Turtle (way of warrior) - who speaks for wolf? Long reply

[Toni Petrinovich]

"We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right
major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order." David
Rockefeller, speaking at the Business Council for the United Nations,
September 14, 1994

Toni Petrinovich

----- Original Message -----
From: "J. Paul Everett" <JPESeeker at aol.com>
To: <OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 9:05 PM
Subject: Re: Turtle (way of warrior) - who speaks for wolf? Long reply


> Dear Peggy, et. al.;
>
> I guess I'll take on your inquiry, who speaks for wolf.  I think on this
list
> I'm likely of the wolf breed.  In a private interchange with Michael
Hermann,
> re: Mr. Krauthammer's column that I posted earlier, in which he wanted to
> clarify my views, I responded with the following to the question "Where do
> you stand?"  I have added one sentence that I didn't think of before
> regarding the papal encyclical and a clarification on the reading comment.
>
> Dear Michael,
>
> Where do I stand?  Open and free inquiry.  Listening to many sides, and
all
> sides.  Voltaire had it right---"I do not believe in what you say but I
will
> defend to the death your right to say it."  Asking all the possible
questions
> as a means for discovery.  Openly questioning the Convention Wisdom of
this
> listserv that is heavily weighted to those who expect a loving response to
> sway Mr. bin Laden and his murdering followers.  Good luck.
>
> Mr. Krauthammer asks some very important questions. We also need to ask
some
> hard questions.  Prudens questio dimidium scientiae---to ask the proper
> question is half of knowing.  Why are not the Imam's of Islam the world
over
> vigorously condemning the concept of suicide bombers as being something
out
> of Islam, as claimed by the fundamentalists?  Why are they so relatively
> quiet?  Where are the equivalent of the Papal Encyclical or the Ex
Cathedra
> pronouncement condemning, unequivocally, with no obfuscation, the actions
of
> ALL suicide bombers as being nowhere in the teachings of Islam.  Where is
the
> fatwa against suicide bombing of every kind?
>
> Are they going to be like the Christians and liberals in Germany and the
> West, especially Britain, and including the USA, who stood silently by
while
> the Jews and Gypsies went to the gas chambers by the millions?  Or, like
the
> gullible "liberals" who praised Stalin ("I have seen the future, and it
> works") while he murdered millions of his own people?  If we remain
silent,
> the very rocks will cry out, I think.
>
> Might it be that there is some truth to the general population's belief
that
> Islam isn't necessarily a peaceful religion, not really benign, with
respect
> for those who do not belong to their religion?  Certainly not benign, or
> good, for women, even in the "liberal" Islamic countries.  That maybe the
> fundamentalists of Islam have it right, that violence is tolerated by
their
> religion?  Or, advocated if it is against the Infidels?  Infidel, that's
me,
> for sure, don't know about you or your religious leanings.  None of my
> business.
>
> You might think that I'm a radical rightist.  Far, far from it.  I see
myself
> as a fairly steely-eyed realist with a soft heart for the downtrodden of
> humanity.  I believe the people of the US are sick, ill at heart, from
their
> wealth.  Their materialism (may) be their downfall, imho.  There is the
iron
> law of responsibility---to those who have been given much, of them will
much
> be required.  We don't understand that yet, except for a very few.  Maybe
> Sept. 11th is the needed wake-up call?
>
> We build billion dollar stadiums with public tax money to watch over-paid
> children play sports while our streets teem with the desperately poor,
> without hope or real help.  We pay our teachers, the shapers of the
future,
> niggardly salaries and don't demand enough of them or our children (I'm
not a
> teacher, I'm a business consultant).  We produce 25% illiterates or
> functional illiterates (that's for reading---the numbers are far worse for
> math, not to mention critical thinking) from our school system and don't
look
> to see that there are much better ways to educate children (I use a system
of
> teaching reading for my clients who have many illiterates in their employ
> that is 99.5% successful in teaching anyone to read as fluently as they
> talk---and I mean anyone, no matter what they have been "diagnosed" as
> having---dyslexia, adhd, mental slowness, etc., at the rate of 1 grade
level
> gained per 10 hours of tutoring, which is 10x faster than the usual
program).
>  We can't seem to figure out how people can get a modicum of medical care
> while our governments and insurance companies are busy destroying the best
> medical care in the world.  (The stories my brother, an MD, can tell you
> would make you weep.)  Very disheartening.
>
> Anyway, I don't want to get into an argument with you, or a jeremiad.  I
> posted that column because I thought it had some points of view we'd
better
> pay attention to if we are to figure this whole thing out and move
> accordingly.  We need to know the real position of the Islamic clerics and
> leaders of the world.  The real position of Islam for we non-believers.  I
> think they'd better start speaking up.  Freedom, in all it's
ramifications,
> is far, far too precious to be lost or cloaked under the blanket of PC.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Paul Everett
>
> Today, I would add that we need to do both, stop the terrorists by force
AND
> to begin an even greater effort to win over the minds and hearts of the
> people of the nations that are currently harboring terrorists bent on our
> destruction.  Make no mistake, that is their goal, the downfall of the
West,
> because they despise our values, including those of freedom of religion,
> assembly, press, speaking out, petition, etc., contained in the Bill of
> Rights.  It makes for an immoral society, in their view, one that must be
> destroyed.  Especially it makes for an immoral society for women.  (Are
you
> women on this listserv listening and observing what is really going on?)
For
> those of you doubting their intention, you haven't been listening or
> watching, as we didn't listen to Hitler in Mein Kampf or Lenin in his
> writings, to our great sorrow.  We'd better listen and act now.
>
> Below is another too-strong piece that has a substantial element of truth
in
