Debate : 13558


Off-Topic / Debate / 13558

PA censoring journalists again, but repudiating bin Laden... —Larry Pieniazek

From (URL) start - The Palestinian Authority (news - web sites) also tried to quell expressions of support for the Saudi exile accused of leading the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in the United States. In Gaza City, police fired tear gas, wielded clubs (...) (23 years ago, 8-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

independent collaboration (Re: PA censoring journalists again, but repudiating bin Laden...) —Scott Arthur

Jarring title. When you said PA, I thought you meant the Press Asscoation: (URL) will be interesting what sort of news comes out of Afghanistan in the coming days. With so little independent collaboration on the ground (less than there was in Iraq) (...) (23 years ago, 8-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

News from the war —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I would agree with that. However I expect the truth value of what the coalition says to be a bit higher (they will omit rather than lie, I would expect... not always, but much more than the Taleban) (23 years ago, 8-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: PA censoring journalists again, but repudiating bin Laden... —Daniel Jassim

(...) <snipped> It's all one big, ugly mess. However, it comes as no surprise to me that some Palestinians, after years of American supported Israeli occupation and brutality, would praise Bin Laden. It would be different if America WAS actually (...) (23 years ago, 8-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: PA censoring journalists again, but repudiating bin Laden... —Scott Arthur

(...) Come now Dan. If OBL did do this. And some Palestinians do support him. I think saying some Palestinians *resent* America is putting it lightly. (...) Israel is bad Dan. Israel is very bad. They are not quite as bad as the Taliban. Although it (...) (23 years ago, 8-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: PA censoring journalists again, but repudiating bin Laden... —Daniel Jassim

(...) Really? I'd say a bunch of foreigners invading, terrorizing and running out the native population in the name of religion is pretty bad. Bulldozing those people's homes--pretty bad. Mortar attacks, helicopter gunship attacks, cluster bombs, (...) (23 years ago, 8-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: PA censoring journalists again, but repudiating bin Laden... —Scott Arthur

(...) I can't agree with your last statement. I know were I would rather live (as a native). (...) I agree with you on this last comment. I just can't understand it. People seem to forget that his clumsy actions actually started violent cycle which (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: PA censoring journalists again, but repudiating bin Laden... —Horst Lehner

Hello Scott, (...) Because there are many Jews in the US, and because they have over-average positions with influence? Can it be as simple as that? Greetings Horst (23 years ago, 8-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: PA censoring journalists again, but repudiating bin Laden... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I think this may be a bit of a stretch, Dan, and saying it isn't going to convince many people of the justness of your cause. By the way, I think I may have missed your answer to my question about the original UN resolution creating Israel. (I (...) (23 years ago, 8-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

More on Palestine —Larry Pieniazek

Because this is an Israel Palestine thread now, I thought I'd toss this in: (URL) this (URL) (23 years ago, 8-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Daniel Jassim

For a moment, I couldn't tell whether I was reading something from the National Review or the World Zionist Org's website. What a bunch of hogwash. At least it was worth a good laugh. Dan (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Larry Pieniazek

(...) You are going to have to do a little better than that at debunking... Is this quote "hogwash"? "Of course, "the right of Israel to exist" has never been accepted by its enemies, especially Yasser Arafat. " (I note you haven't answered whether (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Dave Low

(...) Larry, I might have missed it but given that Israel has a right to exist, what boundaries do you think it should have? The original partition boundaries, the current boundaries, the current boundaries with some concession to Palestinian (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Larry Pieniazek

(...) You didn't miss it, I don't think this particular question has ever arisen here. I freely admit I don't know the answer. (...) Some military theorists say the originial partition boundaries were indefensible and therefore unworkable. Israel's (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Daniel Jassim

(...) Okay... (...) Tell me, is this hogwash, straight from the Yitzhak Rabin Center for Israel Studies?: (URL)(I note you haven't answered whether you think it has a right to exist (...) Didn't I addressed that off-line with you? If not, obviously (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Larry Pieniazek

(...) thinking about how events would unfold. Had these events unfolded as promised, the PA would recognise the right of Israel to exist, correct? Yet you still apparently do not, correct? I went to what I think is the official PA site www.pna.net (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Dan Boger

not sure if this might be helpful, and I'm aware it's not an "independant" site, but I thought it made for some interesting reading: (URL) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Israel and Palestine —Daniel Jassim

