OT-History Lessons

And your enlightened solution is:

So, to achieve success:

And here is what will remain:

Independent of common sense.

Reply to
strabo
Loading thread data ...

No. It would simply mean that unpopular and unconstitutional preemptive wars are not the means to an end.

Your fragile ego is showing.

Given your limited ability to concoct a resolution, paranoia is understandable.

Ahh, the truth outs. A militaristic totalitarian emerges his shell. Yes, a purge is needed but it must occur through education and knowledge, not from Dungeons and Dragons fantasies.

And in spite of that pessimistic sentiment, our parents managed to fight a a multi-front global war against a real, tangible enemy without the Patriot Act, leaving us with the Constitution intact.

Reply to
strabo

He has said it will last a hundred years. Naturally we will need the finest leaders to guide us through this dark period.

In fact we are extremely fortunate to have on hand a general by the name of Franks who has at the ready a plan to 'suspend' the Constitution and impose martial law.

Just think, a hundred years of barbed wire, secret police and deprivation! I can't wait.

Reply to
strabo

They did bruise the hell out of it however. Shall I remind you of Manzanar, etc etc?

Gunner "The British attitude is to treat society like a game preserve where a certain percentage of the 'antelope' are expected to be eaten by the "lions". Christopher Morton

Reply to
Gunner

Severely, though the Japanese immigrants and extractions confined in Hawaii were released about a month after Dec. 7. Australia confined German extractions for the duration.

I don't excuse it but at least there was a declaration of war, a concensus of a national emergency. All borders were tightly controlled and citizens were actively enlisted in civil defense and measures of self-sufficiency. The opposite has occurred since 9/11.

Reply to
strabo

problem being, this attitude makes us *worse* than they are...because we are supposed to be the good guys...and follow our own rules even when it's to our disadvantage.

look up the Alien and Sedition Acts...and see what horrors await...

ck

Reply to
charles krin

The firing squad *might* make sense if Congress declared war. There has been no such declaration and little agreement as to which country is the enemy. Is Congress going to declare war arainst dozens of countries or just let Bush invade one at a time?

Reply to
Nick Hull

When did France become democratic?

Reply to
Jeffrey C. Dege

I'll probably get flamed from every direction for this, but...

There is no reason to expect that democracy (or any other kind of security or freedom) will EVER happen in the Middle East. In fact, the odds are stacked seriously against that. If, for the purposes of this discussion, we define democracy (and freedom, liberty, etc.) as an official (and at least partially real) recognition that the state belongs to its citizens, instead of the other way around, then I can think of exactly ONE time in all of human history where that idea has taken root and grown successfully.

The Magna Carta was the seed from which EVERY existing human culture that might be called democratic, or based in any way on individual rights, has grown. Prior to 1215, every human culture of significant size or influence that had ever existed was based in some way on the unconditional rule of individulas from just three special classes: 1. Warlords, who gained and maintained possession and/or control of land and populations by force. 2. Monarchs, who inherited and maintained possession and/or control of land and populations by heredity (usually passed down from from someone who started his dynasty as a warlord). And 3. Religious rulers, who mainained possession and/or control of land and populations through a belief that they had some special divinity, or access to a diety, which empowered them in ways not possible for mere mortals. The modern world has also added a fourth category: "Popular Rulers", as in communist cultures, who gain and maintain possession and/or control of land and populations in the same way as religious rulers, but who claim that their special status and capactiy to rule comes from dieties they called "The Proletariate" or "The Masses" or "The Will of the People", rather than from conventional gods.

And, except for the cultures which have descended from 13th century England, or those few which have successfuly emulated English-style liberty, there are no free cultures in the world today, that I can think of.

It's true that other attempts have been made, and that other times and places have produced the beginnings of democracy; but none of those survived or succeeeded. I'm thinking of ancient Greece, with its relative freedom of thought and expression, which provided the environment occupied by Socrates, Aristotle, Euclid, Pythagoras, etc. For the members of the "empowered classes", Greece was a pretty good place to live. But it was also the center of an empire, conquered and ruled by a warlord; and its freedoms were reserved exclusively for the empowered classes, and not to the majority of its population, who were slaves and subjugates.

