Message-ID: <3D7FD86B.3070808@snosoft.com>
From: dotslash at snosoft.com (KF)
Subject: Happy 911 America Death Day from Snosoft

If anyone was offended by that rude post I can only say that I am sorry 
for someone elses ignorance.

My REAL headers....

>From - Wed Sep 11 19:43:50 2002
X-UIDL: d11c44b431c44adf
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-Path: <dotslash@...soft.com>
Received: from clmboh1-smtp3.columbus.rr.com (clmboh1-smtp3.columbus.rr.com [65.24.0.112])
	by mail.snosoft.com (8.12.5/10.10.10) with ESMTP id g8BNat3p079697
	for <dotslash@...soft.com>; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 19:36:57 -0400 (EDT)
	(envelope-from dotslash@...soft.com)
Received: from snosoft.com (dhcp065-024-224-154.insight.rr.com [65.24.224.154])
	by clmboh1-smtp3.columbus.rr.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g8BNelT08385;
	Wed, 11 Sep 2002 19:40:48 -0400 (EDT)


Bunk headers....

>From - Wed Sep 11 19:40:42 2002
X-UIDL: c1ccefd0b4bd452a
X-Mozilla-Status: 0003
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-Path: <full-disclosure-admin@...ts.netsys.com>
Received: from netsys.com (NETSYS.COM [199.201.233.10])
	by mail.snosoft.com (8.12.5/10.10.10) with ESMTP id g8BNWi3p079632;
	Wed, 11 Sep 2002 19:32:48 -0400 (EDT)
	(envelope-from full-disclosure-admin@...ts.netsys.com)
Received: from NETSYS.COM (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by netsys.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g8BNWfK15205;
	Wed, 11 Sep 2002 19:32:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from m0.netfirms.com (m0.netfirms.com [209.171.43.51])
	by netsys.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g8BNUfK14891
	for <full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com>; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 19:30:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (qmail 56898 invoked from network); 11 Sep 2002 23:30:40 -0000
Received: from unknown (qmqpc@....168.60.10)
  by m0.netfirms.com with QMQP; 11 Sep 2002 23:30:40 -0000

-KF



KF wrote:

> Hahah nice spoof dick nose.
> -KF
>
>
> KF wrote:
>
>> Who's Afraid of Iraq?
>> by Gary Leupp
>>
>> "Those who favor this attack now will tell you candidly, and 
>> privately, that it is probably true that Saddam Hussein is no threat 
>> to the United States. But they are afraid at some point he might 
>> decide if he had a nuclear weapon to use it against Israel."
>> Gen. Wesley Clark, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, CNN military 
>> consultant, in a Guardian interview (Aug. 20)
>>
>> Now there's a quotation to ponder. President Bush has said on a 
>> number of occasions that Saddam Hussein "must not be allowed to 
>> threaten the U.S. and its friends and allies" (plural) with weapons 
>> of mass destruction. This is the official, public justification for 
>> war on Iraq.
>>
>> But what does the statement mean, exactly? In February the CIA 
>> declared that it had no evidence for any Iraqi terrorist attacks on 
>> Americans since the Bush I assassination attempt in Kuwait in 1993, 
>> and never any on U.S. soil. Saddam's missiles can't come close to the 
>> U.S. They can reach Moscow, but the Russians aren't concerned; 
>> they're signing a $ 40 billion economic and trade cooperation package 
>> with Iraq. Iraq's missiles can reach Sicily, but the Europeans aren't 
>> concerned; they firmly oppose U.S. war plans. Iraq's neighbors, 
>> including U.S. friends Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, even 
>> Kuwait, say they don't feel threatened by Iraq and also oppose a war. 
>> Emphatically. Only Israel's Prime Minister Sharon is egging 
>> Washington on. So, taking our cue from plain-talking soldier Clark 
>> (who has taken the trouble to write an editorial for the London Times 
>> urging a cautious approach to war with Iraq), we can fairly restate 
>> Bush's declaration cited above as follows: "The U.S. !
>> must not allow Saddam Hussein to ever, ever threaten our friend 
>> Israel with weapons of mass destruction." Israel, that is to say, 
>> constitutes a unique category in Bushite geopolitical thinking, as 
>> the nation that must never, ever have to factor into its defense 
>> strategy the existence of WMDs held by any hostile nation. The 22 
>> Arab nations, meanwhile, constitute another distinct set: these are 
>> nations that must never, ever acquire WMDs, especially nukes, because 
>> Arabs might use them against Israel. (Whether or not such thinking is 
>> reasonable and valid, it's best to just state it honestly, lest we 
>> abominate our lips with Bush-like incoherence or Rumsfeld-like 
>> doublespeak. See Proverbs 8:7).
>>
>> Israel is obviously concerned about Iraq's weapons programs. In June 
>> 1981 it bombed and destroyed the Osiraq nuclear reactor in Iraq, 
>> which the French had taken a lot of trouble to build, saying Iraq was 
>> five to ten years away from acquiring nuclear weapons. The action was 
>> illegal, of course, condemned by the UN and even (mildly) by the U.S. 
>> The concern of the settler state was not entirely unrealistic; ten 
>> years later, during the Gulf War, Iraq lobbed Scuds at it. But as 
>> everyone knows, Israel is itself an (undeclared) nuclear power, and 
>> its nukes similarly cause concern throughout the region. (It's 
>> interesting to note, though, that while the U.S. cut off aid to both 
>> Pakistan and India after they joined the nuclear club, Israel didn't 
>> even get a slap on the wrist when it went nuclear, ca. 1973). In any 
>> case, Israel, as it showed by the Osiraq attack, can probably take 
>> care of itself, just like Pakistan can take care of itself vis-?-vis 
>> India, India vis-?-vis China, China vi!
>> s-?-vis Russia, etc. The chief of staff of the Israeli Defense Forces 
>> himself, Moshe Ya'alon, recently told Ha'aretz that "In the long 
>> term, the threat of Iraq or Hezbollah doesn't make me lose sleep."
>> For obvious reasons, there is a great deal of hostility towards the 
>> Jewish state in the Arab world. Egypt and Jordan have recognized 
>> Israel, and have trade and diplomatic relations, but then, they are 
>> U.S. client states (Egypt receiving $ 2 billion a year in U.S. aid), 
>> and even in them, in what Colin Powell calls "the Arab street," there 
>> is outrage towards the treatment of Palestinians in the occupied 
>> territories. As the largest, most populous, most "modernized" Arab 
>> nation in Southwest Asia that is not a U.S. ally or client state, 
>> Iraq could, especially in the absence of a solution to the 
>> Israel-Palestine problem, pose a challenge to Israel even under a 
>> leader far kinder and gentler than Saddam Hussein.
>> One can easily imagine even a "democratically elected" leader in a 
>> secular government in Baghdad thinking, "Israel has nukes. Russia, to 
>> our north, has nukes. So do China, Pakistan, and India. Our 
>> unfriendly neighbor Iran has a nuclear program. Don't I owe it to my 
>> people to acquire them for our defense-indeed, for the defense of the 
>> entire Arab nation?" "Democratically elected" leaders of India have 
>> for years felt that obtaining nukes was a reasonable enterprise. 
>> Turns out that successive Australian governments have been pursuing a 
