Some Questions

--""You still miss the point, there is an immense difference between us and them. We are the good guys and they are evil. This doesn't mean we are perfect, always right etc. etc. but when all the qualifications, causes etc are considered it still comes out the same: we are the good guys and they are evil.""--


Hold it!


How come "you're good" but "not perfect" but THEY are perfectly evil? Don't they have ANY redeeming qualities - at all??


Why do you consider Americans to be flawed but ultimately good human beings but cannot consider the OTHERS as good but ultimately flawed?


OF COURSE, the United States, along with its share of great, heroic acts, has done its share of vile & atrocious acts throughout the last (oh) 100 years. Does that make Americans "evil", as bin Laden claims?? No, it doesn't. Does this in any way excuse the horror perpetrated on Tuesday? Or even justify it a bit?? No, it doesn't, not by any stretch of logic. Nothing could - come on!


But your black/white vision of the world is typical of what stops the American public from seeing through the force-fed sound bites. Don't you people read anything else except People and Newsweek?...

A weekly which offers national and international coverage, _Newsweek_ ranks with _Time_ and _US News and World Report_ in thoroughness and credibilty and has been in publication for decades.


Is anyone aware of any periodical the equivalent of Izzy Stone's _I. F. Stone Weekly_? This was perhaps the most insightful publication I'd ever encountered. I've included something written about Izzy by Ralph Nader:


A TRIBUTE TO I.F. STONE


by Ralph Nader


His name was I.F. Stone and his was the power of example for two generations of journalists. As a 14-year-old in the year 1921, he could wait no longer and started his own publication. At college he could not wait to graduate and went into daily journalism. When newspaper after newspaper failed his standards of accuracy, truth and importance, he started with his wife, Esther, the famous I.F. Stone Weekly in 1953 right out of his kitchen. Stone's inspiration for the weekly came in part from the newsletter In Fact, which George Seldes, the muckraking reporter, began in the forties. The Stones visited the Seldes family and spent several days learning the ways and means of surviving with one's own newsletter. Stone did more than survive. By the time he closed the weekly in 1968, due to failing health, he had a circulation of 70,000 worldwide. Albert Einstein was a subscriber; his $5 check was not cashed, but it was framed. What was so unique about "Izzy" Stone? First, he read the written record, carefully and indefatigably. Congressional hearings, Defense Department reports, and other documents, documents and documents. He never played the favorites of the insider journalist. He was the modern Tom Paine--as independent and incorruptible as they come. The result of his reading was that he knew what he was writing about. He knew what was important and what was fluff. And he tied these facts to a ferocious practice of the First Amendment. Stories about Stone are legendary in Washington. Notwithstanding poor eyesight and bad ears, he managed to see more and hear more than other journalists because he was curious and fresh with the capacity for both discovery and outrage every new day. He never was jaded at what official and corporate corruption or prevarication he located. He could be jovial and irascible--the latter reaction most likely addressed to erroneous writing. He wanted to hand his Weekly over to a young reporter but never found one who could meet his standards for consistency and stamina. So since 1968, he wrote articles, jolted many a budding journalist at conferences and delved deeply for the past 10 years in the original Greek archives relating to ancient Athens and especially the trial of Socrates and the crisis of free speech that it represented in ancient Athens (population of 45,000) which became a national best seller. What Stone never talked about was the effect he had on many reporters who, often without attribution, "lunched off" his scoops. He taught them courage and insistence without ever meeting them. For it was Stone who took on Joe McCarthy early and fearlessly. It was Stone who showed that the Pentagon- military contracting complex was a highly tiered boondoggle wrapping its wrongs with the flag. For over 50 years, I.F. Stone was both journalism's Gibraltar and its unwavering conscience. While others in his profession cowered, he stood tall to challenge the abusers of power no matter where they came from--right, middle or left. He did not have favorite perpetrators to let off. He was only concerned with the victims that the bullies pushed around or the dictators oppressed. He never allowed past acquaintances with influential power brokers to dictate any self-censorship. At one student journalism conference, he was introduced as an "investigative reporter." He promptly took his introducer to task, saying that such a description was redundant. All reporters should be investigative, he declared. Through the originality and significance of his writings and addresses, Stone became a one man media--free, penetrating and, oh, so democratic in spirit. On Sunday June 17, 1989, he passed away at the age of 81 in a Boston hospital after a heart attack. If I.F. Stone had been born in ancient Athens over 2000 years ago, there would now be statues of him in front of major newspaper buildings.

It is your response that is both naive and narrow.