Rome had a senate, and the beginnings of a parlaimentary government; but that too was only for the priviliged few, and served mostly as a means to rule an empire of force. By the time Rome had reached the end of its lifetime, there were more slaves in Rome than there were Romans.

And, of course, neither Greece nor Italy is exactly a world power today.

England and it's philosophical descendants, however, represent a unique and relatively long-lived departure from the norm. The US, Canada, Australia, and other parts of what used to be the British Empire, all enjoy relative freedom, and relatively high standards of living, and security, and overall prosperity, compared to the rest of the world. Nations like Fance, Germany, Japan, and even, to some extent, Mexico, are examples of nations that had no long or continuous history of developing freedom; but which abandoned their pasts and embraced the English model when major upheavals (usually wars) created a discontiuity in their histories, and provided the opportunity to change course. It's no accident that parlaimentary style governments exist in so many different places, and despite so many different histories. When a culture needs or wants to bury its tyrants and try something new, there is really only one successful model to borrow from the entire history of humankind.

This idea has two important implications in the Middle East, I think. First, places like Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palistine, etc., have no history or tradition of even THINKING in ways that are consistent with freedom or democracy of any kind. They aren't accustomed to thinking in terms of individual rights that aren't routinely compromised by violence, religious law, or both. And, they can't BECOME accustomed to that kind of thinking in any short time period. It's taken dozens of generations for English-style freedom to become the norm in those parts of the world that use it. The Mid-East is not going to make a spontaneous transformation in any less time. In fact, given the general animosity of the Islamic world for the West, it's likely to take LONGER that it did in English-descended cultures.

And, there seems to be no hope for any serious discontinuity that will offer the Mid East an opportunity for sudden change. Even today, when Iraq has been invaded and conquered by Western powers, the conquering armies are taking special pains NOT to disrupt the existing culture. We're unwilling to demand or expct that Iraquis, or Afghanis, or whoever, abandon the traditions that guide their lives, their thinking, and their view of the world; but we still hope they'll find a way to integrate democracy into some of the most non-democratic ideologies imaginable. If you think that "seamless hybrids" are tough to do in a computer, just try doing them in a whole country, or in an entire region of the world where non-democratic culture has roots that go back THOUSANDS of years!

(It's worth noting that the Code of Hamurabi is probably the very first and most important example of working formal law, and of limits of any kind on rulers and their friends. But that code, and the principles it represented, were long ago abandoned and forgotten in the Mid East, and have been replaced by Islamic law, and by combinations of religious rulers and warlords.

If the Islamic world doesn't grow democratic ideas on its own (and it shows no indication that it can, or that it wants to), or if the traditions and momentum of thousands of years aren't brought to a sudden (and probably violent) end, and replaced at gunpoint by something else (as with the end of Imperial Japan, or of the Kaiser's Germany), then the probability that democracy ever CAN take root in the Mid East is essentially nill. Western leaders who imagine that deposing a single ruler, or removing a single government, or offering bribes and favors even to millions of civilians, will change the fundamental characters of some of the oldest civilizations on Earth, and will do so in less than a thousand years or so, are completely clueless.

We're supposed to be engaged in something called "nation building"; but anyone who's ever done ANY kind of successful building will tell you that you CAN'T build on the site of existing stuff unless you're willing to do some serious demolition first. I'm not advocating demolition. I don't claim that it's our job or our business to tell the folks in the Middle East how to run their countries. But if we're going to tell them, and if we're really going to build new nations, then we need to be honest with everyone, including ourselves, about the fact that buldozers and excavators always come first, before the carpenters and bricklayers can even pretend to start work.

