Re: [Fwd: Theos-World Re: What Is Happening In America?]
Jul 11, 2003 08:48 PM
by Bart Lidofsky
Theo Paijmans wrote:
Here you ask a "what if" question by inserting a hypothetical
situation at the end, which only serves to cloud the issue. Elements
that strongly indicate that the Florida electoral results were a scam
are to be found all over the internet with a Google search, so I need
not repeating these here.
Just because something is on the Internet doesn't make it true.
OK. Let's see if we can find a MORE radical government. Under FDR,
there were massive social programs enacted, including an attempt to
override the Supreme Court by packing it with justices. Under
Lincoln's administration, we fought a war to keep states from
dissociating themselves from the United States, turning this from a
group of cooperative independent countries into a single country.
Under Kennedy, civil rights violations by federal agencies were
routinely greater than even the Patriot Act would allow now. Both
Nixon and Clinton routinely used federal agencies for strictly
personal purposes. Truman used nuclear weapons, and got the United
States involved in an undeclared war. I think all of these can be
counted as more radical.
Here you keep important elements out of your equation. Lincoln's war
had to do with more issues than the breaking away of the rich south,
one of them the war against slavery.
Doesn't make it less radical.
By blaming Kennedy for any
increase in misdeeds by federal agencies, one sidesteps the roguelike
nature of those agencies, and that kennedy had a struggle in keeping
those elements in line. Kennedy in the end, was assassinated, and I
bet you think it's Oswald.
Bobby Kennedy was responsible for a lot of it; he made Ashcroft look
like a piker.
Truman's use of nuclear weapons halted the
use of a 'dirty' bomb by Japan on the USA. Since Nixon the times have
changed. Just think, Bart, Nixon was brought on his knees by what? By
an old fashioned burglary.
Nope. That would have gone away. He was brought down on his knees by
his use of technology; the fact that he left a taped record of just
about everything that went on in the White House. But I still see
nothing which supports the contention that the Bush administration was
somehow more radical than these.
He called the 7 members of the Supreme Court who decided that the
recounts called for by the SCOFLA was illegal to be "right wing",
in spite of the fact that even the liberal New York Times and
Washington Post call three of them "moderates" and one of them
"liberal". This puts his opinion somewhere to the left of the New
York Times and Washington Post. And he clearly shows he does not
believe in the electoral college, because he does not stand by
their decision.
Ifr one believes that the two US newspapers you cite are still organs
of democracy, which they are not. Even American listened to the
European news when the US invaded Iraq. The news channels and
newspapers are instruments of the new state radicalism. A study in
who owns what in medialand can be most revealing. Hence, relying on
statements in certain respected newspapers, is by all standards,
unwise.
Irrelevant. If someone calls right-wing someone who the New York Times
or Washington Post calls liberal, then that person is left wing by just
about any standard.
OK, show me the Bible study groups in Congress. And, there has
ALWAYS been an opening prayer to open sessions of Congress. One
lie, one half-truth. Show me the Bible study groups at the Supreme
Court. Show me the prayer groups with the Supreme Court. Theo can't
because there aren't any. Another lie. Yes, there are some Bible
study groups and prayer meetings in the White House; it's called
freedom of religion. That includes religions the author DOESN'T
like, last time I looked at the Constitution.
Here you forget to insert little known aspects of the US presidents;
I do recall that Reagan had an astrologer, for instance. It is a well
know fact that the ultra-millennarian Christian current with its
apocalyptic world views is strong around Bush, just do a Google and
do some digging. The new state radicalism has evolved beyond the
bible thumping lunatic fringe. These inhabitants are mere window
dressing.
If you are in Toronto, then you are in Canada; does that mean that if
you are in Canada, then you are in Toronto? Sorry, just because a group
supports a politician does not mean that the politician supports the
group. Sometimes, a group will support a politician simply to get people
NOT to vote for him or her, as the American Communist Party did when
Henry Wallace ran for President (Wallace being about the only American
politician who had a realistic idea of how to stop Communism; no
surprising, seeing that he was a Theosophist as well).
Would it that it was that simple. The author demonstrates that two of
the most powerful men on earth of the most powerful contry of earth
are prone to irrational and illuminst belief systems. Being prone to
an irrational belief system might influence ones judgment in that
sense.
Spoken by someone participating in a group where people talk about
civilizations of Atlantis, Mu, and Lemuria, that apes were descended
from men, and that there are Secret Masters living in the mountains of
Tibet.
Well, I guess one can paint the actions of the U.S. during WWII as
being wrong if one ignores the attack on Pearl Harbor and the
declarations of war against the United States by Germany and Italy.
Ít is a well know fact that certain factions in the US government had
the foreknowledge of the imminent attack on Pearl Harbor.
No, it is a well-known RUMOR. There is no solid evidence backing it up.