Here are some 'yes or no' questions and I've already supplied my answers for you, Larry. Hopefully, these are all the answers you need: 1. Do I think the current Zionist state of Israel has a right to exist? No. 2. Do I think the state of Israel (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Israel and Palestine —Scott Arthur

(...) Is this offensive & defensive action? Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Israel and Palestine —Daniel Jassim

(...) What do you mean? Its clear the Israelis are on the offensive by the fact that they are occupying Palestinian land. So every Israeli soldier is logically considered part of the occupying force and a threat to Palestinian freedom. Therefore, (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Israel and Palestine —Dave Schuler

(...) Just for my own edification, if a Jewish family could produce a legitimate deed from, say, eight or ten centuries ago documenting their ownership of a piece of property in modern Palestinian land, would you accept that deed as proof of their (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Israel and Palestine —Daniel Jassim

(...) Absolutely, and there are Arab Jews with such deeds that Israel also will not recognize. It's not a question of religion, it's basically racism. Arab Jews are second class Jews in Israel because the Zionists regard Palestinians as transients. (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Israel and Palestine —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Would it be possible for ownership to be *purchased* from legitimate previous owners rather than having had to have been in the family all that time? Or are you saying that purchasing land can't be done, only inheritance is acceptable as a (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Israel and Palestine —Frank Filz

(...) Do you think this would really be practical? Do we unwind all the way back to the first settlers? How do we deal with the wealth which has been generated from those lands? I'm curious as to how and where we draw the line. Perhaps it is prudent (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Israel and Palestine —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I am not sure but we'll never know unless we start trying to figure out how to do it in detail. We would need to organise some set of stakeholders to sit down and do it (perhaps the folks from a particular small region) with the clear and (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Israel and Palestine —Daniel Jassim

(...) Sure. I have no doubt that property deeds in Palestine changed hands just the same as property in Anytown, U.S.A. People there moved and sold their homes and farms just like anyone else. (...) No, I'm not saying that and neither are the (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Israel and Palestine —Frank Filz

(...) One of the issues I have raised is at what point do we accept the acts of conquest. No one can document that they own their land free and clear of ANY conquest. Conquests of territory started before the invention of writing. So at some point, (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Israel and Palestine —Larry Pieniazek

(...) And in that case and every one like it, I fully support return, with compensatory damages, if the claim is valid (sounds like it is.) (...) This sentence doesn't help present your case. (...) Agreed. I had thought they bought it from the (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Israel and Palestine —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Thanks for the cogent restatement! (...) ... but forgive me if the answers raise more questions (...) I can see your reasoning even if I don't agree... but how would the chain of events unfold to get from 1 to 2 below? Does the current state (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Israel and Palestine —Daniel Jassim

(...) Israel must renounce Zionism, which is a racist, fanatical, exclusionist and intolerant political belief that regards the Holy Land as exclusively the home of the Jews and Judaism, and deems that Christianity and Islam have no place there. (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Israel and Palestine —Frank Filz

(...) Are you prepared to support complete and full reparation of all property taken from these European Jews? Personally, I'd actually like to see that. I also wonder if their concerns had been taken seriously earlier whether we would be in the (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Israel and Palestine —Daniel Jassim

(...) Why not? There have already been numerous lawsuits regarding post-WWII settlements regarding property and assets of Jewish families that survived the Holocaust. I support any efforts to bring misdoings to light and seek justice for all victims (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Israel and Palestine —Horst Lehner

(...) It seems the majority of Israeli voted an administration in place that is more part of the problem than part of the solution. So, how can you back this statement? :wq Horst (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Scott Arthur

(...) Are you now saying Syria is a moderate Arab state? Who said this: "Some countries are better than others. Syria is one of the worst on just about any metric you care to name. Any metric." Do you views change with the wind? Scott A (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Quoting: "moderate Arab states (and Syria)" Note the conjunction, used here to connect DISSIMILAR things. If *the speaker* had felt Syria was moderate, he would have said: "moderate Arab states including Syria" or words to that effect. So *the (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Scott Arthur

(...) I agree. (...) (URL) leader Yasser Arafat told Israeli reporters the PNC would be prepared to vote on the anti-Israel clauses, going further than the conditions laid down in the Wye River agreement. The Wye accord commits Israel to withdrawals (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Horst Lehner