KG

Reply to
Kirk Gordon

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 14:44:03 -0500, Kirk Gordon wrote:

|Peter Reilley wrote: |> |> Good point. It does take some time to go from throwing off the old order |> to a new system that offers everyone true freedom and liberty. France had |> to go through some rough times before they became democratic. How |> long did it take America to go from our revolution to everyone having |> equal rights. There was a civil war in that transition if you remember. |> |> There is no reason to expect that democracy will immediately follow |> the expulsion of foreigners from that region. The will likely have the |> same growing pains that the rest of us experienced. | | I'll probably get flamed from every direction for this, but... | | There is no reason to expect that democracy (or any other kind of |security or freedom) will EVER happen in the Middle East. In fact, the |odds are stacked seriously against that. If, for the purposes of this |discussion, we define democracy (and freedom, liberty, etc.) as an |official (and at least partially real) recognition that the state |belongs to its citizens, instead of the other way around, then I can |think of exactly ONE time in all of human history where that idea has |taken root and grown successfully. | | The Magna Carta was the seed from which EVERY existing human culture |that might be called democratic, or based in any way on individual |rights, has grown. Prior to 1215, every human culture of significant |size or influence that had ever existed was based in some way on the |unconditional rule of individulas from just three special classes: 1. |Warlords, who gained and maintained possession and/or control of land |and populations by force. 2. Monarchs, who inherited and maintained |possession and/or control of land and populations by heredity (usually |passed down from from someone who started his dynasty as a warlord). |And 3. Religious rulers, who mainained possession and/or control of land |and populations through a belief that they had some special divinity, or |access to a diety, which empowered them in ways not possible for mere |mortals. The modern world has also added a fourth category: "Popular |Rulers", as in communist cultures, who gain and maintain possession |and/or control of land and populations in the same way as religious |rulers, but who claim that their special status and capactiy to rule |comes from dieties they called "The Proletariate" or "The Masses" or |"The Will of the People", rather than from conventional gods. | | And, except for the cultures which have descended from 13th century |England, or those few which have successfuly emulated English-style |liberty, there are no free cultures in the world today, that I can think of. | | It's true that other attempts have been made, and that other times |and places have produced the beginnings of democracy; but none of those |survived or succeeeded. I'm thinking of ancient Greece, with its |relative freedom of thought and expression, which provided the |environment occupied by Socrates, Aristotle, Euclid, Pythagoras, etc. |For the members of the "empowered classes", Greece was a pretty good |place to live. But it was also the center of an empire, conquered and |ruled by a warlord; and its freedoms were reserved exclusively for the |empowered classes, and not to the majority of its population, who were |slaves and subjugates. | | Rome had a senate, and the beginnings of a parlaimentary government; |but that too was only for the priviliged few, and served mostly as a |means to rule an empire of force. By the time Rome had reached the end |of its lifetime, there were more slaves in Rome than there were Romans. | | And, of course, neither Greece nor Italy is exactly a world power today. | | England and it's philosophical descendants, however, represent a |unique and relatively long-lived departure from the norm. The US, |Canada, Australia, and other parts of what used to be the British |Empire, all enjoy relative freedom, and relatively high standards of |living, and security, and overall prosperity, compared to the rest of |the world. Nations like Fance, Germany, Japan, and even, to some |extent, Mexico, are examples of nations that had no long or continuous |history of developing freedom; but which abandoned their pasts and |embraced the English model when major upheavals (usually wars) created a |discontiuity in their histories, and provided the opportunity to change |course. It's no accident that parlaimentary style governments exist in |so many different places, and despite so many different histories. When |a culture needs or wants to bury its tyrants and try something new, |there is really only one successful model to borrow from the entire |history of humankind. | | This idea has two important implications in the Middle East, I |think. First, places like Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palistine, etc., |have no history or tradition of even THINKING in ways that are |consistent with freedom or democracy of any kind. They aren't |accustomed to thinking in terms of individual rights that aren't |routinely compromised by violence, religious law, or both. And, they |can't BECOME accustomed to that kind of thinking in any short time |period. It's taken dozens of generations for English-style freedom to |become the norm in those parts of the world that use it. The Mid-East |is not going to make a spontaneous transformation in any less time. In |fact, given the general animosity of the Islamic world for the West, |it's likely to take LONGER that it did in English-descended cultures. | | And, there seems to be no hope for any serious discontinuity that |will offer the Mid East an opportunity for sudden change. Even today, |when Iraq has been invaded and conquered by Western powers, the |conquering armies are taking special pains NOT to disrupt the existing |culture. We're unwilling to demand or expct that Iraquis, or Afghanis, |or whoever, abandon the traditions that guide their lives, their |thinking, and their view of the world; but we still hope they'll find a |way to integrate democracy into some of the most non-democratic |ideologies imaginable. If you think that "seamless hybrids" are tough |to do in a computer, just try doing them in a whole country, or in an |entire region of the world where non-democratic culture has roots that |go back THOUSANDS of years! | | (It's worth noting that the Code of Hamurabi is probably the very |first and most important example of working formal law, and of limits of |any kind on rulers and their friends. But that code, and the principles |it represented, were long ago abandoned and forgotten in the Mid East, |and have been replaced by Islamic law, and by combinations of religious |rulers and warlords. | | If the Islamic world doesn't grow democratic ideas on its own (and |it shows no indication that it can, or that it wants to), or if the |traditions and momentum of thousands of years aren't brought to a sudden |(and probably violent) end, and replaced at gunpoint by something else |(as with the end of Imperial Japan, or of the Kaiser's Germany), then |the probability that democracy ever CAN take root in the Mid East is |essentially nill. Western leaders who imagine that deposing a single |ruler, or removing a single government, or offering bribes and favors |even to millions of civilians, will change the fundamental characters of |some of the oldest civilizations on Earth, and will do so in less than a |thousand years or so, are completely clueless. | | We're supposed to be engaged in something called "nation building"; |but anyone who's ever done ANY kind of successful building will tell you |that you CAN'T build on the site of existing stuff unless you're willing |to do some serious demolition first. I'm not advocating demolition. I |don't claim that it's our job or our business to tell the folks in the |Middle East how to run their countries. But if we're going to tell |them, and if we're really going to build new nations, then we need to be |honest with everyone, including ourselves, about the fact that buldozers |and excavators always come first, before the carpenters and bricklayers |can even pretend to start work. | |KG

