Various and sundry

[barbara100 at jps.net]

Obviously you're mad at Doug, but what  IS wrong with being a pacifist? Or a
peacenik?  Or someone who wants to use restraint in this situation? You guys
love to spew out the words, but what's your problem with it?  Seriously.
What's wrong with not being pissed off at the world and not wanting to pass
on our lies and suffering? Somebody try to argue that!  (Would they dare try
to use Pynchon for it? God, tell me No! It's worse than the desecration of
the Holy land!)
Some of us are making plenty of arguments for why we should 'give peace a
chance.'  Citing Thomas Pynchon, posting NP articles (reputable and
non-reputable alike), offering up a some  free-hand analysis too.
You pick Doug to hell down there, but what do you say to make your own
point? The point being we should NOT be  pacifists. Or peaceniks. Or just
folks who wanna use a little restraint.
I don't mean to just pick on you, jbor.  I'd like to hear why from any of
you. I don't think we hear enough from that side of the issue, honestly.  I
hear a lot of 'he's this and she's that' but not very much 'I'm this and I'm
that.'
My name is Barbara and I think the only smart bomb is one that stays up in
the sky and never comes down. (Heard that in a song on the radio today.)
Heh, heh, heh.......




----- Original Message -----
From: jbor <jbor at bigpond.com>
To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2001 4:18 PM
Subject: Re: Various and sundry


> millison at online-journalist.com wrote:
>
> >> The fact that his credibility has
> >> risen, not just in the U.S. but world-wide,
> >
> > Yes, he's especially well-loved among Muslims, I hear. A chip off the
old
> > block.
>
> Your simplistic Islam vs the West construction echoes bin Laden's
rhetoric.
> There are many Muslims across the globe who do not hold with terrorism,
and
> who do not pledge any allegiance to the Taliban. As usual, you present
only
> one side of the story to score your hit.
>
> This address was more clear-sighted and "pacifist" in spirit than anything
> you've posted in the past month:
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/17/gen.hate.crimes/
>
> "Bush denounces Muslim harassment"
>
>
> Your inane bowdlerisation of Wittgenstein's dictum is to be expected.
>
>
> Ironically perhaps, it seems as if the Muslim vote helped tip the scales
in
> Bush's favour last year, when he was elected as U.S. President (remember
> that?):
>
> http://www.islamiqdaily.com/world/art_wld3_16102000.php4
>
> "Muslim groups laud Bush's stand on secret evidence"
>
> http://www.soundvision.com/politics/endorsement.shtml
>
> "Muslim organizations endorse George W. Bush for President"
>
> http://www.arabia.com/life/article/english/0,1690,33635,00.html
>
> "Exit polls show Muslims voted in bloc for Bush"
>
> best
>
>
>