At not a
single minute was Peral Harbor the cause of the US entering the war;
it was the pretext of achieving the design.
My God, do you believe every conspiracy theory you read?
Of course paramilitary attacks against any democratic nation are not
okay. But if one transcends one's obsession with left and right, what
new picture emerges? As a sidenote, sofar both the alleged
perpetrators, Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein have not been
caught. The right to selfdefence also implies seeking out the
perpetrators as part of the procedure. Why then this apparent - and
some would argue - convenient inability to engage the perpetrators
and bring them to justice?
This was an act of WAR not a criminal act. As were the other attacks on
U.S. citizens. Just because you don't catch the generals doesn't mean
that you can ignore the army.
The Jews in Germany were citizens, and there was no alliance of Jew
making paramilitary attacks against Germany and German citizens.
There IS an alliance of Islamic people, largely Arab, who have
declared war on the United States and have participated in
paramilitary attacks. True, no Arab government has declared war on
the United States. They just give funding and give shelter to those
who did. Kind of like someone who pays a hit man to kill somebody,
and tries to declare after the murder, "Hey, I didn't kill
anybody!"
This is an interesting piece of reasoning. Obviously, the Nazis and
quite a number of Germans might have disagreed with your statement
that there was no jewish attack on the German state. We know now -
and only because we won the war - that this was an idefixe borne out
of National Socialism. Now you say that any muslim is suspect since
there is a shadowy alliance - almost like the elders of Zion from the
infamous protocols - of muslims bent on the destruction of the USA.
Let's try this again: THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A CITIZEN AND A
NON-CITIZEN. And the existence of Islamic leaders calling for the
destruction of the United States is VERY well documented, and not
denied, rather than a universally denied single forged document.
And since we do not know who its members are, where they are, or
where there leaders are, they have no country but reside in many
countries - by nature giving it almost mythical properties - all
muslims must be suspect and all muslim countries must hate the USA. A
disturbing and somewhat paranoid belief.
The leaders of many Islamic countries DO hate the U.S.A. And some, like
Saudi Arabia, walk a tightrope between need for us and hatred of us.
And, once again, the paramilitary groups ARE acting in secrecy. Are you
really going to have us believe that they don't exist?
I ask Theo: Are you trying to say that the United States should let
anybody walk in and have every right that citizens have? Can you
name a single country in the world that does that? And,
specifically, the people detained by the U.S. government WERE given
the option of legal counsel; you cannot blame the United States if
they chose not to take that option. Now, what issues did I not
name? I realize that it's a lot easier to argue with things you
would had have preferred I said rather than my actual statements,
but, in spite of your fondest wishes, the people reading this are
NOT idiots.
My answer is twofold: rights as American citizens or the universal
rights of man? I'd opt for the latter and even then, the system falls
short. As legal counsel represents the very system, it is only
natural that legal counsel is a shortcoming too and one better
avoided, as countles innocent citizens who are in US jails can
testify. Besides, at this moment America has more people in jails
than any other counrty including China, and its citizens are the most
heavily armed citizens in the world, a poll this week showed.
And America also has the most heterogeneous population in the world.
Don't you think these are connected?
OK, Theo, please give me evidence that there is a 13 year old at
Guantanemo Bay. I tried to find a valid source, but I only found it
from politically-oriented groups and rumor-mongering tabloids
(nothing even in the liberal-leaning Washington Post, New York
Times, or in the more centrist London Times, for example). And, in
war, sometimes people are put to death. But that does not mean that
all, or even most, or even a few, or, for that matter, ANY of the
illegal combatants in Guantanemo Bay will be executed. But,
according to the Geneva Convention, there are circumstances under
which they CAN be.
Your confusion as to finding a valid source demonstrates the new
state radicalism and its manipulation of the media.
In other words, you can't find one, but you would rather believe
anti-U.S. rumors than pro-U.S. facts.
OK. A group of nations figured out that they could outfit, train,
and support an army, but, if they officially disavow that army,
they can use it to attack with impunity. After 9/11, the United
States has finally said, "Bullshit", and finally has recognized the
various attacks against the United States as acts of war rather
than criminal acts, and is finally taking steps to defend itself
against them.
Finally? I recall discussions we had previously on this list in which
it was obvious that the USA has a very long tradition of "taking
steps" whenever it sees a danger anywhere. Thus the US military
reaction on 9/11 offers nothing new, it is always "defending", but
defending wha"? Defending the interests of certain factions of the
US, not those of the people. Show me Osama Bin Laden. At least we
have evidence that he was behind the 9/11 attacks. Tell me this: how
come that two countries since then have been overrun by US miltary
forces, but the mastermind of the 9/11 atrocity is still at large?
THERE HAS BEEN A WAR GOING ON SINCE THE 1980'S. YOU HAVE TO STOP
TREATING IT LIKE UNCONNECTED CRIMINAL ACTIONS.
Bart
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application
