🚀 go-pugleaf

In triangle.general Todd Morman <tmorman@nc.rr.com> wrote:
: I think this counts as must-reading:

: http://electronicIntifada.net/coveragetrends/rejoicing.html

: They make 4 points about the footage itself, and then 4 points about the
: lack of context in the presentation of the footage. Then, this quote:

I saw in another newsgroup that this footage was OLD, from 1991, anyway!
Someone happened to have a videotape from 1991 and it has the IDENTICAL
footage on it. Would journalists stoop so low? I won't answer that. Sorry
I don't have a cite for my claim.

Kent

On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 14:38:45 GMT, Kent
<kmpREMOVEintj@pageREMOVEsz.net> wrote:

>In triangle.general Todd Morman <tmorman@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>: I think this counts as must-reading:
>
>: http://electronicIntifada.net/coveragetrends/rejoicing.html
>
>: They make 4 points about the footage itself, and then 4 points about the
>: lack of context in the presentation of the footage. Then, this quote:
>
>I saw in another newsgroup that this footage was OLD, from 1991, anyway!
>Someone happened to have a videotape from 1991 and it has the IDENTICAL
>footage on it. Would journalists stoop so low? 

No journalist stooped that low... the footage is new. The death
threats against the journalist who brought in that footage are also
new. I don't have a cite handy but if you insist I can find it.

Gerald
-- 
http://www.walltown.org
A home on the web for Durham's Walltown neighborhood

Kent <kmpREMOVEintj@pageREMOVEsz.net> wrote in message news:<VVnp7.27191$t4.7018@news-reader.ntrnet.net>...
> I saw in another newsgroup that this footage was OLD, from 1991, anyway!
> Someone happened to have a videotape from 1991 and it has the IDENTICAL
> footage on it. Would journalists stoop so low? I won't answer that. Sorry
> I don't have a cite for my claim.

Which networks aired this footage? Was it only Fox?

On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 12:40:25 -0500, idunno <idunno@noemail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 04:08:18 GMT, Todd Morman <tmorman@nc.rr.com>
>wrote:
>> Is that fair? I don't think so.
>
>I do. It's representative of the view of many.
>
>"Egyptian students, taxi drivers and shopkeepers crowded round
>television sets stacked up in electrical store windows in downtown
>Cairo September 11, celebrating a string of elaborate attacks on New
>York and Washington."
>

There is a big difference between many and a majority.  

I forget the exact details but someone said that some Americans commented
"well we can do with out some new yorkers" when they heard an airplane had
hit the building.  

><http://metimes.com/2K1/issue2001-37/eg/bulls_eye_say.htm>
> 
>- - - - - * - - - - -
>neatshee was right
>


-- 
Wes Dukes

Todd Morman wrote:
> 
> I think this counts as must-reading:
> 
> http://electronicIntifada.net/coveragetrends/rejoicing.html
> 
> They make 4 points about the footage itself, and then 4 points about the
> lack of context in the presentation of the footage. Then, this quote:

Their first four points are basically "the Palestinian people weren't
really celebrating" and then their second four points were basically
"but they were justified in hating American anyway."

Nice.

Mike

Mike Fox wrote:

> Todd Morman wrote:
> >
> > I think this counts as must-reading:
> >
> > http://electronicIntifada.net/coveragetrends/rejoicing.html
> >
> > They make 4 points about the footage itself, and then 4 points about the
> > lack of context in the presentation of the footage. Then, this quote:
>
> Their first four points are basically "the Palestinian people weren't
> really celebrating"

Which is a completely accurate statement. "The Palestinian people" weren't
doing anything. A group of Palestinians at the lowest level of the economic
scale, who have been under constant occupation for the last 34 years and have
thus had plenty of time to train their children to hate America (I don't
endorse that, I just note it, along with the shell casings the children see
with "made in the USA" stamped on them), spontaneously expressed their
frustration and rage at U.S. helicopters firing missiles at them.

What a surprise. Can you think of a more likely group to support someone like
bin Laden? I can't.

However, there were *no* celebrations (I assume cameras would surely have
caught them as they caught these) in other Palestinian towns that haven't been
shelled on a near-daily basis. That is a meaningful fact, I think. Plus,
dozens of Palestinian organizations in the U.S. and Middle East have expressed
outrage at the bombings. A local activist told me this weekend that a
Palestinian-American she knows lost both of his parents in the World Trade
Center last Tuesday. Why would anyone except the most desperate support that
kind of attack?

> and then their second four points were basically
> "but they were justified in hating American anyway."

Anyone who fails to see that there are reasonable grounds for many in the Arab
world to feel rage at the United States is a fool. Violence is another thing
entirely, but the rage that's completely understandable.

Look, I know some Palestinians are violent fucks, but those folks, while they
clearly influence policy and try to derail any peace process, also clearly
don't speak for the majority of their people, who are as human and/or inhuman
as any other political or ethnic group.

todd like duh morman

On Tue, 18 Sep 2001 02:49:21 GMT, Todd Morman <tmorman@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>Anyone who fails to see that there are reasonable grounds for many in the Arab
>world to feel rage at the United States is a fool. Violence is another thing
>entirely, but the rage that's completely understandable.
>

Yep.  There was a discussion about this on NPR yesterday afternoon or
evening.  Many of our actions that we see as good towards other countries
seem agressive to those countires

We can sit back in our recliners and watch our military send cruise
missles off and shrug off collateral damage.  What these terrorists think
they are doing is giving us a taste of our own medicine.

Kruschev said that was one reason the USSR put missles in Cuba because we
had so many in Europe pointed at them from their back yard.  These wackos
are taking the same attitude.  The have succeeded in letting us know we
are not vunerable.  

