Terrorism and Propaganda

[Jasper Fidget]

Wha--wh--[spluttering]--huh?  I don't know where to begin with this.  Afghan
bombings justify anti-abortionists in sending anthrax through the mail???
(What anthrax?  Did you perhaps mean to add the word "hoax"?  Haven't heard
*anything* about this.)  Or do you mean the bombings justify the Osamabad
terrorists???   And you think that--that--that telling them all to STOP,
will somehow make them STOP!?!?  And American bombings are to be blamed for
anti-abortion psychopaths.  And there's this hurricane going on that can be
blamed on those bombs too (butterfly effect of course).  And stopping the
bombing will stop the terrorists and stop the anti-abortionists from going
all nuts and then we can all be happy and peaceful and there won't be any
war.

Why do they provide dial-up access to mental hospitals?

Jasper Fidget

----- Original Message -----
From: <barbara100 at jps.net>
To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 12:34 AM
Subject: Re: Terrorism and Propaganda


> I tortured myself and read this again. Heaven knows why.  But look what I
> found the second time:
>
> "Terrorism of this kind was something which had to be actively stopped,
not
> politely reasoned with. (I'm beginning to think the same about Doug,
too.)"
>
> Do you see it? He's talking about terrorism in past tense.  It WAS
something
> that HAD TO BE STOPPED.  As if it's been stopped.  This is the saddest
case
> of denial I've ever seen close up.  On the radio today I heard a whole
> slew of abortion clinics around the country received anthrax in the mail.
> I feel less secure every day the bombs drop over Afghanistan.  Now they'll
> be justified all over again in their terror.  And then we in ours. And
they
> in theirs. And we in ours. And they in theirs. And we in ours. How long's
it
> been going on like this? When will it ever stop? When we win or when they
> win?
> Or when enough of us on both sides say stop?
> STOP!
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: jbor <jbor at bigpond.com>
> To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 3:38 PM
> Subject: Re: NP Terrorism and Propaganda
>
>
> > quail at libyrinth.com wrote:
> >
> > > So, overlooking the fact that bombing the Taliban is not tactically a
> move to
> > > halt Anthrax -- obvious, I should think -- what are the right tactics?
> Because
> > > Lord knows, the second the government starts messing with the mail, or
> any
> > > freedoms, you will be the first to start squawking. To be honest, I
> haven't
> > > heard you offer any solutions except appeasement, inaction, or praying
> that
> > > things just go away through diplomacy.
> >
> > The propaganda and terror campaign from Osama's network is intended to
> > create fear and havoc in the West, and thus destabilise the U.S. and its
> > allies politically, economically and socially. Doug, whatever his
motives,
> > is trying to do exactly the same thing. Bush and his advisors and other
> U.S.
> > leaders, thankfully, have recognised the psychological war being wrought
> by
> > this quite evil little man (Osama, not Doug) and his disciples, the
> attempt
> > to hit at transport and media communications systems (with the Anthrax
> > letters) in particular, and have sensibly used leadership to create calm
> and
> > resilience and to urge people to continue with work and leisure
activities
> > (i.e. shopping etc) to prevent the descent into civil disobedience and
> > social chaos which the enemy (OK, both Osama and Doug) wants.
> >
> > Both, because Doug, who was and is only using the terrorist attacks as
> > another pretext for his ongoing propaganda war against Bush, is out to
do
> > much the same thing. Whatever Bush had done in the wake of the attacks
> Doug
> > would be denouncing it now, because his single, selfish agenda is to
> > discredit Bush. I'm thankful that Doug has Zero credibility. It's not
just
> > his rhetorical mode which is offensive, it's the idiocy of his arguments
> as
> > well. The sort of appeasement and civil liberties he's called for would
> have
> > allowed more trained terrorists more access to more planes with
thousands,
> > maybe hundreds of thousands more perishing. Terrorism of this kind was
> > something which had to be actively stopped, not politely reasoned with.
> (I'm
> > beginning to think the same about Doug, too.)
> >
> > In this country we are very well-informed, as I assume Americans,
> Canadians,
> > Germans, Britons etc are also. For example, we saw the video footage of
> > Osama's general announcing last week that there would be more plane
> attacks,
> > the propaganda machine at work. We've seen the footage of bomb
destruction
> > in Afghanistan, the site of the food drops (no children being blown to
> > bits), the busload of foreign journalists allowed by the Taliban to
> inspect
> > the site of the *one* smart bomb that went astray from its target. It's
> the
> > fact that we in Western democracies have freedom in the press and
freedom
> of
> > speech that we have access to these facts. Many people in other places
> > haven't had this luxury, and still don't, which is an aspect of the
> > repressiveness of their political regimes. It's called propaganda, and
it
> > equates exactly to the kind of misinformation and hysteria-mongering
which
> > Doug peddles, and is just as heinous.
> >
> > What next? Perhaps some idiot'll send in a fake "news" photo to "prove"
> his
> > lies true. Message to kwp: if you're going to become a competent
> > propagandist it'd be an idea to save the photo you've doctored in a file
> > format other than Adobe PhotoShop. Powell is going to India to try to
> broker
> > a peace deal on the war in Kashmir, more credit to him, whether you
> approve
> > of it or not.
> >
> > best
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>