Not quite as hopeless as you make it out to be KG. Look at pre-WWII Japan with their Monarchy. The idiot still rides his steed, but the proletariat is as modernized as any Western Civilization, and all this just in the last 50 years, not the thousands you portend.

Lg

Reply to
Lawrence Glickman

Lawrence Glickman wrote: >

Are you saying that Japan was not a genuine monarchy BEFORE WW2? If so, then I disagree. My point was that Japan, at the end of WW2, was a good example of a nation and culture whose history, traditions, and momentum, had been brought to a screeching halt. That's what created the opportunity for sudden and dramatic change. (And, it didn't hurt that someone provided the rules for change, and insisted that they be taken seriously.) It's true that Japan has fully and truly joined the modern world, and the community of nations that I'd consider free and democratic, during the last 60 years; but they didn't do that without a major, and painful, and forceful jump-start from a culture that had almost 750 years of continuous practice at freedom and democracy, starting with 13th century England.

As long as that screeching halt stuff isn't allowed or included in our dealings with the Mid East, the opportunity for short term change just won't exist. And if Western armies keep meddling in the region WITHOUT disrupting the fundamentals of the pre-existing cultures, then it seems to me that the most likely kinds of long term change will all include an INCREASE in the extent to which the West is viewed as distant, hostile, evil, and unwelcome in every way.

And history has shown clearly, on countless occasions, that a common, constant, visible enemy - especially one that's viewed as a threat to the most basic principles and beliefs of an entire culture - is the perfect ticket to power for an endless stream of increasingly dangerous and hostile leaders.

