Theos-Talk Archives (June 2002 Message tt00154)

Morten Sufilight wrote:
> Well Bart I have difficulties in agreeing with your below answer.
> 
> You bart wrote:
> " A current definition of terrorism is military attacks specifically
> > directed at non-military personnel during a time when there is no state
> > of war. According to this definition, the attack on the World Trade
> > Center was terrorism, while the attack on the Pentagon was an act of
> > war. "
> 
> Allright Bart. But, that is just another definition. I stick to the one I have made.

And I can define Morton Sufilight writing on this board as terrorism.
That doesn't make it terrorism. If words are used without agreement of
definition, then the words become meaningless, and the message
containing them becomes nonsense.

> A view, although I could be claimed wrong, is: To call something an 'act of 
> war' like USA did, was just rethoric use, so to have an excuse to make - USA 
> warfare - in OTHER countries (Afghanistan was the first country) acceptable 
> to the public and other countries populations. (What evil will come next?) 

There HAS been precedent, as when the United States declared war on the
pirates of Tripoli and all countries protecting them back in the 19th
Century.

> Bart ask in the below email on the issue food-terrorism :
> "Can you give a specific example of this?"
> 
> My answer to Bart:
> Picture a schoolyard. In one corner of the schoolyard we have a group of kids 
{analogy ommitted for brevity}

> This should be an anology on the rich (fat) western countries, the poor 
> coffeproducing countries, and Theosophical nerds. (I did cut it short, 
> beacuse of the size of the email.)
> And Bart, that is what I call food-terrorism.

A) You are assuming that governments and corporations are the same
thing.
B) You don't explain why the poor countries are producing
soil-destroying coffee rather than food, with crop rotation (which is
why there is so much famine, in Africa especially).
C) You don't explain why, although many "fat boys" are trying to give
their food to the "poor boys", the food is somehow not reaching the
"poor boys." 

> Just shortly after the 'world trade bombs' feel - USA was suddenly busy 
> paying their heavy debt to the United Nations programmes.
> One wonders why ?

I just did an Internet search to see if I could find a cite for this. I
could not. Can you give me some information (preferably a cite, but if
you can just give me enough information to find the cite on my own, that
would be fine)?

> You deleted the following in my last email:
> "The Jews can't live alone. The Palaestinians can't live alone. The USA can't 
> live alone. The Germans can't live alone. The Afghans can't live alone. The 
> India can't live alone. The Persia can't live alone. And each and every 
> country has to respect the other not just by words, but in reality by their 
> respectíve actions. And in the present information society, this is getting 
> pretty clear.
> Especially the USA, Germans and the Afghans will have to live with respect 
> for each other.
> ***The same respect has to be created for the persons at Theos-talk."
> 
> So Bart - let us show some respect, right. Let us see USA and western 
> countries show some repsect instead of being (religious and) cultural 
> imperialistic bullies. But other countries should also show respect.

I attack your ideas, or at least the expression of your ideas, not you.
I believe you are intelligent enough to see the difference.

> Bart wrote in the below email:
> "Do you think those people are so stupid and easily led that they would
> > abandon their culture and religions for products? Would you? Do you
> > think that you're better than they are? "
> 
> My answer to Bart:
> Again it is important that other countries show each other respect. USA and 
> other western countries should show other countries respect, while exporting 
> their so called goods.
> 
> First question: Yes ! Because they get tempted, or are ignorant of their own 
> culture, or think that it is part of their culture to do certain western 
> actions. Children in an information society are easily mislead, and that is 
> what is going on. That is why the $ (i.e. greed) has so much power, (but 
> sadly today so very little moral and respect).
> Take the issue 'Coca Cola' for instance. It is not healthy and it should in 
> fact be thrown out of production, but it is allowed in several countries. 

Why should it be thrown out of production? Under what authority should
it be thrown out of production? Who, other than the makers, has the
ability to throw it out of production? From where does this privilege or
right come?

The United States was built on the principle that the government has no
rights; only the people have rights. The government has privileges that
the people choose to give it. The government may not touch the rights of
the people except to adjudicate when the right of one person interferes
with the right of another. Unlike most European countries, where the
governments derive their rights from some deity, and anything the people
can do is considered a privilege. That difference is probably key to why
the Theosophical Society was started in the United States.

> Coca Cola advertises with the use of storytelling - and promotes the 
> american lifestyles by this advertising. Other companies are doing 
> the same. (That is cultural imperialism - and also religious imperialism. 
> Hidden or not.)

Companies are not governments. 

> The american lifestyle with Las Vegas, excessive Porn, kids with guns etc. - 

Why do you use "Las Vegas"? If it is the "American Lifestyle", then why
is it limited to a single city? And what is wrong with kids with guns?
In most of the world, children learn to use weapons safely to get food.
And what is wrong with pornography? Is sex evil? Or have you been bilked
by the fundamentalists of the cult of the failed messaiah?

> Second question: I am fortunately not ignorant or at least that ignorant.
> Third: No, certainly not. Why should I think so ? Some of us do really care.

Your answers to the first and second questions belie your answer to the
third. 

> You see I consider the Security Council to be something analogically similar 
> to the Jews council the Sanhedrin, which was said to have sentenced Jesus 
> Christ to the death.

On a Saturday. And NO Sanhedrin would meet on a Saturday. And the
requirements for a death sentence are quite specific, and had nothing to
do with any of the crimes that the failed messiah was supposed to have
been accused. Of course, followers of that cult decided that my
great-grandfather was the one who killed him, and killed my
great-grandfather in a pogrom. 

Nothing scares a European more than a Jew with a gun.

Bart Lidofsky