>> nuclear weapons program, and that Argentina has sought one. Is it 
>> satanic for technically advanced nations to want to follow in the 
>> footsteps of the U.S., U.S.S.R., Britain, France and China---or 
>> merely normal?
>> It seems as though some very powerful people in Washington think the 
>> only way to prevent Iraq from eventually following the course of 
>> these other normal nations, and acquiring nukes that could some day 
>> be targeted at Israel (just as Israel has nukes targeted at Iraq), is 
>> for the U.S. to occupy Iraq and create a new government that will 
>> play ball like those in Egypt and Jordan. They've been urging an 
>> attack on Iraq for years, long before Sept. 11 gave them an 
>> opportunity to push their agenda (through crude attempts to link Iraq 
>> with al-Qaeda-which continue through reports citing unnamed 
>> government sources, citing classified reports that strain one's 
>> credulity). But (as Madeleine Albright has recently stated) the issue 
>> is not really U.S. security. Nor is it the security of other Arab 
>> nations, and surely (from the U.S. government's point of view) not 
>> that of the biggest victim of Iraqi aggression, Iran (lumped into the 
>> "Axis of Evil" along with Iraq, and also targeted for "regi!
>> me change"). Rather, it's the enhancement, to the nth degree, of the 
>> security of an Israel already armed to the teeth and capable of 
>> nuking Iraq or Syria or lots of other places, big-time. It's what 
>> Scott Ritter has called the "ideological" motivation for an Iraq attack.
>>
>> I'm not saying that the proponents of the forthcoming Iraq War aren't 
>> also thinking about oil, and a range of other geopolitical issues. 
>> I'm simply observing that defense of "our friends" in official 
>> statements really means defense of Israel, through the establishment 
>> of a kind of "no-fly zone" from the Khyber Pass to the Jordan River, 
>> making Israel absolutely safe from Muslim neighbors who presently 
>> resent its (nuclear) existence. But is it rational and moral to send 
>> American troops to create that imagined sea of tranquility, 
>> establishing client-states which, Egypt-like, trade acceptance of the 
>> Zionist project for massive infusions of Marshall Plan-type U.S. aid? 
>> Is the project feasible, the goal just, the method even legal? Is it 
>> really likely even to enhance the security of Israeli Jews, Israeli 
>> Palestinians, and Palestinians in the occupied territories? 
>> Personally, I don't think so. I think it's a recipe for apocalyptic 
>> blowback. You want more terrorists? Follow the reci!
>> pe.
>> "We're all members of the Likud now," a (Democratic) U.S. senator 
>> told a visiting Israeli politician in Washington. That's very scary. 
>> It's scary when a U.S. Congressional delegation visits Ariel Sharon 
>> at the height of his invasion of the West Bank, officially opposed by 
>> the Bush administration, to assure him that he has their full 
>> support; or when House Republican Leader Dick Armey cheerfully tells 
>> Chris Matthews on CNN's Hardball, "I'm content to have Israel grab 
>> the entire West Bank" and that the Palestinians should just get out 
>> of there. When Defense Secretary Rumsfeld opines to a Pentagon 
>> audience that Israel's "so-called territories" are really legitimate 
>> spoils of war, or when a RAND researcher at the Pentagon calls Saudi 
>> Arabia the "kernel of evil" and advocates the creation of a 
>> U.S.-sponsored oil state in Eastern Arabia, one has to feel scared. 
>> Scared about the rage, not just on the Arab street, but on the global 
>> street, that the Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz plan for the wo!
>> rld is likely to generate towards even decent, honest, peace-loving 
>> Americans (who are already, in their foreign travels, finding it 
>> convenient to impersonate Canadians). The craziness may be spinning 
>> out of control.
>> Steering the hijacked ship of state, energized by an ideology as 
>> threatening to world peace as the doctrines of the Taliban, are a 
>> cabal of men and women who are prepared to provoke the Muslim world 
>> (no, the entire world) by actions that even senior Republicans like 
>> Henry Kissinger, Lawrence Eagleburger and Brent Snowcroft seem to 
>> consider unwise. What to call the members of this warmongering cabal? 
>> If we're talking about "Islamist extremists," how should we label 
>> these folks? "Judeo-Christianist-Zionist fundamentalist imperialist 
>> extremists"? Nah, that's too many "---ists." So I propose just 
>> "crazies," who unfortunately, by some random (just possibly 
>> reversible) fluke of our planetary history, have acquired the ability 
>> to threaten the whole human race, your friends and mine---Christians, 
>> Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists and everybody else----with 
>> weapons of mass destruction.
>>
>> Gary Leupp is an an associate professor, Department of History, Tufts 
>> University and coordinator, Asian Studies Program.
>>
>> He can be reached at: gleupp@...ts.edu
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
>> Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists