massive solidarity against the war

Blankhttp://www.stopwar.org.uk/groups.asp

all the groups & more who are at the STOP THE WAR march today in London.

Comments

, marc garrett

Wally,

You are missing the point, there are issues a little more subtle than that
going on. Do you get info on the net over there or are you blocked by AOL?



> A simple image that aptly describes useful idiots.
> I don't join in on Save-The-Dictator movements.
>
> From: "Michael Szpakowski" <[email protected]>
> > Well!- that's a decisive argument- you must be
> > schooled in all the arts of rhetoric, Wally.
> >
> > — Wally Keeler <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> From: "furtherfield" <[email protected]>
> >>>
> >>> all the groups & more who are at the STOP THE WAR
> >>> march today in London.
> >>
> >> a herd of sheep
>
>
>

, Wally Keeler

And why not here? I encourage you to speak out all you want. Go ahead.
Well Saddam does kill them. He kills the neighbours – Iran, Kuwait. He
kills his own with chemical weapons. Gets his rocks off with snuff videos.
Do you, my dear petite leftie, have a single solution to Saddamism?
Or perhaps them civilian Arabs don't matter to you when other boss Arabs
kill them. Where you speaking up then, Leftie?
Or were you working hard to become a great artistista?

—– Original Message —–
From: "furtherfield" <[email protected]>
To: "Wally Keeler" <[email protected]>
> Another right winger Sheesh!
>
> Even here…why bless my soul boss, i did na wanna speak out about nuffin
> honest boss. I was just exercising my erm right to say something that I
> believed in, but now I know that it is wrong and not my palce to believe
in
> wanting peace. I'll just sit my liddl' self down and suddup like a good
god
> fearing christain shall I?
>
> > —– Original Message —–
> > From: "marc.garrett" <[email protected]>
> > > Herd or not, sometimes people have got to get together to save other
> > lives -
> > > you twat!
> >
> > Yes, better that Saddam kill them instead.

, Wally Keeler

From: "furtherfield" <[email protected]>
> Blankhttp://www.stopwar.org.uk/groups.asp
> all the groups & more who are at the STOP THE WAR march today in London.

a herd of sheep

, D42 Kandinskij

On Sat, 28 Sep 2002, furtherfield wrote:

> all the groups & more who are at the STOP THE WAR march today in London.

Tzzt. 9/11 attack continues long after 9/11:
sublimation of the West in to a 'mass solidarity' of imbecilic
mob behavior + debasement of its population into an idiotic herd.

The East is laughing at you–and not nicely.

`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42

, D42 Kandinskij

On Sat, 28 Sep 2002, Wally Keeler wrote:

> a herd of sheep

To which you belong. Baa.

Not a concept you have understanding of, besides piddly mis-readings
on the subject matter.

Sheep are those created to follow. Majority of humans (male + female)
are created to be sheep. It is not a derogatory term.

Mob + mass psychosis + mechanical behaviors are only remotely connected
to people being sheep.

, Michael Szpakowski

Well!- that's a decisive argument- you must be
schooled in all the arts of rhetoric, Wally.

— Wally Keeler <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: "furtherfield" <[email protected]>
> > Blankhttp://www.stopwar.org.uk/groups.asp
> > all the groups & more who are at the STOP THE WAR
> march today in London.
>
> a herd of sheep
>
> + AFK, tornado
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set
> out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at
http://rhizome.org/info/29.php


=====
http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

, marc garrett

Another right winger Sheesh!

Even here…why bless my soul boss, i did na wanna speak out about nuffin
honest boss. I was just exercising my erm right to say something that I
believed in, but now I know that it is wrong and not my palce to believe in
wanting peace. I'll just sit my liddl' self down and suddup like a good god
fearing christain shall I?






> —– Original Message —–
> From: "marc.garrett" <[email protected]>
>
>
> > Herd or not, sometimes people have got to get together to save other
> lives -
> > you twat!
>
> Yes, better that Saddam kill them instead.
>
> > > From: "furtherfield" <[email protected]>
> > > > Blankhttp://www.stopwar.org.uk/groups.asp
> > > > all the groups & more who are at the STOP THE WAR march today in
> London.
> > >
> > > a herd of sheep
>
>
>

, Wally Keeler

A simple image that aptly describes useful idiots.
I don't join in on Save-The-Dictator movements.

From: "Michael Szpakowski" <[email protected]>
> Well!- that's a decisive argument- you must be
> schooled in all the arts of rhetoric, Wally.
>
> — Wally Keeler <[email protected]> wrote:
>> From: "furtherfield" <[email protected]>
>>>
>>> all the groups & more who are at the STOP THE WAR
>>> march today in London.
>>
>> a herd of sheep

, Wally Keeler

I say you missed a lot of points.
I get info as fully as you get info.
The demonstrators held placards which reflected their own particular
jingoism - and that is what it is.
Does the Bush admin indulge in jingoism – yep.
Your brief little postings were nothing more than jingoism.
I replied the same.

—– Original Message —–
From: "furtherfield" <[email protected]>
To: "Wally Keeler" <[email protected]>; "Michael Szpakowski"
<[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2002 8:23 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: massive solidarity against the war


> Wally,
>
> You are missing the point, there are issues a little more subtle than that
> going on. Do you get info on the net over there or are you blocked by AOL?
>
>
>
> > A simple image that aptly describes useful idiots.
> > I don't join in on Save-The-Dictator movements.
> >
> > From: "Michael Szpakowski" <[email protected]>
> > > Well!- that's a decisive argument- you must be
> > > schooled in all the arts of rhetoric, Wally.
> > >
> > > — Wally Keeler <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> From: "furtherfield" <[email protected]>
> > >>>
> > >>> all the groups & more who are at the STOP THE WAR
> > >>> march today in London.
> > >>
> > >> a herd of sheep
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

, Eryk Salvaggio

Hi Wally. A couple of questions and comments for you.

Firstly, we have numerous experts saying that a war with Iraq would be
over in several days to two weeks. Assuming this is true- or even
hypothesized- does this justify Iraq as a a threat to world security?
The Gulf War was over almost as soon as it started- and some American
Soldiers came home with unrecognizeable syndromes that the Government
won't accept at face value, or do anything about. Since then, the Iraqi
military is only a fraction of that size then- with rumors that even
larger mass defections are likely if there is a war. Does this sound
like a nation that can threaten world security? If not, then what
justification do we have?

Second- there are no ties linking Al Qaieda to Iraq. The "War On
Terrorism" is one thing- to disperse of a vague, unidentifiable and ever
changing enemy. But look at the Axis of Evil: Iraq, Iran, and North
Korea. Please remember that Al Qaieda are militant muslims. After 9/11 I
remember hearing a slew of reports about the unlikely concept of Saddam
and Bin Laden operating in cahoots with one another, and about Bin
Ladens disliking of Hussein. Not to mention that Bin Laden fled Saudi
Arabia- if he wanted to work with Hussein, it's a lot closer to Iraq
than to Afghanistan. Don't you find it suspicious that we had no
evidence, and the government even admitted that there was no evidence,
until they needed to drum up support in the UN and Congress, and then,
suddenly, there are "ties" that cannot be disclosed because of national
security matters- and even Donald Rumsfield said there was not any
direct fingers pointing to Iraq, but lots of general waving in its
direction. When you want to find circumstantial evidence, you will be
able to. It's a basic rule of human psychology- and the people who run
the American War Machine are human beings.

Third- "What if Iraq got hold of Nuclear Weapons and gave them to Al
Qaieda?" Why would he? His country would be annihilated if there was
ever any direct evidence pointing to him. I mean look at what is
happening now without any evidence whatsoever. Psychologically, the man
is a narcissist, who throws nation-wide birthday parties for himself and
renames the television network "Birthday Television". Seriously. Does
any megalomaniacal, self-loving despot want to be annihilated? I don't
think so.

Fourth. If this war occurs [which it will] then what is the next step?
We as Americans have opened a can of shit by not voting George Bush into
office. The man who holds grudges. More than likely there will suddenly
be evidence linking Iran to Al Qaieda. After that there will be evidence
linking North Korea to Al Qaieda. And probably Germany now that the
Chancellor is on Bushes shit list. It is not a conspiracy theory- it's
just that we gave an idiot power, and he is insulated against outside
opinion, and he will do as he pleases- we already abandoned several
agreements and treaties because Bush didn't like them, have told the
world they are with us or against us, and now we are, as far as I am
concerned, in a state of political anarchy. We have a leader who was not
elected, deciding to destroy the last 8 years of American Policy and
return to the policies that his father put into effect, and on top of
that, we are going to bomb the people we don't like- especially the guy
who tried to kill our leader's Dad.

In the first Gulf War, did you know we bombed out Iraq's water
distribution system? It's right there in the cia docs if you want to
take a look. We knocked out water treatment facilities in a region that
is- you know, a desert- leaving people with brackish water, which we
knew would lead to Malaria and other diseases- not to mention thirst.
There's thousands of children who have died from this; and you can say
"well, Iraq is a rich, oil producing country, they could restore it" but
part of our sanctions against Iraq [and part of the reason we are going
to war, don't forget, is also that Iraq has been attempting to violate
these sanctions] are against- guess what? Water treatment equipment, and
Chlorine- a necessary part of desalinization. Apparently, it can also be
used to build chemical weapons. One has to wonder if we have sanctions
against Iraq buying aluminum or nails?

So you say "What for Saddam to Kill them first" but we're already
killing the families of Iraqi soldiers who were gracious enough to
surrender in Gulf War One, and swallowing horse and carriage every "evil
man" that the Bush family says needs to be stopped seems short of a good
reason to send people to war. Also- it just confounds me when people who
are not in the army say what a great idea it is to "simply" go to war,
to "simply" have hundreds of thousands of american lives put on the
line. If it was your life, do you think you would feel as resolute that
this war was necessary? I don't know your history with the armed forces
or outside of the armed forces, and don't take this as
overly-confrontational, but it doesn't seem to me that you are enrolled
in any branches of the military. I don't think many people in the
military would choose to go to war if they had a choice, and they speak
when it's necessary to- people signed up for the military after 9/11,
wanting to go to Afghanistan. This war is not to simple and clear cut
and not so necessary.

Fifth. Clinton did not seem to find Hussein a threat to the world for
over 8 years, as far as I can tell. It's Bush, and the Bush people- the
cabinet now, consisting of numerous people who were hands on for the
Bush vs Hussein fight the first time around. So why do we hear nothing
from these people on the idea of "coercive inspection?" Why not have
surprise-visiting inspectors backed up by tanks that would only work to
barge their way into blocked locations? "Because the weapons are being
made in secret?" We have satellite imagery of every square inch of Iraq,
and anything resembling a "plant" could be inspected.

Six. I think it was Cheney who suggested "the nuclear option" against
Saddam Hussein in Gulf War One. Are you willing to let this guy do
"whatever is necessary" in Iraq? Do you want a nuclear bomb dropped on
Iraqi civilians to protect against a nuclear bomb being dropped on
Israeli civilians? Because in both cases, people are going to die. And
the second option might not happen. But a war with Iraq will- and that
means people are going to die, with absolute certainty. So we're going
to kill people who might kill people, to assure that people do not get
killed? We can't go around arresting people before they are proven
guilty. It's not "American", it's like the most un-american thing. I
don't have problems with all "unamerican" things, either- I download
music, for example, and I have no problem with people smoking pot, even
though they are supposedly "aiding terrorists" and all, but I happen to
like the "innocent until proven guilty" idea.

I mean, in the most simplistic form, if we don't kill a bunch of people
to prevent the killing of a bunch of people, a bunch of people won't
die. People are not their governments. I wonder why Saddam dropping
chemical gas onto Israel and killing Israelis is worse than us
destroying the water system and killing Iraqis, or out bombs blowing up
civilians; which happens pretty much all the time, as well. The worse
case scenario if we don't kill people is that other people will be
killed. So who gets killed? Is that what this war is about? People get
killed. If they happen to be born in the area that is now considered
within Israeli Borders, or if they happen to have been born within a
section of land now considered Iraq or Iran, or if they happen to be
born in Sioux Falls, Minnesota or Ottawa Canada or Paris, why is death
any different? If you were born in Palestinian Territory or , like,
North Korea for example; do north koreans deserve to die because their-
your- government was Communist? Because if they did, then everyone in
the World Trade Center did too, everyone who is a person becomes just a
national symbol and nothing more- no emotional complexity, no lives, no
treasured anything, just walking flags, born into one geographical
region and stamped with that flag, so that whenever the 6% of the
population with that flag on their foreheads makes a decision for the
rest of you, you are a "rational target" to be killed if you are in the
way. Or at a wedding, or at the afghan red cross, or going to work in a
skyscraper, or going to skate in the Olympics.

To me, this notion is absurd, and so is the idea of pre-emptive strikes.
I don't want anyone to die. Let's just first and foremost not get people
killed anymore, hows that for a priority? Because we are sacrificing the
people of Iraq to a vague suspicions in the mind of the boy whose daddy
was almost killed by this despot, a boy who holds grudges and never went
to war, who sees the ordering of thousands of kids to go shoot rifles at
each other as an extension of his fist.

That's why I don't agree to the war. That's why I won't participate, and
that is why I will support any voice in public that speaks out against
it, and if enough of us do it, then we can just get Bush out of elected
office and back in the baseball stadiums for 2004. Because I think
running the Texas Rangers is a perfect place for Bush to be. I have no
problem, at all, with him leading the Texas Rangers.

Best,
-e.




Wally Keeler wrote:

>A simple image that aptly describes useful idiots.
>I don't join in on Save-The-Dictator movements.
>
>From: "Michael Szpakowski" <[email protected]>
>
>>Well!- that's a decisive argument- you must be
>>schooled in all the arts of rhetoric, Wally.
>>
>>— Wally Keeler <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>From: "furtherfield" <[email protected]>
>>>
>>>>all the groups & more who are at the STOP THE WAR
>>>>march today in London.
>>>>
>>>a herd of sheep
>>>
>
>
>+ AFK, tornado
>-> post: [email protected]
>-> questions: [email protected]
>-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>+
>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

, Wally Keeler

From: Eryk Salvaggio
| Hi Wally. A couple of questions and comments for you.
|
| Firstly, we have numerous experts saying that a war
| with Iraq would be over in several days to two weeks.
| Assuming this is true- or even hypothesized- does this
| justify Iraq as a a threat to world security?