(...) Arafat may have taken some time to accept, but by now he accepted. Doesn't help much, though, given ... ... the number of Palestines organized in more radical organizations than PA ... the current Israeli administration "Especially Yasser (...) (23 years ago, 11-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Here's some more for you to laugh at (and others to think about). (URL) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —James Simpson

(...) lack of clear, tangible objectives that have been communicated. There's been too much rhetoric issued from the White House. A War to eradicate Terror is just another War on Drugs - an impossible, wasted effort. Our primary goal should be to (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I agree. This piece by Gingrich touches on this (and other points you make). (URL) is quite thoughtful. I had no idea he could think this clearly. Why I am reading the NR so much lately I cannot say, exactly, but I wonder. I found Principle 8 (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Frank Filz

(...) Wow, I don't think I would have ever expected to see something like this come out of Newt. With a slightly quick reading, I don't see anything in that which I disagree with. I think we are seeing the power of the US really coming out. We have (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Ross Crawford

(...) after we committed against them 2 of the worst single acts of terrorism the world has known. ROSCO (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Larry Pieniazek

(...) WE? That, I suspect, was the US's doing, and the US's alone, I don't think FDR consulted ANZAC. So you're off the hook. But please explain how it was terrorism, exactly, to win a war against an evil empire with less loss of life than a (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Ross Crawford

(...) The allies were all fighting together. I dare say ANZAC didn't consult FDR on all movements involving US troops either. (...) The same old "it was war" excuse. Winning the war wasn't terrorism, dropping the bombs was. One was just a (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Really ROSCO, I should know better. You're just trying to spin me up as a diversionary tactic because, well, I don't know why you are doing it, except perhaps to divert attention from the thread topic? This exact debate has been held here (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Larry Pieniazek

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek misfires. The other reply is the one I meant, it's more fully formed. Frothier for your enjoyment, even... So don't reply to this one. Not sure why the first post took, it wasn't supposed to. (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Ross Crawford

(...) So I ask again, why not use the same weapons now? Are we not currently at war with a fanatical, evil emp^H^H^H group (or groups), and need to win? Is it not appropriate to use those weapons to win this war? Why / why not? ROSCO (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I'll discuss that if you like, but not whether using nukes in WW II was terrorism. It wasn't. (I again say shame on you for even suggesting it was). I just ran across this: (URL) it has some food for thought. I skimmed it quickly so I'm just (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Ross Crawford

(...) I don't think it's shameful for people to have differing opinions, so I guess we differ on that as well 8?) (...) No, no real surprise 8?) Our opinions diverge again. So be it. And I'd add that as far as the perpetrators of Sep 11 go, they (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Larry Pieniazek

(...) This is more than a difference of opinion, so brushing it under the rug by calling it that won't work. (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Horst Lehner

Hello Larry, (...) I am anxiously awaiting your reaction to my historical analysis on this issue ... will you tell me, too, that there is no room for different interpretations? If you feel you discussed this issue enough, you could also point me to (...) (23 years ago, 11-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Can you give me a link? I can't find it at the mo. But I am not sure there is much more to say. Using the proper weapon for the job against a determined, and ultimately evil, adversary is *not* terrorism. The world would have been a much (...) (23 years ago, 13-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Daniel Jassim

(...) Perhaps the proper weapon WAS used but WHOM it targeted is the issue here. It was the wrong thing to do. Eisenhower thought the same too. (...) Actually, it IS an historical fact that the Japanese were tapped out and were in the process of (...) (23 years ago, 13-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Do you have a cite for that? (...) Surrender to the Russians would have been unacceptable. We had set goals for this war and it is important to set goals and stick to them. Our current little war is somewhat lacking in concrete measurable (...) (23 years ago, 14-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Daniel Jassim

(...) Two articles I recall off the top of my head, one in "Time" and one in "Newsweek," as well as a lengthy documentary on the History Channel. On the web, here's a historian who has done extensive research on the matter. You actually have to take (...) (23 years ago, 14-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Kirby Warden

I really should stay out of this one, but I'm weak. I don't think that many of our wars have been against a group of people, but rather violent usurpers who somehow manage to gather dedicated supporters. If we could simply walk in and take out the (...) (23 years ago, 14-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

A N T H R A X - they aren't making this stuff in caves in Afghanistan —Scott Arthur

