 19 killed at least 21 people and wounded scores of others. The al Aqsa Martyr's Brigade, Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) all have claimed responsibility for the attacks. Hamas claimed responsibility for the first four attacks -- including a suicide bombing May 17 that killed two settlers in Hebron and two bombings in Jerusalem on May 18, one of which left six Israelis and a Palestinian dead. Hamas also claimed a May 19 attack in the Gaza Strip that killed three Israel Defense Forces members, and both the PIJ and al Aqsa claimed responsibility for a May 19 suicide attack in which three people were killed in the northern Israeli town of Afula.

In effect, the bombings also have killed the U.S.-backed "road map" for peace. The failure of the Palestinian government's new leader, Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, to prevent Hamas, the PIJ or even al Aqsa -- backed by Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat -- from launching suicide attacks, lets Washington off the hook and will throw the Palestinians into an internecine confrontation in the coming weeks.

The United States, as part of a deal with Saudi Arabia, supported the plan to push forward a peace deal in Israel. An Israeli-Palestinian peace deal, however, requires that all of the Palestinian factions agree to halt suicide attacks. The recent spate of bombings makes clear two things: First, neither Hamas, the PIJ, nor al Aqsa back the peace talks. And second, Abbas can't bring them to the negotiating table or keep them in check.

The Palestinians are divided into three camps. One camp is willing to accept a partial return of the land seized in 1967 in exchange for recognizing Israel's right to exist. A second camp might accept these terms for negotiation but will continue to fight even with a peace deal on the table, and a third camp will refuse outright to accept that Israel has a right to exist. Hamas and the PIJ fit into the third Category, but the stance of al Aqsa, which has been closely tied to Arafat's Fatah Party and is known to conduct joint operations with Hamas and the PIJ, is unclear.

From Israel's standpoint, it cannot negotiate peace as long as there is a Palestinian faction that opposes it. The ability of Hamas, the PIJ, al Aqsa or any other group to continue to launch suicide strikes and the Palestinian National Authority's inability to halt those strikes limits the desire of Israeli leaders to cut a deal.

From Washington's standpoint, it has tried to make peace, and the Palestinians are rejecting it. That means the United States acted in good faith in its agreement with Saudi Arabia, and it can now back off and let the Israelis do what they need to do.

The losers in the end are Arab states that hoped to tie up the United States in Israel by getting Washington bogged down in peace negotiations. These Arab governments -- like Saudi Arabia -- also wanted to show their domestic constituencies that they could influence U.S. policy and that cooperation with the U.S. military in Iraq could result in something positive. A flare-up in Israel translates into an aggravation of an already angry Arab population, large segments of which see the governments as weak and corrupt. Domestic backlash will fuel militancy in countries like Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt.

Inside the territories, Abbas has been proven a paper tiger. Until the new prime minister can prove that he can contain Hamas and other factions that oppose peace negotiations with Israel, he has no legitimacy.

Both Israel and the United States have said in response to the bombings that peace talks will continue. The problem is that no substantive deals will be reached: Israel cannot trust that Abbas, regardless of his intentions, can ensure security.

Abbas, knowing this, now has a decision to make. He seems isolated inside the Palestinian political landscape. If al Aqsa participated in the latest spate of suicide bombings, then logic suggests that Arafat does not back the peace talks either. Already the two have clashed repeatedly over the construction of Abbas' Cabinet. Israel and the United States hope to use Abbas to sideline the aging Palestinian guerrilla leader.

The bombings will return Abbas to the underlying issue that so far has defined his short tenure as prime minister: the inter-Palestinian dynamic. Hamas' goal is not just to derail these particular peace talks, but all peace talks. It denies that Israel has a right to exist, and this principle is what gives Hamas its power. Its followers are willing to die in suicide bombings, because they believe in the goal: a Palestinian state after the destruction of the Jewish one. This stance cannot be moderated if Hamas hopes to retain its current support base, and therefore Hamas cannot participate in the peace process and cannot be open to negotiations.