No. And I don't believe it will be over so soon.

| The Gulf War was over almost as soon as it started-
| and some American Soldiers came home with
| unrecognizeable syndromes that the Government
| won't accept at face value, or do anything about.

I don't acept it at face value either. I'm not convinced yet that
"unrecognizable syndromes" can be laid at anyone's door.

| Since then, the Iraqi military is only a fraction of
| that size then- with rumors that even larger mass
| defections are likely if there is a war.

Rumours, eh? Rumours. Foreign policy should be directed on the basis of
rumours?

| Does this sound like a nation that can threaten
| world security? If not, then what justification do we have?

I do not believe Saddam's regime can threaten "world security". It doesn't
have to threaten "world security" before a trip wire initiates war. It is
sufficient if it threatens regional security, or local security, or the
security of a single nation.

| Second- there are no ties linking Al Qaieda to Iraq.

I don't believe that assertion. There are "rumours" that there are
connections, but excuse me if those are not the rumours you are in favour of
because they do not support your particular bias. For my part, I see no
reason why Saddam's gang or Osama's gang would avoid each other. They may
have differences, but they also share a common bitterness towards the West,
particularly the USA.

| The "War On Terrorism" is one thing- to disperse of a vague,
| unidentifiable and ever changing enemy.

Yes, that is one thing.

| But look at the Axis of Evil: Iraq, Iran, and North Korea.
| Please remember that Al Qaieda are militant muslims.
| After 9/11 I remember hearing a slew of reports about
| the unlikely concept of Saddam and Bin Laden operating
| in cahoots with one another, and about Bin Ladens disliking
| of Hussein. Not to mention that Bin Laden fled Saudi Arabia
| - if he wanted to work with Hussein, it's a lot closer to
| Iraq than to Afghanistan.

Of course there is the USA in bed with one of the 20th century"s most
murderous dictators, Stalin, during World War II. The enemy of my enemy is
my friend. Who is the enemy? The USA of course.

| Don't you find it suspicious that we had no evidence,
| and the government even admitted that there was no
| evidence, until they needed to drum up support in the
| UN and Congress, and then, suddenly, there are "ties"
| that cannot be disclosed because of national security
| matters- and even Donald Rumsfield said there was
| not any direct fingers pointing to Iraq, but lots of general
| waving in its direction. When you want to find circumstantial
| evidence, you will be able to. It's a basic rule of human
| psychology- and the people who run the American
| War Machine are human beings.

Well you seem to rely on "rumours." Tell me how much more reliable those are
than the sources of the government. Well, of course, the US Admin is gonna
reveal its evidence in the media, provide specifics to the public for
Saddam's gang to read and snuff out the sources or leaks, and we know that
Saddam's gang is not very specific when it comes to murder – more often
than not Saddam could care less about his own collateral damage and the
leftwing of the The West could care less about Saddam's collateral damage..

| Third- "What if Iraq got hold of Nuclear Weapons
| and gave them to Al Qaieda?" Why would he?

Saddam is not a peace activist. He desires to continue living. People
willing to die for the sake of mass murder of USAmericans are inside Osama's
gang. In any event – I don't believe there is any imminent threat in this
nuclear regard.

| His country would be annihilated if there was
| ever any direct evidence pointing to him. I mean
| look at what is happening now without any
| evidence whatsoever.

Very doubtful that "his country would be annihilated". His regime would
certainly be vigoroursly and violently pursued.

| Psychologically, the man is a narcissist, who
| throws nation-wide birthday parties for himself
| and renames the television network "Birthday
| Television". Seriously. Does any megalomaniacal,
| self-loving despot want to be annihilated? I don't think so.

I don't think so either. I am sure he considers himself quite secure.
However I think he is much much more than a narcissist.

| Fourth. If this war occurs [which it will]
| then what is the next step?

Good question. Lots of speculation on that score. Some say it will spread
instablity in the Middle East. Well, hell, how stable is it anyway? Who is
worried about instablity? The dictators in the region are concerned about
it – and rightly so.

| We as Americans have opened a can of shit by not
| voting George Bush into office. The man who holds
| grudges.

As I understand it, Saddam is also one to hold grudges, deadly grudges, if
we believe the reports that he has organized an assassination hit on Bush
Sr.

| More than likely there will suddenly be evidence
| linking Iran to Al Qaieda. After that there will be
| evidence linking North Korea to Al Qaieda.