(...) I'm not sure we do. Yesterday's Observer: "Iraq 'behind US anthrax outbreaks'" (URL) anthrax, on its own, isn't so difficult,' one senior US intelligence source said. 'But it only begins to become effective as a biological weapon if they can (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A N T H R A X - they aren't making this stuff in caves in Afghanistan —Larry Pieniazek

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes: (citing the Guardian) (...) Thanks for the cite. Does anyone know if this stuff keeps for 10 years in powder form? Bacteria are quite resilient but 10 years is an aw'fly long time. (of course that (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

How odd ? (Re: A N T H R A X - ... ) —Scott Arthur

(...) As it uses UN data, I did not think it would show anything as far as you were concerned? Is your head out of the sand now? Larry: ==+== I have no faith in statistics that are originated by the UN unless independently corroborated, and that's a (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A N T H R A X - they aren't making this stuff in caves in Afghanistan —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) The powder isn't bacteria. The powder is *spores*. And spores keep a long, long, long time--live spores nearly 8,000 years old have been pulled from ice cores in the last decade or so. (...) Apparently it's possible to get small amounts of (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A N T H R A X - they aren't making this stuff in caves in Afghanistan —Christopher Tracey

(...) At a California university researchers have uncovered living bacteria spores (encased in amber?) up to 135 millions years old. Incredible. -chris (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A N T H R A X - they aren't making this stuff in caves in Afghanistan —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) Wow. Like there aren't enough problems in the world already. Just what we need...dinosaur cooties. And I felt bad when they disinterred those Spanish Flu victims in '99... best LFB (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A N T H R A X - they aren't making this stuff in caves in Afghanistan —Ross Crawford

(...) Here's a link that indicates some people think they may be able to survive indefinitely (URL) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A N T H R A X - they aren't making this stuff in caves in Afghanistan —Scott Arthur

(...) 8000 Years! Pah, that is nothing compared to 250,000,000 years: (URL) A (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Selçuk Göre

(...) ---> while Turkey was getting ready to move into Africa (was Spain (...) I really wondered where you get this info from. Selçuk (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Me too. My impression of Turkey post WW I was more of a country struggling with internal issues and being kicked around by others, than a country that was a kicker. But this isn't my area of knowledge (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) I'm weak too; I can't pass up clarifying historical confusion. 'Tis an occupational hazard. (...) I've never heard that. The general consensus was that FDR (assuming you're American, of course) was particularly eager to get into the fight, but (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Kirby Warden

(...) <snip> (...) Hey, no problem. I'm the first to admit that I'm uneducated and really shouldn't be getting involved in these debates. This isn't the first time that I have been wrong about these things. Part of my problem is that I don't know (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Pedro Silva

(...) AKA "a group of people". :-) (...) Yeah, right. America is good, those who don't follow it are bad. A little simplified, perhaps? (...) Probably Stalin, but fewer deaths and not *that* lunatic: maybe send cannon fodder, but not *civilians*! (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.loc.pt)

Re: More on Palestine —James Simpson

(...) I have spoken to a Vietnam Vet; last night in fact; I have a special word for him; I call him Dad. And you know what? Dad *never* killed defenseless women and children in Vietnam. I take extreme umbrage with your statement. That was a horrible (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

From Vietnam to Jesse Helms (Re: More on Palestine) —Scott Arthur

(...) I agree, Dan's tarring everyone with a big sticky brush. His general comments are interesting though. I read this in the Observer yesterday about Jesse Helms's apparent Amendment to Protect Servicemen From International Criminal Court: ==+== (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Vietnam to Jesse Helms (Re: More on Palestine) —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) I think James is reading something into Dan's comment that I don't think is there. Dan stated that there's no chivalry in killing the defenceless, and to ask a Vietnam vet if you doubted that statement. I also know a number of Vietnam vets-- (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Vietnam to Jesse Helms (Re: More on Palestine) —James Simpson

(...) If I've misread Dan, then I sincerely offer him an apology for implying that he believes Vietnam Vets to have acted cowardly. Dan, if you don't mind, please clarify what you meant. james (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Vietnam to Jesse Helms (Re: More on Palestine) —Daniel Jassim

I came across this post AFTER my reply to the previous chewing-out from James: (...) Forget about it, dude. I realize I make bitter statements that reflect my personal dissatisfaction with our government's foreign policy, and I have my reasons. I (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Vietnam to Jesse Helms (Re: More on Palestine) —James Simpson