Just look at what the US has done, and accepted, from its own leaders, as part of our "war on terror." If THIS nation can be conviced to fight two distant and costly wars, and to tolerate increased government intervention in our daily lives ("security concerns"), and can live with the suspension of some of our most basic ideas about "due process" for people accused or suspected of certain kinds of crimes, then what kinds of madness would be tolerated, and perhaps even welcomed, by cultures that are already less stable, more easily galvanized by holy fervor, and more accustomed to warfare and violence, than the West? I fear that Saddam Hussein, and Muhammed Omar, etc., will not be the last or the worst. And the more we do to make ouselves unwelcome, WITHOUT accomplishing major changes that go right to the roots of the cultures themselves, the more we encourage the kind of frenzied enmity that will bring our worst nightmares into positions of power and influence.

Please understand, I'm NOT advocating a more aggressive or confrontational approach to the Mid East. I just don't think our stated goals are possible without that. If we aren't willing to spend the money, and spill the blood, and take the risks involved in demolishing old cultures and nations so that new ones really CAN be built, then we shouldn't pretend that we can actually do any good. We can change our policy, or we can change our ideas about the tactics that existing policies demand from us; but we can't escape the terrible consequences of pretending that half-assed measures will work.

KG

Reply to
Kirk Gordon
[deletia fore and aft]

Does "foreign" only count when the West is involved? Offhand, I can't think of any period in history in which parts of the Middle East have NOT been under some sort of "foreign" domination.

On the other hand, perhaps the majority of the folks in the Middle East need to "reform" certain aspects of their own culture (ignorance, superstition, slavery, subjugation of women, etc.) before calling for the "reform" of their Jewish neighbors.

As to defeating Israel militarily, it won't happen. As badly as it must discombobulate the Arabs and their apologists, the Jews are in the Middle East to stay.

Reply to
Tom Stovall

Not from this direction.

In addition to what you say, how many OLD countries have become wealthy and powerful without some sort of external intervention? Usually the sort of intervention that levels the preexisting social structure and replaces it with something new.

Pre and post WWII Japan being an example.