1. Note I have never stated that anyone is "totally evil" even Hitler liked dogs

2. Degree here is everything, there are those who try to act in a moral civilized manner and don't always succeed because of personal failings and because of the nature of the world. Others become fanatics and chose the path of evil

3. some people use big words they can't spell (Manichaism) and yes I know what it means

4.Its also interesting that you assume that anyone who you disagree with does so from ignorance "But your black/white vision of the world is typical of what stops the American public from seeing through the force-fed sound bites. Don't you people read anything else except People and Newsweek?... " It doesn't occur to you that people who disagree might read and know as much as you?

5. Since we're poker players if I had to bet I'd wager that in the last 5 yrs. I have read more about history, philosophy, politics and religion from more diverse sources than you have in your lifetime.

[Gil Scot's text in "brakets".]


""Since we're poker players if I had to bet I'd wager that in the last 5 yrs. I have read more about history, philosophy, politics and religion from more diverse sources than you have in your lifetime.""


-- What're you layin' me ?


""It is your response that is both naive and narrow.""


-- I'm sorry if my post caused you to bust a vein.


""1. Note I have never stated that anyone is "totally evil" even Hitler liked dogs.""


-- Weak comeback. (He was also a veggie.) You DID state the following, Gil : ""There is an immense difference between us and them. We [Americans] are the good guys and they [??] are evil. This doesn't mean we are perfect, always right etc. etc. but when all the qualifications, causes etc are considered it still comes out the same: we are the good guys and they are evil."" That is manichaeism, Gil.


""2. Degree here is everything, there are those who try to act in a moral civilized manner and don't always succeed because of personal failings and because of the nature of the world. Others become fanatics and chose the path of evil""


-- Agree. (This is so generic, how could I do otherwise?...)


""3. some people use big words they can't spell (Manichaism) and yes I know what it means""


-- I apologize for typing Manichaeism so wrongly, i.e. with its alternative spelling. But it's not such a "big word"! Unless you consider as a big word anything above 3 syllables. Is it a worse crime when one mistypes something as small as " it's " ?..


""4. Its also interesting that you assume that anyone who you disagree with does so from ignorance. It doesn't occur to you that people who disagree might read and know as much as you?""


-- I go by the assumption that, yes, certainly, people do know at least as much as I do - which is not saying much. But your points have demonstrated a profound and provincial lack of knowledge of Middle East history, recent and not. I simply pointed out that your point of view is similar to the simplistic notions advanced by newsmags such as Newsweek. And I was polite ; I should have included USA Today.


If you do know better, go ahead and show me. You don't, so far. But as a poker player I have to say that if you're bluffing, Gil, you GOT me!...

You contend that


"I go by the assumption that, yes, certainly, people do know at least as much as I do - which is not saying much. But your points have demonstrated a profound and provincial lack of knowledge of Middle East history, recent and not"


Can you honestly go back and read your post and contend that is what you did?


The issue at hand is this: some, specifically those involved in the attack on the WTC and Pentagon, forces engage in terrorism as an instrument of policy. This is an act of evil and must be eliminated. To not see the difference between this act and whatever virtues or vices have attended U.S. policy is to engage in sophistry.

I did. And I take nothing back. I'm consistent. It's you who hasn't read where I stand - and who can blame you? For the record, then:


You write :"Some [forces], specifically those involved in the attack on the WTC and Pentagon, engage in terrorism as an instrument of policy. This is an act of evil and must be eliminated."


I agree completely and unequivocally (sp?). In fact, I made a rather long post about how whatever excuse/reasoning lies behind the act (I called it "barbarism"), in no way absolves the perpetrators from its criminal nature. As a matter of fact, I repeatedly pointed out that by their act, the perpetrators cut off any possibility of dialogue with me, you or anyone else. When they want to KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE to convince me, I don't care if this is done for the noblest reason in the world. I'm fighting them.


You wrote: "To not see the difference between this act and whatever virtues or vices have attended U.S. policy is to engage in sophistry."


Well, in order not to be accused of "sophistry" (nor of being blasphemous, since bodies are still being dragged from under the debris), I made a point of clarifying at the end of many posts, that the talk about Middle East politics that the terrorist killings have incited should in no way be construed as an excuse or as a diversion.


I have also stated that, although I have been against American foreign policy in the Middle East, even if that policy was worse, still the terrorist act is unpardonable and should be punished to the fullest extent possible.


...If that sounds like an apologia (sp?), trust me it isn't. The whole issue has taken a turn for the worse, in fact for the worst possible. It is depressing - and I see no course for a way out, even for the short term.

I went back and reread your posts, In this thread my theme has been that terror is evil and we need to respond as the forces of civilization. You jumped into the argument assuming that I was self-righteous and parochial. I think you need to consider why you made this assumption.


For the record I have reservations about much of our foreign policy but that is not relevant in the current crisis. If you agree that terror and terrorists need to be eliminated welcome on board.