(...) Dan: No reservations whatsoever, nor will I shoot from the hip in the future. james (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Daniel Jassim

(...) What?!!! You're taking my statement completely the wrong way, pal! Show me where I insulted any Vietnam vet?! I'm PRAISING the fact that many, many Vietnem vets knew something about chivalry. They detested the fact that they were put in the (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —James Simpson

(...) Daniel: I apologize to you for taking your comments out of context. As I read your statement, it seemed to me that you were implying that most Vietnam vets had engaged in dishonorable warfare. Sincerely, james simpson (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Ross Crawford

(...) I think Horst may have been talking about this one (URL) (23 years ago, 13-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Ross Crawford

(...) My view, after reading your link and a few other things, is that I cannot see any situation where a mass-destruction device such as those used over Japan would be the most effective weapon. Well, OK, maybe if there was a (very) large area (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Larry Pieniazek

Re: More on Palestine —Scott Arthur

(...) Big words. But I am still not clear on what you mean by "free". I have asked you before, but yoy refuse to answer: ====== ====== (...) This is a joke coming from you, in the last weeks you have shown me that you don't understand (amongst (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Horst Lehner

(...) Hiroshima, as one of the largest Japanese harbours and railway junctions, probably has been one. The question in this case is more: Couldn't the US have waited to see how the Soviet strike against Japan, started shortly before, turns out? (...) (23 years ago, 11-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Tom Stangl

(...) Really? What? If you mean the atomic explosions, you've got an awfully strange idea of the definition of terrorism. -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home ***(URL) Bay Area DSMs (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Ross Crawford

(...) So what's your definition of terrorism? ROSCO (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Tom Stangl

I think the bigger question is what is YOURS? I believe most people in here can see the difference between the WTC attack and a nation trying to end a protracted war (with an enemy that had proved time and time again that it would suicide, use (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Ross Crawford

(...) You're probably right, Tom, and I can see the difference, too. I simply asked what your definition of terrorism is? ROSCO (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Larry Pieniazek

(...) What's yours? Did you like the one that Scott posted which he claimed was from the FBI? Where are you going with this repeating questions without being willing to answer them when they are posed back at you? (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Tom Stangl

(...) That's a good question. I don't know if I'd pin it down to a hard definition applied universally. It almost needs a case-by-case analysis. But I certainly don't see Hiroshima/Nagasaki as acts of terrorism, and DO see WTC as acts of terrorism. (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Ross Crawford

(...) and a (...) and time (...) out at (...) minimizing the (...) applied (...) WTC as (...) Thanks, Tom. I agree that there's no single "catch-all" definition of terrorism. There's a bit of a discussion about it here (URL) quote from there: "The (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Frank Filz

(...) Hmm, I'm not sure this is a workable definition. I think this is the general purpose of most military action (just about no military action expects to eliminate much more than a fraction of the enemy forces, what it seeks to do is eliminate (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Ross Crawford

(...) a (...) in (...) Neither am I. I don't think the Terrorism Research Centre intend it to be either. As I said, I don't think there is a single "workable" definition of terrorism. (...) However most military action is directed at military (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Justifying Barbarism? (was: More on Palestine) —Ross Crawford

(...) This made me think a bit about the question: Can barbaric acts (whether terrorism or not) be justified if a. The intended overall result[1] is positive (eg. save lives, reduce poverty), and b. The actual overall result is positive, even if (...) (23 years ago, 11-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Horst Lehner

(...) Which doesn't get you off the hook ;-) Here is my definition: "The enforcement of political goals through violence against unconcerned people is terrorism". Of course, with this definition, a violent attack targeting concerned people would (...) (23 years ago, 11-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Fredrik Glöckner

(...) Some people would say that terrorism is the act of attacking civilians with the intention of reaching some kind of a (political) goal. During these discussions, the word terrorism is actually a problem. The problem is that the word is (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Scott Arthur

(...) Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives. (FBI) I think this is good, (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Daniel Jassim

(...) What defines terrorism? Is it the act itself or the people who do it? Or is it situational? During the Revolutionary War, George Washington was a terrorist to the British and obviously I disagree with that. Dropping nuclear weapons on innocent (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: PA censoring journalists again, but repudiating bin Laden... —Scott Arthur

Is this "censoring" really any worse than this: US urges curb on Arab TV channel (URL) has asked Qatar to reign in the influential and editorially independent Arabic al-Jazeera television station, which gives airtime to anti-American opinions. (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: PA censoring journalists again, but repudiating bin Laden... —Lawrence Wilkes