So you believe in the domino thoery.

| And probably Germany now that the Chancellor is
| on Bushes shit list. It is not a conspiracy theory-

It's not a theory, it's fantasy. I really question your credibility when you
inject this ludicrousmess into your arguements.

| it's just that we gave an idiot power, and he is
| insulated against outside opinion, and he will do as
| he pleases- we already abandoned several
| agreements and treaties because Bush didn't like
| them, have told the world they are with us or against
| us, and now we are, as far as I am concerned,
| in a state of political anarchy.

Oh what a crock of shit that is. I've heard that sort of stuff for decades
from your ilk. Political anarchy? Examine the 1960's if you want to see
politics in turbulence.

| We have a leader who was not elected,

There was an election. Gore Bush Gore Bush Gore Bush. Tweedle dee Tweedle
dum. He was elected.

| deciding to destroy the last 8 years of American
| Policy and return to the policies that his father
| put into effect,

Bullshit. His father didn't finish the job.

| and on top of that, we are going to bomb the
| people we don't like- especially the guy who
| tried to kill our leader's Dad.

It also happens to be the leader of a great democracy, and the killer is a
dictator.

| In the first Gulf War, did you know we bombed
| out Iraq's water distribution system? It's right there
| in the cia docs if you want to take a look. We
| knocked out water treatment facilities in a region
| that is- you know, a desert- leaving people with
| brackish water, which we knew would lead to
| Malaria

Malaria? In the desert?

| and other diseases- not to mention thirst.

There's Pepsi.

| There's thousands of children who have died from this;
| and you can say "well, Iraq is a rich, oil producing
| country, they could restore it" but part of our
| sanctions against Iraq [and part of the reason we are
| going to war, don't forget, is also that Iraq has been
| attempting to violate these sanctions] are against- guess
| what? Water treatment equipment, and Chlorine- a
| necessary part of desalinization. Apparently, it can also
| be used to build chemical weapons. One has to wonder
| if we have sanctions against Iraq buying aluminum or nails?

So what is the problem? Saddam's regime has managed quite well to circumvent
the sanctions. Why isn't he taking care of his people?

| So you say "What for Saddam to Kill them first" but
| we're already killing the families of Iraqi soldiers who
| were gracious enough to surrender in Gulf War One,

Graciousness had nothing to do with it.

| and swallowing horse and carriage every "evil man"
| that the Bush family says needs to be stopped seems
| short of a good reason to send people to war.

If that were the case, I agree with you.

| Also- it just confounds me when people who are not
| in the army say what a great idea it is to "simply" go to war,

I did time in the Canadian army back in the 1960's. A Mickey Mouse affair to
be sure – Canada would be hard-pressed to repel a flock of butterflies
nowadays. Be that as it may, I have had some experience. I might add also,
that my father went to Europe during World War II to fight against the
nazis. When he came back, he suffered from war dreams and it contributed, I
believe, to his suicide when I was 13. So let me tell you something, I don't
regard war as a "great idea" nor is it simple.

| to "simply" have hundreds of thousands of american
| lives put on the line. If it was your life, do you think
| you would feel as resolute that this war was necessary?

At this very moment, I am in neither camp, peace camp or war camp. I take it
seriously and I scrutinize the words of the state as much as I scrutinize
the words of peace activists.

| I don't know your history with the armed forces
| or outside of the armed forces, and don't take this
| as overly-confrontational, but it doesn't seem to me
| that you are enrolled in any branches of the military.

Throughout the 1980's I often went in and out of the east European countries
on various smuggling operations. I did this freelance, deliberately avoiding
any contact with the state. (In fact, during the 1970's I was the focus of a
lot of news in Canada involving my busting of the RCMP Security Service for
intercepting my mail art, so on and so forth, involving the Peoples Republic
of Poetry) I smuggled literature, music, art, currency, gold, printing press
parts, and other like stuff in and out of the communist bloc and between
bloc countries. I don't do any of this stuff any more because I am no longer
physically competent to perform such stuff.

| I don't think many people in the military would
| choose to go to war if they had a choice,

People in the military are volunteers. They made their choice. A free choice
at that.

| and they speak when it's necessary to- people
| signed up for the military after 9/11, wanting to
| go to Afghanistan. This war is not to simple and
| clear cut and not so necessary.

Agreed in general.

| Fifth. Clinton did not seem to find Hussein a
| threat to the world for over 8 years, as far as
| I can tell.

He was more into getting blow-jobs at his desk, and squandering a
multi-million dollar cruise missile to blow up an empty tent in Afghanistan.
Clinton seemed blissfully ignorant or indifferent to the signs and signals
of development happening in the Middle East.

| It's Bush, and the Bush people- the cabinet now,
| consisting of numerous people who were hands
| on for the Bush vs Hussein fight the first time
| around. So why do we hear nothing from these
| people on the idea of "coercive inspection?"

I like the idea.

| Why not have surprise-visiting inspectors backed
| up by tanks that would only work to barge their
| way into blocked locations?