> it.  He, unfortunately, does not bring up the way of inclusion for those
not
> bent on our destruction, but that is not his mission in this piece.  He is
> speaking only of the terrorists and the pacifists.  Many of you won't like
> his writing but I can assure you, being out in the work world with folks
who
> get things done, build things, dig trenches, haul garbage, clean sewers
and
> make things, they are on his side and not the side of those on this
listserv,
> in general.  That's what the Gallup poll numbers mean.  I doubt we will
allow
> another WTO- or Mardi Gras-like riot in Seattle.  They will be crushed.
>
> I also can't any longer carry my nail clipper or pocket knife I've carried
> for 30 years when flying.  My freedom is being further compromised but
I'll
> deal with it rather than allow terrorists to kill at will.  What we must
> resist is turning the US into a police state.  We must also resist and
> destroy terrorists and those governments and leaders harboring them,
> physically, where they live.  To fail to do that is to fail our future.
That
> is my position.
>
> Paul Everett
>
>
>  Wednesday, September 26, 2001 - 12:00 a.m. Pacific
>
> Michael Kelly / Syndicated columnist
> In the face of such evil, pacifism is immoral
>
> Pacifists are not serious people, although they devoutly believe they are,
> and their arguments are not being taken seriously at the moment. Yet, it
> is worth taking seriously, and in advance of need, the pacifists and their
> appeal.
>
> It is worth it, first of all, because the idea of peace is inherently
> attractive; and the more war there is, the more attractive the idea
> becomes.
>
> It is worth it, secondly, because the reactionary left-liberal crowd in
> America and in Europe has already staked out its ground here: What
> happened to America is America's fault, the fruits of foolish arrogance
> and greedy imperialism, racism, colonialism, etc., etc. From this rises an
> argument that the resulting war is also an exercise in arrogance and
> imperialism, etc., and not deserving of support. This argument will be
> made with greater fearlessness as the first memories of the 7,000 murdered
> recede.
>
> It is worth it, thirdly, because the American foreign policy establishment
> has all the heart for war of a titmouse, and not one of your braver
> titmice. The first faint, let-us-be-reasonable bleats can even now be
> heard: Yes, we must do something, but is an escalation of aggression
> really the right thing? Mightn't it just make matters ever so much worse?
>
> Pacifists see themselves as obviously on the side of a higher morality,
> and there is a surface appeal to this notion, even for those who dismiss
> pacifism as hopelessly naive. The pacifists' argument is rooted entirely
> in this appeal: Two wrongs don't make a right; violence only begets more
> violence.
>
> There can be truth in the pacifists' claim to the moral high ground,
> notably in the case of a war that is waged for manifestly evil purposes.
> So, for instance, a German citizen who declined to fight for the Nazi
> cause could be seen (although not likely by his family and friends) as
> occupying the moral position.
>
> But in the situation where one's nation has been attacked - a situation
> such as we are now in - pacifism is, inescapably and profoundly, immoral.
> Indeed, in the case of this specific situation, pacifism is on the side of
> the murderers, and it is on the side of letting them murder again.
>
> In 1942, George Orwell wrote, in Partisan Review, this of Great Britain's
> pacifists:
>
> "Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If
> you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help out that of
> the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as
> the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me.' "
>
> England's pacifists howled, but Orwell's logic was implacable. The Nazis
> wished the British to not fight. If the British did not fight, the Nazis
> would conquer Britain. The British pacifists also wished the British to
> not fight. The British pacifists, therefore, were on the side of a Nazi
> victory over Britain. They were objectively pro-Fascist.
>
> An essentially identical logic obtains now. Organized terrorist groups
> have attacked America. These groups wish the Americans to not fight. The
> American pacifists wish the Americans to not fight. If the Americans do
> not fight, the terrorists will attack America again. And now we know such
> attacks can kill many thousands of Americans. The American pacifists,
> therefore, are on the side of future mass murders of Americans. They are
> objectively pro-terrorist.
>
> There is no way out of this reasoning. No honest person can pretend that
> the groups that attacked America will, if let alone, not attack again. Nor
> can any honest person say that this attack is not at least reasonably
> likely to kill thousands upon thousands of innocent people. To not fight
> in this instance is to let the attackers live to attack and murder again;
> to be a pacifist in this instance is to accept and, in practice, support
> this outcome.
>
> As President Bush said of nations: a war has been declared; you are either
> on one side or another. You are either for doing what is necessary to
> capture or kill those who control and fund and harbor the terrorists, or
> you are for not doing this.
>
> If you are for not doing this, you are for allowing the terrorists to
> continue their attacks on America. You are saying, in fact: I believe that
> it is better to allow more Americans - perhaps a great many more - to be
> murdered than to capture or kill the murderers.
>
> That is the pacifists' position, and it is evil.
>
> Michael Kelly's column appears regularly on editorial pages of The Times.
> The Washington Post Writers Group can be contacted via e-mail at
> writersgrp at washpost.com.
>
> *
> *
> ==========================================================
> OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
> ------------------------------
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
> view the archives of oslist at listserv.boisestate.edu,
> Visit:
>
> http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html
>

*
*
==========================================================
OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
------------------------------
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
view the archives of oslist at listserv.boisestate.edu,
Visit:

http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html