Reply to
Offbreed

Excellent post, Kirk. Thanks for the history lesson

|On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 14:44:03 -0500, Kirk Gordon |wrote: | || I'll probably get flamed from every direction for this, but... || || There is no reason to expect that democracy (or any other kind of ||security or freedom) will EVER happen in the Middle East. In fact, the ||odds are stacked seriously against that. If, for the purposes of this ||discussion, we define democracy (and freedom, liberty, etc.) as an ||official (and at least partially real) recognition that the state ||belongs to its citizens, instead of the other way around, then I can ||think of exactly ONE time in all of human history where that idea has ||taken root and grown successfully. || || The Magna Carta was the seed from which EVERY existing human culture ||that might be called democratic, or based in any way on individual ||rights, has grown. Prior to 1215, every human culture of significant ||size or influence that had ever existed was based in some way on the ||unconditional rule of individulas from just three special classes: 1. ||Warlords, who gained and maintained possession and/or control of land ||and populations by force. 2. Monarchs, who inherited and maintained ||possession and/or control of land and populations by heredity (usually ||passed down from from someone who started his dynasty as a warlord). ||And 3. Religious rulers, who mainained possession and/or control of land ||and populations through a belief that they had some special divinity, or ||access to a diety, which empowered them in ways not possible for mere ||mortals. The modern world has also added a fourth category: "Popular ||Rulers", as in communist cultures, who gain and maintain possession ||and/or control of land and populations in the same way as religious ||rulers, but who claim that their special status and capactiy to rule ||comes from dieties they called "The Proletariate" or "The Masses" or ||"The Will of the People", rather than from conventional gods. || || And, except for the cultures which have descended from 13th century ||England, or those few which have successfuly emulated English-style ||liberty, there are no free cultures in the world today, that I can think of. || || It's true that other attempts have been made, and that other times ||and places have produced the beginnings of democracy; but none of those ||survived or succeeeded. I'm thinking of ancient Greece, with its ||relative freedom of thought and expression, which provided the ||environment occupied by Socrates, Aristotle, Euclid, Pythagoras, etc. ||For the members of the "empowered classes", Greece was a pretty good ||place to live. But it was also the center of an empire, conquered and ||ruled by a warlord; and its freedoms were reserved exclusively for the ||empowered classes, and not to the majority of its population, who were ||slaves and subjugates. || || Rome had a senate, and the beginnings of a parlaimentary government; ||but that too was only for the priviliged few, and served mostly as a ||means to rule an empire of force. By the time Rome had reached the end ||of its lifetime, there were more slaves in Rome than there were Romans. || || And, of course, neither Greece nor Italy is exactly a world power today. || || England and it's philosophical descendants, however, represent a ||unique and relatively long-lived departure from the norm. The US, ||Canada, Australia, and other parts of what used to be the British ||Empire, all enjoy relative freedom, and relatively high standards of ||living, and security, and overall prosperity, compared to the rest of ||the world. Nations like Fance, Germany, Japan, and even, to some ||extent, Mexico, are examples of nations that had no long or continuous ||history of developing freedom; but which abandoned their pasts and ||embraced the English model when major upheavals (usually wars) created a ||discontiuity in their histories, and provided the opportunity to change ||course. It's no accident that parlaimentary style governments exist in ||so many different places, and despite so many different histories. When ||a culture needs or wants to bury its tyrants and try something new, ||there is really only one successful model to borrow from the entire ||history of humankind. || || This idea has two important implications in the Middle East, I ||think. First, places like Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palistine, etc., ||have no history or tradition of even THINKING in ways that are ||consistent with freedom or democracy of any kind. They aren't ||accustomed to thinking in terms of individual rights that aren't ||routinely compromised by violence, religious law, or both. And, they ||can't BECOME accustomed to that kind of thinking in any short time ||period. It's taken dozens of generations for English-style freedom to ||become the norm in those parts of the world that use it. The Mid-East ||is not going to make a spontaneous transformation in any less time. In ||fact, given the general animosity of the Islamic world for the West, ||it's likely to take LONGER that it did in English-descended cultures. || || And, there seems to be no hope for any serious discontinuity that ||will offer the Mid East an opportunity for sudden change. Even today, ||when Iraq has been invaded and conquered by Western powers, the ||conquering armies are taking special pains NOT to disrupt the existing ||culture. We're unwilling to demand or expct that Iraquis, or Afghanis, ||or whoever, abandon the traditions that guide their lives, their ||thinking, and their view of the world; but we still hope they'll find a ||way to integrate democracy into some of the most non-democratic ||ideologies imaginable. If you think that "seamless hybrids" are tough ||to do in a computer, just try doing them in a whole country, or in an ||entire region of the world where non-democratic culture has roots that ||go back THOUSANDS of years! || || (It's worth noting that the Code of Hamurabi is probably the very ||first and most important example of working formal law, and of limits of ||any kind on rulers and their friends. But that code, and the principles ||it represented, were long ago abandoned and forgotten in the Mid East, ||and have been replaced by Islamic law, and by combinations of religious ||rulers and warlords. || || If the Islamic world doesn't grow democratic ideas on its own (and ||it shows no indication that it can, or that it wants to), or if the ||traditions and momentum of thousands of years aren't brought to a sudden ||(and probably violent) end, and replaced at gunpoint by something else ||(as with the end of Imperial Japan, or of the Kaiser's Germany), then ||the probability that democracy ever CAN take root in the Mid East is ||essentially nill. Western leaders who imagine that deposing a single ||ruler, or removing a single government, or offering bribes and favors ||even to millions of civilians, will change the fundamental characters of ||some of the oldest civilizations on Earth, and will do so in less than a ||thousand years or so, are completely clueless. || || We're supposed to be engaged in something called "nation building"; ||but anyone who's ever done ANY kind of successful building will tell you ||that you CAN'T build on the site of existing stuff unless you're willing ||to do some serious demolition first. I'm not advocating demolition. I ||don't claim that it's our job or our business to tell the folks in the ||Middle East how to run their countries. But if we're going to tell ||them, and if we're really going to build new nations, then we need to be ||honest with everyone, including ourselves, about the fact that buldozers ||and excavators always come first, before the carpenters and bricklayers ||can even pretend to start work. || ||KG