I like that.

| "Because the weapons are being made in secret?"
| We have satellite imagery of every square inch of
| Iraq, and anything resembling a "plant" could be inspected.

Things can be hidden from satellite view.

| Six. I think it was Cheney who suggested "the nuclear
| option" against Saddam Hussein in Gulf War One.
| Are you willing to let this guy do "whatever is necessary"
| in Iraq? Do you want a nuclear bomb dropped on Iraqi
| civilians to protect against a nuclear bomb being
| dropped on Israeli civilians?

No I don't. It hasn't been proposed.

| Because in both cases, people are going to die.

Yes, people will die in the instances of coercive inspections. There will be
resistance by forces under Saddam's control. I have no problem having them
wasted.

| And the second option might not happen. But a war
| with Iraq will- and that means people are going to
| die, with absolute certainty.

Of course. It is to be expected.

| So we're going to kill people who might kill people,
| to assure that people do not get killed?

Perhaps it is better to wait until those people actually do kill people
before we kill them. Actually, they already have a proven record of killing
people. They killed hundreds of thousands of people when they attacked Iran.
(lots of collateral damage in that one). Oh, and then there is the killing
of people (civilians) with chemical weapons, and those civilians were of a
different expendable race than Saddams's people. And then there was the
terror killings of the Shiite's in southern Iraq who dared to rise up
against the racist Saddam, and so came the no-fly zone, which also protected
the Kurds in the north from Saddam's killings. Of course, none of that
killing seems very important to you.

| We can't go around arresting people before
| they are proven guilty. It's not "American",
| it's like the most un-american thing. I don't
| have problems with all "unamerican" things,
| either- I download music, for example, and
| I have no problem with people smoking pot,
| even though they are supposedly "aiding terrorists"
| and all, but I happen to like the "innocent until
| proven guilty" idea.

Hitler had never been proven guilty either, but the USA joined in the war
against him. Tsk Tsk.

| I mean, in the most simplistic form, if we don't
| kill a bunch of people to prevent the killing of a
| bunch of people, a bunch of people won't die.
| People are not their governments.

Focussed violence – target the uniforms, target the gang.

| I wonder why Saddam dropping chemical gas
| onto Israel and killing Israelis is worse than us
| destroying the water system and killing Iraqis,

Israel is a democracy.

| or out bombs blowing up civilians; which happens
| pretty much all the time, as well.

But not as badly as when other countries do it. No one seems to be getting
their nose out of joint at what Russia is doing in Chechnya. Where are the
leftie demonstrations about that? The violence going on there far exceeds
what the USA is currently doing. The violence there is almost all collatoral
damage. No one seems to be upset about this. No one marches to demonstrate
outside the Russian embassy. Why is that? Really? Can you explain it?

| The worse case scenario if we don't kill people
| is that other people will be killed. So who gets
| killed? Is that what this war is about? People get killed.
| If they happen to be born in the area that is now
| considered within Israeli Borders, or if they happen
| to have been born within a section of land now
| considered Iraq or Iran, or if they happen to be
| born in Sioux Falls, Minnesota or Ottawa Canada
| or Paris, why is death any different? If you were born
| in Palestinian Territory or , like, North Korea for
| example; do north koreans deserve to die because
| their- your- government was Communist? Because
| if they did, then everyone in the World Trade Center
| did too, everyone who is a person becomes just a
| national symbol and nothing more- no emotional
| complexity, no lives, no treasured anything, just walking
| flags, born into one geographical region and stamped
| with that flag, so that whenever the 6% of the population
| with that flag on their foreheads makes a decision for the
| rest of you, you are a "rational target" to be killed if you
| are in the way. Or at a wedding, or at the afghan red
| cross, or going to work in a skyscraper, or going to
| skate in the Olympics.

How wonderfully simplictic it all is.

| To me, this notion is absurd, and so is the idea of
| pre-emptive strikes.

Murder must not be prevented. There should be no pre-emptive action taken by
the authorities until the man actually murders his wife. Then there will be
reason for action.

| I don't want anyone to die.

Yes, you do. Your acts of omission permit ten of thousands of people to die.
You are letting them die in Chechnya while you and your artistic ilk sit on
your ass and avoid protesting outside the Russian embassy. No one is
innocent today, not me, not you. So if consider yourself so pious, I suggest
you put your mouth where you feet are and start walking to the Russian
embassy with a placard.

| Let's just first and foremost not get people killed
| anymore, hows that for a priority?

My highest priority is democracy. Democracy in this world must not only
survive, it must prevail. Generations of people over the centuries shed
their blood and shed the blood of others, so that democracy would develop
and find its place as a method of governing on this planet. While it is not
perfect, it is far better than dictatorshit, absolute monarchy, sultanates,
etc. I will not betray those generations by surrendering a single inch to a
dictatorshit.

| Because we are sacrificing the people of Iraq to a
| vague suspicions in the mind of the boy whose
| daddy was almost killed by this despot, a boy who
| holds grudges and never went to war, who sees the
| ordering of thousands of kids to go shoot rifles at
| each other as an extension of his fist.