"Scott A" <eh105jb@mx1.pair.com> wrote in message news:GKzrn5.JME@lugnet.com... (...) There was an interview with the al-Jazeera interviewer who interviewed Tony Blair on BBC this morning. He was himself ex-BBC and said that most of his colleagues (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: PA censoring journalists again, but repudiating bin Laden... —Scott Arthur

(...) Indeed, a good deal of the staff worked for BBC Middle East. The Saudi's closed it down (it was based there) when they found it had a habit of telling the truth. Just after that al-Jazeera started up in Qatar - it was a natural move for the (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: PA censoring journalists again, but repudiating bin Laden... —Lawrence Wilkes

"Scott A" <eh105jb@mx1.pair.com> wrote in message news:GKzrn5.JME@lugnet.com... (...) And so does the BBC. (give airtime to anti-American opinions) lawrence (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: PA censoring journalists again, but repudiating bin Laden... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Despicable. But not quite the same as broadly hinting that journalists would be murdered if they tried to report on something factual. (not opinion, mind you, but fact) So ya, it's way worse what the PA is doing. Doesn't mean the US shouldn't (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: PA censoring journalists again, but repudiating bin Laden... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Here's a bit more. (URL) draw the conclusion that Powell may be overreacting a bit, and I tend to agree. (23 years ago, 11-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: PA censoring journalists again, but repudiating bin Laden... —Scott Arthur

(...) I loved this line: ==+== National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice criticized Al Jazeera for the broadcast, on the grounds that, among other things, it could be used to send coded messages to terrorist "sleepers" in the United States and (...) (23 years ago, 11-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: PA censoring journalists again, but repudiating bin Laden... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Yes, in fact it was (...) No bet. They would have, based on the environment they operate in. (...) Actually there have been, as it turns out. All the major US networks have been requested not to show these taped missives any more and all (...) (23 years ago, 11-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: PA censoring journalists again, but repudiating bin Laden... —Scott Arthur

(...) I have no idea. I hope not. (...) I'm also surprised. Do you agree with it? Scott A (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

censoring —Scott Arthur

It looks like we may be censoring again: (URL) A (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: censoring —Dan Boger

(...) DanB (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: censoring —Scott Arthur

(...) That is why I said *may* Dan. Did you read it all? ==+== However, the move by the Pentagon simply to resort to buying exclusive rights to all the Ikonos pictures could be something of a canny move. Had it just used its legal powers of shutter (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: censoring —David Eaton

(...) The part that confused me was the "we". When did you get your green card? DaveE (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: censoring —Scott Arthur

(...) I neither have one, nor do I have any intention of getting one. When cities in the US start having castles like this in their city centre, I may consider getting one: (URL) neanderthalls say I am anti-US, I just like to make it clear that the (...) (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: censoring —Larry Pieniazek

(...) It is indeed fortunate for your reputation that you said "may" (nice pre-weasel on your part) because it is in no way censorship to buy up all of some good under the terms of a previously negotiated contract. bin Laden, or the media, are (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: censoring —David Eaton

(...) Maybe we'll even sell them to him :) Of course the price may be non-monetary! And of course, no guarantees on picture quality, either :) DaveE (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: censoring —Dave Schuler

(...) Here's a hypothetical: what if some company sells bin Laden et al bogus but real-seeming photos giving false information? What if, afterward, bin Laden would seek damages from the company for its deceptive product? Dave! (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: censoring —David Eaton

(...) The result of course would be that I wouldn't want the judge's job, nor any part in the jury :) Honestly, I think it would depend on the company's honest intent, the ability to prove that intent, the measurment of the damages resulting to bin (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: censoring —Larry Pieniazek

(...) He'd have a case if the contract he signed guaranteed accuracy. But of course I suspect whatever court he tried to sue in would soon be host to a *host* of suits against HIM. Friedman tangentially touches on this in Machinery of Freedom, if (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: censoring —Scott Arthur

(...) Larry, Read the article. Read my message. Then come back and tell me my description is inaccurate. Scott A (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: censoring —Christopher Tracey

(...) If I remember right, these images may be released at a later date after the goverments use period is over (i.e. we are not at war). However, the article says: "According to reports, the decision to shut down access to satellite images was (...) (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)