Theos-Talk Archives (July 2003 Message tt00114)

Bart Lidofsky wrote:

> 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.

Which is, by its very nature, a non-dictum, as we could easily turn it the other
way around and say: "just because something is on the internet, doesn't make it
false." Instead, since you seem to imply that all the information concerning the
Florida electoral scam must be false - as it is on the internet and not in the
Washington Post - it would do well to cite an example of this falseness. Else the
statement "just because it is on the internet it is not true" is nothing more than
the method of casting the validity of a source in doubt by an unfounded accusation.

> >> 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.

Here was a true war for freedom for we all know that, had Lincoln not went along
with this war, there still would be cotton pickin' fields, and in essence you are
saying here what countless CIA men have said for half a century during the cold
war: "fighters for freedom are terrorists and must be eliminated at all cost." So,
was Lincoln the first state terrorist or a true fighter for freedom? Perhaps we
find the answer in the fact that he too, was assassinated.

> > 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.

It is an oversimplification - a very human thing nonetheless - to consider
history as the results - the causes and effects - of the doings of those who stood
the most in the limelight. An old saying is "look behind the throne". By blaming
Bobby Kennedy with a vague statement that "he was responsible for a lot of it", is
testament to an emotional conviction rather than historical, verifiable accuracy.

> > 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.

Nixon was brought to his knees neither by a burglary or a bunch of tapes; he was
brought down by the exposé article in the Washington Post (Howard and Blumstein, or
rather, Dustin Hoffman and Steve McQueen). The question is of course, who decided
and authorised that article to be published at all, and who was - we still don't
know - deep throath? In short, what mechanism prompted those events to unfold? The
best evidence by the way, that there are factions behind the throne with their own
agenda. Or do we really believe that it was good ol'democracy at work here? So,
what exactly were the radical elements in the Nixon government?

> 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.

Of course not. By identifying the beetle as an insect, it does not make me an
ant-eater. This terminology (left wing, right wing) is cold war heritage; it serves
to label and tag the political belief system of any given person.This
oversimplification is exactly what is wrong today: criticising the USA doth not
make me a terrorist, nor a left wing Communist. Defending the politics of the USA
does not make one a right winger, or a Nazi. There is no "any standard" there is
only the roadmap of the ground floor that you are standing in. Realise that there
are more floors above and below.

> 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).

You raise valid points and in effect show that truth is not so straight forward as
one would have likened it to be. However, where Wallace was anti-communist, Bush is
not anti-Christian. Hence, the comparision is flawed.


> > 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.

A theosophist might discuss and actually believe all these things, but it need not
interfere with his day to day ethical judgment and actions. Neither do most
theosophists have the influence or the conviction to, say, start a war with another
people or nation because they think they are a descendant of Atlantis and the other
nation consists of apes (or was it towel heads?). There is a clear distinction
between the complexity of a personal worldview and philosophy and on the other
hand, the putting it to practical, day to day performance driven use. So, in effect
you say not much with the above, you only paint the sociological framework in which
these discussions take place and thus try to make a fool out of your opponnent by
saying : "hey you squirt all these critisisms, but you are a silly clown yourself".

> >> 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.

Neither am I surprised there is none to be found - meaning that there is no
"smoking gun". There also is no "smoking gun" as to the Kennedy assassination.
However, if we carefully dissect what you are saying, in effect you say that there
is no documentary source that you would consider valid, but you nowhere say what
criteria this evidence should have. And another thing: rumors sometimes are true.
By implaying that something is a "rumor" is of course an age old trick of
discrediting any given piece of information.

> > 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 not. Here however we see a fascinating mechanism at work, which has often
puzzled me to no less extent: what mechanism is it, that makes the media - our
critical watchdogs of democracy - turn away by simply crying "conspiracy" and
opting for a no less ludicrous theory of a lone nut or whathaveyou? What mechanism
prompted you to use the method of painting me as a "conspiracy nut who cannot be
taken serious"?

> > 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.

War by its very nature is a criminal act. Attacks on US citizens are a criminal act
and I condemn these acts strongly. However, the question remains unanswered: why is
it that the USA, with its alphabet agencies and more hightech devices than any
other nation on earth devoted to the gathering of intelligence, can't find two of
the most wanted men on the face of this planet?

> 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.

If you mean that sentiments, propagandistic statements to forge power structures
and rally masses is documented, I agree. However, nowhere do these sentiments point
towards a concocted scheme, design or well thought out unanimous conspiracy of a
large human section of this planet against the USA. There are many muslims living
in the USA who are American citizens and are not terrorists. Differences between
citizens and non-citizens there might be due to bureaucratic schemes; the universal
laws of men on the other hand apply to all and everyone.

> And America also has the most heterogeneous population in the world.
> Don't you think these are connected?

Not if we look at the demographics of what part of the US populace is in jail, or
on death row. There we see that the inmates do not reflect the heterogeny of the
populace of the US, as it is mostly black males who are in US prisons.

> In other words, you can't find one, but you would rather believe
> anti-U.S. rumors than pro-U.S. facts.

It is not a question of belief, but of reasoning; as you can find no source that
proves your allegation that the 13 year old boy case is only anti US propgaganda,
this case remains open for now.

> THERE HAS BEEN A WAR GOING ON SINCE THE 1980'S. YOU HAVE TO STOP
> TREATING IT LIKE UNCONNECTED CRIMINAL ACTIONS.

No Bart, there is a war going on since 1939. After 1945 we had the cold war till
Glasnost set in. Half a century in which the world was divided in the east and the
west; and there has been not a single nation on the face of this planet that was
not subject to, or part of this titanic struglle between the two opposing world
views (capitalism vs communism). All the - and I repeat - all the terrorist groups
that infest the planet today were born, nurtured and supported by either the US or
the Soviet Union in their attempts to widen their respective spheres of influence.
Thus, what happens in Moskou with the Tchetschenian rebels, or what happened on
9/11 is a sad consequence of the cold war struggle and its after effects. Just
because the cold war is officially over doesn't mean - unfortunately - the
terrorists will go away.