Jingoism

| That's why I don't agree to the war. That's why I
| won't participate, and that is why I will support
| any voice in public that speaks out against it, and
| if enough of us do it, then we can just get Bush out
| of elected office and back in the baseball stadiums
| for 2004. Because I think running the Texas Rangers
| is a perfect place for Bush to be. I have no problem,
| at all, with him leading the Texas Rangers.

That's the democratic way. So how can we get Saddam to lead the Muslim
Trockaderos


Wally Keeler wrote:
A simple image that aptly describes useful idiots.I don't join in on
Save-The-Dictator movements.From: "Michael Szpakowski" <[email protected]>
Well!- that's a decisive argument- you must beschooled in all the arts of
rhetoric, Wally.— Wally Keeler <[email protected]> wrote:
From: "furtherfield" <[email protected]>
all the groups & more who are at the STOP THE WARmarch today in London.
a herd of sheep
+ AFK, tornado-> post: [email protected]> questions: [email protected]>
subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz-> give:
http://rhizome.org/support+Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms
set out in theMembership Agreement available online at
http://rhizome.org/info/29.php

, D42 Kandinskij

On Sun, 29 Sep 2002, furtherfield wrote:

> You are missing the point, there are issues a little more subtle than that
> going on.

Yeah. Extremely subtle. The highest order of consciousness is involved.

> Do you get info on the net over there or are you blocked by AOL?

All North America is owned by AOL and it's brainwashing the population.
Really.

, D42 Kandinskij

On Sun, 29 Sep 2002, furtherfield wrote:

> Another right winger Sheesh!

Right winger? Where was the FIRST right winger?
Or do you ascribe political involvement to apolitical people?
That's mighty nice of you, marc. So unfascist.
So l-i-b-er-al. You're either with us or against us.

Cut out the idiotic knee-jerk attempts to shove people
about.

Idiotic ape.

, marc garrett

I'M NO LONGER TALKING TO NN CLONES - SORRY…


> On Sun, 29 Sep 2002, furtherfield wrote:
>
> > Another right winger Sheesh!
>
> Right winger? Where was the FIRST right winger?
> Or do you ascribe political involvement to apolitical people?
> That's mighty nice of you, marc. So unfascist.
> So l-i-b-er-al. You're either with us or against us.
>
> Cut out the idiotic knee-jerk attempts to shove people
> about.
>
> Idiotic ape.
>
>
>

, D42 Kandinskij

On Sun, 29 Sep 2002, Wally Keeler wrote:

> | The "War On Terrorism" is one thing- to disperse of a vague,
> | unidentifiable and ever changing enemy.
>
> Yes, that is one thing.

Like that ever-chasing chimera of 'evil'.

> | But look at the Axis of Evil: Iraq, Iran, and North Korea.

Personally possessed by Satan they are. Justified murder.
The hungry wants its steak.

> Saddam is not a peace activist. He desires to continue living. People
> willing to die for the sake of mass murder of USAmericans are inside Osama's
> gang.

Not so. People willing to die for the murder of 'non-muslims'
are quite more than those in some gangs. Secondly, a fairly large
number of easterners are raised to do the 'kamikaze' against the west.

This happens in art galleries as well.

> | Psychologically, the man is a narcissist,

Like you have personal unmediated, direct experience
with the 'man' and you'd be able to tale fog from your hand
even if you did.

> | who
> | throws nation-wide birthday parties for himself

So do rock-stars at rock concerts. Wait till the tour starts.

> | and renames the television network "Birthday
> | Television".

It want my MTV. The psychic murders humans commit daily
are far more numerous than any wars. But it's just nice to
get all righteously-worked up over 'evil axis'-es.
Keeps ya busy from confronting your 'self'.

> Seriously. Does any megalomaniacal,
> | self-loving despot want to be annihilated? I don't think so.

Yes, they do. It's called being a martyr.
It makes ya a saint.

> | We have a leader who was not elected,
>
> There was an election. Gore Bush Gore Bush Gore Bush. Tweedle dee Tweedle
> dum. He was elected.

Elections are a bunch of schlock. A parade of imbecillic behavior
from muppets who have no capacity to make choices anyhow.

> It also happens to be the leader of a great democracy,

Great democracy?! Laughable.

> and the killer is a dictator.

Love that justified righteous murder, mm-mm-mm.
It's what Saddam is peddling aussi.

> | I don't think many people in the military would
> | choose to go to war if they had a choice,
>
> People in the military are volunteers. They made their choice. A free choice
> at that.

Hardly free choice at all. But that's 'democracy' for you–
you're 'born free'. Sure. And I'm the Duke of Wellington.