I suspect this is why they attempted so many at once because they knew
they would not get a second chance and they figured some may not succeed.

The next set of hijackers on any plane anywhere in the world will probably
have a different set of passengers to consider also.  I doubt if they will
all cower in the back of the plane again.  The rules have been changed for
both sides terrorists and victims.

>Look, I know some Palestinians are violent fucks, but those folks, while they
>clearly influence policy and try to derail any peace process, also clearly
>don't speak for the majority of their people, who are as human and/or inhuman
>as any other political or ethnic group.
>

Correction.  Humans are violent fucks.

>todd like duh morman
>


-- 
Wes Dukes

On Tue, 18 Sep 2001 12:02:20 -0500, Matt Black <dagboy@softhome.net>
wrote:

>In article <slrn9qem5b.jmo.wdukes@nina.pagesz.net>, Wes Dukes wrote:
>
>>   There was a discussion about this on NPR yesterday afternoon or
>> evening.  Many of our actions that we see as good towards other countries
>> seem agressive to those countires
>
>Yeah, like killing huge numbers of civilians for no reason other than
>greed.  

Who did that?

>We see that as a good action.  

Well, maybe you...

>It's really strange how those
>other countries see it as aggression.  I guess they must have a
>distaste for Western cultural values.  There's no reasoning with people
>like that.  We'll just have to kill 'em.

Have you had your medication today?

Tom Disque

In article <180920011202201138%dagboy@softhome.net>, dagboy@softhome.net 
says...
> In article <slrn9qem5b.jmo.wdukes@nina.pagesz.net>, Wes Dukes wrote:
> 
> >   There was a discussion about this on NPR yesterday afternoon or
> > evening.  Many of our actions that we see as good towards other countries
> > seem agressive to those countires
> 
> Yeah, like killing huge numbers of civilians for no reason other than
> greed.  We see that as a good action.  It's really strange how those
> other countries see it as aggression.  I guess they must have a
> distaste for Western cultural values.  There's no reasoning with people
> like that.  We'll just have to kill 'em.

Like you've shown a phenomenal grasp of Socratic thought lately. You're 
as fucking blindly ideological as anyone on the far right, Black.

-- 
smr

Todd Morman wrote:
> 
> Anyone who fails to see that there are reasonable grounds for many in the Arab
> world to feel rage at the United States is a fool.

Oh?  I fail to see any reasonable grounds for "many" Arabs to feel
rage
at the US.  Please enlighten me.  We've done _nothing_ to justify such
an emotion.

> Violence is another thing entirely, but the rage that's completely
> understandable.

Once again, I see exactly the opposite.
Virtually powerless on their own, it is understandable that they would
resort to terror directed against the biggest SYMBOL they can find:
the US.  They struck against the most powerful nation on the planet
- and can enjoy the knowledge that they actually _won_ the first
battle.

Unfortunately for them, they are unlikely to win another battle
- and they certainly will lose the war, "holy" or not.

But rage?  No.  Rage is a very personal thing - and effective only on
a one-to-one basis.  It can diminish the effect of acts of war.  No...
I'm afraid that rage - especially misplaced rage - is without logic of
any type.

- John T.

Matt Black wrote:
> 
> In article <slrn9qem5b.jmo.wdukes@nina.pagesz.net>, Wes Dukes wrote:
> 
> >   There was a discussion about this on NPR yesterday afternoon or
> > evening.  Many of our actions that we see as good towards other countries
> > seem agressive to those countires
> 
> Yeah, like killing huge numbers of civilians for no reason other than
> greed.  We see that as a good action.

What the fuck, Over?
I think the last time anyone could make a case for that (and a _very_
weak one, at that) was the Civil War of 1861-65.
What in hell are you talking about?

- John T.

Dweezil Dwarftosser <f4wcs@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Todd Morman wrote:
>> 
>> Anyone who fails to see that there are reasonable grounds for many in the Arab
>> world to feel rage at the United States is a fool.
>
>Oh?  I fail to see any reasonable grounds for "many" Arabs to feel
>rage
>at the US.  Please enlighten me.  We've done _nothing_ to justify such
>an emotion.

FWIW, I think that's part of the problem.  If I were to personally
piss people off to the degree that they want me dead, I'd like to
think that I'm at least clued in enough to know that, and might even
be able to figure out why they're so enraged. That wouldn't
necessarily mean I'd think they're right, but it seems to me that
normal instincts for self-preservation require awareness of the
reactions of others to one's actions.

Anyhow, here's a short list of why some in the Middle East might be
enraged at the US:

1.  US foreign policy in that region tends to be oppportunistic and
fickle.

An example of this is how the US funded Afghan Islamic fundamentalists
while they were fighting against the Soviet Union, but discarded them
in 1991 when the last Soviet troops withdrew.  Did you know that the
US contributed about $20 billion to the Afghans during that time?
Guess who was among them at that time?

2.  US handling of the Israel-Palestine conflict

The first Oslo Peace agreements were signed in 1993.  Since that time,
Israel has received approximately $8 million per DAY in US aid (over
$23 billion). This represents about one third of ALL US foreign aid.
The Palestinian Authority has received approximately $0.  Strangely,
the Palestinians tend to view this as though the US were taking sides.

3.  US foreign policy with respect to Iraq

The US-led economic sanctions of Iraq have brought a lot of suffering
to average Iraqis but no change of government.  Thousands of Iraqi
children a month die in Iraq due to malnutrition and related diseases
(e.g. dysentery), and for some reason, that seems to evoke strong
emotions.  

Of course, we did it all because we're so awfully fond of Kuwait and
not because it happens to sit atop a shitload of oil, but apparently
not everyone believes this.

Ed