Rex in Fort Worth

Reply to
Rex B

For some of it's citizens. Even so, it's better than most of the middle east.

Other than that, welcome to the loony world of Brainwashed Petey Reilley...

Brainwashed Petey claims it is "heroic" to deliberately murder large groups of random civilian human beings, but only IF you claim it was done because you suspected they might be members of the WRONG middle eastern superstition...

Reply to
Gary

You're sort of skipping the bit about how the monarchy that was restored, after Cromwell, was overthrown again, and a figurehead king installed, under terms that put all real power into the hands of Parliament.

Reply to
Jeffrey C. Dege

Gary:

Do you really believe repeating a lie often enough will somehow turn it into a fact?

How soon we forget. Here is a post from just a couple of months ago.

===================================================== From: BottleBob ( snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.net) Subject: Re: OT-History Lessons Newsgroups: alt.machines.cnc Date: 2003-11-23 16:06:47 PST

Gary wrote:

Gary:

OK.

==================================================== From: Gary ( snipped-for-privacy@qwest.net) Subject: Re: Alaska Residents- A question Newsgroups: alt.machines.cnc Date: 2003-09-07 13:45:54 PST

You've claimed it's heroic to murder innocent people at random because they are jewish. ==================================================== From: Gary ( snipped-for-privacy@qwest.net) Subject: Re: been kinda quiet ... Newsgroups: alt.machines.cnc Date: 2003-04-18 14:54:04 PST

Petey claims it is "heroic" to bomb children on a school bus... ==================================================== From: Gary ( snipped-for-privacy@qwest.net) Subject: Re: OT- A Speech Newsgroups: alt.machines.cnc Date: 2003-03-29 22:16:53 PST

Petey is clearly claiming that it's not only acceptable to blow up children on a school bus, he even claims the actions are "heroic". ==================================================== And some 44 others of a similar nature.

But there is not the SLIGHTEST indication in Google that Pete claimed what you have attributed to him. In fact it appears to be a total fabrication on YOUR part, made with the intention to deceive others.

Pete seems to have NEVER made any such claim, and neither have I. This seems to be something created in your own imagination. Otherwise you would long ago have produced Pete's alleged comment to that effect. But you can't, since it doesn't seem to exist.

The Palestinian "struggle" takes many forms, not just the despicable action of indiscriminate suicide bombings.

I think you owe Pete AND this newsgroup an apology for trying to intentionally deceive others about what Pete actually said. It appears you have let your emotions trump good judgment, personal integrity, and honesty here. ================================================

Back to real time here. So, can you back up your claim of what Pete said? Or should we just write this off to another one of your self-serving fabrications and an attempt to ridicule others into silence for posting opinions/beliefs that you don't approve of?

Reply to
BottleBob

Yes of course, the power of governance was slipping from the monarchy to the parliament starting from the time of the Magna Carta. The process is largely, but not entirely, complete today. The process did have it's ups and downs but the trend continued.

I suspect that we are actually agreeing here even though our terminology is different.

Pete.

Reply to
Peter Reilley

Get away from machine tools and you really are ignorant, aren't you, Kirk ? No, Japan was NOT a "genuine monarchy before WW II." Or okay, maybe it was - DECADES before. They had been a fascist state run by the militarists with a puppet monarch since before the turn of the century. That's been written about and documented anywhere and everywhere you look.

When you start off with false premises, all you can come up with is false conclusions. GIGO.

Reply to
Excitable Boy

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.