> Yes, people will die in the instances of coercive inspections. There will be
> resistance by forces under Saddam's control. I have no problem having them
> wasted.

Ah yes.. Mm-mm. Justified murder.

> Hitler had never been proven guilty either, but the USA joined in the war
> against him. Tsk Tsk.

Yeah, Hitler was a smashing guy. What a nice logical non-emotional
non-propagandist knee-jerk.

> Focussed violence – target the uniforms, target the gang.

Meaningless slogan.

> | I wonder why Saddam dropping chemical gas
> | onto Israel and killing Israelis is worse than us
> | destroying the water system and killing Iraqis,
>
> Israel is a democracy.

No, it isn't. Isreal labels itself as such.
Nor is 'democracy' 'superior' to other political systems.
Your 'democracy' is beginning to look like victorian collonialism.

> But not as badly as when other countries do it. No one seems to be getting
> their nose out of joint at what Russia is doing in Chechnya. Where are the
> leftie demonstrations about that? The violence going on there far exceeds
> what the USA is currently doing. The violence there is almost all collatoral
> damage. No one seems to be upset about this. No one marches to demonstrate
> outside the Russian embassy. Why is that? Really? Can you explain it?

And where are they when Russian artist leech on the West while
purposefully selling art-crap because the 'West owes them money'–
meanwhile spreading the West sucks, Russia rules propaganda.
But wait, the West don't care for 'memetic terrorism'–and the East
has been doing that for centuries.

So look, now the USA will bomb, but they will be bad guys, and in the
east's eyes the 9/11 kamikazes will be heroes.

> | The worse case scenario if we don't kill people
> | is that other people will be killed. So who gets
> | killed? Is that what this war is about? People get killed.

ALL wars are about people getting killed, Eryk. There is no 'righteous
war'.

> | If they happen to be born in the area that is now
> | considered within Israeli Borders, or if they happen
> | to have been born within a section of land now
> | considered Iraq or Iran, or if they happen to be
> | born in Sioux Falls, Minnesota or Ottawa Canada
> | or Paris, why is death any different?


And why is physical murder unacceptable, but spiritual destruction
a-OK by you?

> Murder must not be prevented. There should be no pre-emptive action taken by
> the authorities until the man actually murders his wife. Then there will be
> reason for action.

That's right. We should let murder happen, so that we have justified
reason to murder ourselves. Then our hands will be 'clean' and we can
all go home feeling righte-ous, baby.

Why prevent murder? Let it happen, and when the asshole's on the ground,
or locked in the spotlight as justified victim, let the hunt begin.

Howl, I love humans.

> | Let's just first and foremost not get people killed
> | anymore, hows that for a priority?
>
> My highest priority is democracy. Democracy in this world must not only
> survive, it must prevail.

Your highest priority is a fraudulent dellusory political system,
which you will ENFORCE on all countries. You're FREE, as long as you're
JUST LIKE ME.

> Generations of people over the centuries shed
> their blood and shed the blood of others, so that democracy would develop
> and find its place as a method of governing on this planet.

What a bunch of scjlockery and ignorant twittism. Democracy existed
as a form of government in greek polisies without any 'generations
of bloodshed' and babaa sob routines.

> While it is not perfect, it is far better than dictatorshit,

Yes.

> absolute monarchy,

No.

> sultanates,
> etc.

No.

And your facile equating of the tree is a bunch of idiotic, pathetic
schlock.

> I will not betray those generations by surrendering a single inch to a
> dictatorshit.

Her von Messiah here. Einz-zwei. maybe you should start by stamping out
yer own inner dictatorshit. OOo.. but that wouldnt be comfy.

, D42 Kandinskij

On Sun, 29 Sep 2002, furtherfield wrote:

> I'M NO LONGER TALKING TO NN CLONES - SORRY…

Sorry. I am not a *NN* clone.
If the difference–which is vast-escapes you,
we are not surprised. Your delusional brain-cutouts
are inapplicable.

But does NN give you nightmares?


> > On Sun, 29 Sep 2002, furtherfield wrote:
> >
> > > Another right winger Sheesh!
> >
> > Right winger? Where was the FIRST right winger?
> > Or do you ascribe political involvement to apolitical people?
> > That's mighty nice of you, marc. So unfascist.
> > So l-i-b-er-al. You're either with us or against us.
> >
> > Cut out the idiotic knee-jerk attempts to shove people
> > about.
> >
> > Idiotic ape.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

o
[ + ]

+ + +


| '|' |
_________________________________________
`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42

, Jon Bedworth

In a message dated 29/09/2002 08:42:33 GMT Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:

>> and other diseases- not to mention thirst
>
> There's Pepsi

In a message dated 29/09/2002 08:42:33 GMT Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:

> I really question your credibility when you
> inject this ludicrousmess into your arguements.

If you wish to judge others so harshly for being flippant, please be
consistent.