Because of this, Abbas will have no choice but to find a means of cracking down or containing the militant group and other Palestinian factions blocking peace efforts. In effect, this is much of the Palestinian political spectrum. Given Hamas' prominence both politically and in its claims of responsibility for suicide bombings, Abbas likely will turn his attention to the Gaza Strip. With former Palestinian Security Chief Col. Mohammed Dahlan now acting as Abbas' security minister, the prime minister has an advantage in Gaza that he lacks in the West Bank. Now the test will be how he uses that advantage. In a first reaction, officials with Abbas' government said May 19 that he would shake up the Palestinian security apparatus. What he does with that security force, once it's reshuffled to his liking, will be the decisive factor. If he takes the hard line, a bloodbath inside Gaza -- between Dahlan's men and Hamas -- is almost a certainty.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Aloofi: I have been a strong supporter of Israel since I have been old enough to have an opinion on the subject (at least 30 years). This is an honest question, not an argument. What do you think is the best solution for Israel? Surely, continuing in the current path is not good. Too many people on both sides keep dying with no end in sight. Israel can't go to war with all of its neighbors and hope to secure itself that way. There has to be some path to peace. I am not saying the current road map is the best way, but I am not hearing any better plans from anywhere.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

I would be interested in hearing what Aloofi has to say also.

I have thought as long as Arafat is around, any kind of peace wont happen. Unless the new PM can wrench control from Arafat (which I doubt), any hope will be short lived. If there was a way to get rid of Arafat that wouldn't make him a martar, well I wouldn't be sad to see him gone. I saw something this weekend where they were showing 11 year olds that feel being suicide bombers is great and that Arafat was proud of the children that have died. I mean, as long as this is "their" norm, how can anything get done? But, that does not mean to give up.

The "Road-map" might not be the ideal solution, but if the U.S. policy in the Middle East is to clamp down on countries like Iraq, and now Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran. Maybe some things will be better. Those bombings in Saudi Arabia was a slap against the arabs that have turned the other eye in the past. But in the end, Arafat needs to be out of the picture, period.

[ May 27, 2003, 18:42: Message edited by: Narrew ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

"I recently watched the "Booling for Columbine" movie. I found it quite intersting, but I wonder about US advices about it."

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

Lets just say he does a really good job of editing. (At one point he cuts and pastes part of different speeches together)

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Thank you. That's great.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

OT--- http://www.thememoryhole.org/phoenix/

This popped by on the Declan maillist today... Some should find it interesting....... Vietnam War... Stuff

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, of course I agree that a solution must be found. But the truth is that I don't have any real hope for a peaceful solution, at least with the current generation. So that's mean that I don't have an answer. We are in a big deep hole and I don't see a way out. And I'm telling you, is not just pessimism, is the reality i see on the field.
I was serving in southern Lebanon when Barak order us out of there and to dismantle our outPosts. At the time I thought it was a good idea, that the Arabs and the world would see that we were willing to compromise. But the Arabs, instead of seing this as a goodwilling effort and an step towards peace, like any Western country would, saw in this weakness, and claimed a victory over Israel, and the ranks of fundamentalist Groups grew up with new recruits, believing that they were closer to a military victory over us.
You have to understand that Arab mentality is very diferent to Western mentality, I suppose this is because Islam have failed to modernize the way christianism have, incorporing into itself human rights, freedom of choice and tolerance for other religions or sects. Even christian fundamentalism is less fundamentalist than moderate Islam (Turkey).
I have no doubt in my mind, that if the Palestinians had chosen the path of Ghandi, they would have had whatever they wanted long ago.
But they have chosen violence, they teach their children in their schools to hate us, their media, stablished by Israel as part of Oslo, brainwash their youth with Jihadis dreams and anti-semitism. They don't even call us Israelis, they call us Jews, with all the discriminating implications that that word have in Arab.
In their minds, they can't understand how the jews, who were always second class citizens in the Arab countries, that had to pay extra taxes and were deprived of legal rights, that had to bow any time a muslim would pass near, that were prohibited to ride horses, they can't understand how these same jews have defeated them so many times on the battlefield. "It must be because the Jews serve the devil", they say, "and because of Jewish scheming and western support", when in reality western aid only came after 1973, and in the independence war in 1948 we had 4 cannons, while they had a couple hundred of tanks, outdated, but we didn't have any.
My believe is that there will never be peace, because it takes one bullet to break a cease fire, and one killing to break a peace, and there are many Palestinian Groups with thousands and thousands of members that wants the total destruction of Israel.
The way it is today, if the Palestinians would stop fighting, there would be peace, if Israel stops fighting, there would be no more Israel.

Its a vicious circle. If we make concensions to achieve peace, they see it as a weakness and redouble their attacks. If we don't, we still get the attacks, but at least we retain our strategy depth and territorial integrity.

There is no peace in the horizon, that's for sure.
.
.