Hi Hakan >Hi Keith, > >What a petty, I looked forward to discuss my knowledge of >history and especially Guernica.
Yes, a pity - I don't imagine you were actually smarting at being told your education was incompetent and you obviously know nothing about history, but people who say such things with such abandon and get it all wrong ought perhaps to learn a little caution and respect (stony ground indeed in this case though I fear). I'd have enjoyed the discussion. I appreciate the comparison, I believe it's a useful one, especially in light of the most recent shameful event in the painting's history, that of the UN covering it up for Powell's presentation. It seems there's more than one comparison possible, eh? Interesting to compare the comparisons! >As you probably remember, >I got a very good insight of the events in and around Guernica >1962, when I participated in doing an award winning radio >program about it. Many interviews with survivors and other >participants. When I say that it is many parallels in goals >and execution, I mean it. I agree, I know enough about it to see the parallels. The painting is such a powerful condemnation. What would Picasso have said today? What would he tell someone like Paul? Someone like Powell and the UN, like Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush? Saddam Hussein? Imagine the Pope, the Dalai Lama, and Picasso, and the painting too, all defiantly in Baghdad now? >As well as I belive that for the >Arab world, US have created a Guernica with "shock and >awe" in Baghdad. Not everybody share the childish enthusiasm, >for show and firework that Rumsfeld exposed Donald Rumsfeld on CNN 'live': "These people [Iraq] bomb innocent people when they hit the World Trade Centers killing innocent civilians." There is no evidence whatsoever connecting Iraq with al-Qaeda and 9-11. A recent poll found that 42% of Americans now believe Saddam Hussein was responsible for the Sept 11 attacks and not Osama bin Laden. "Few of us can easily surrender our belief that society must somehow make sense. The thought that the State has lost its mind and is punishing so many innocent people is intolerable. And so the evidence has to be internally denied." - Arthur Miller >and that seems >to be a part of the American attitudes. Some, not others - maybe not even most. Kirk sent me these poll results: Earth Changes TV - Iraqi War Survey Results Iraqi War Survey Results The following is the result of 725 survey responses. This is not a scientific poll, but is believed to be accurate within +/- 3%. Thank you for your participation. Can a person be against the war, yet support the troops: YES: 78% NO: 21% Do you believe George W. Bush had sufficient world support to attack: YES: 33% NO: 67% Do you believe North Korea poses a greater threat than Iraq: YES: 68% NO: 32% Do you believe Saddam Hussain is alive or dead: ALIVE: 86% DEAD: 14% Do you believe foreign occupation of Iraq will be more or less than 1 year: MORE: 78% LESS: 22% Do you believe there is a connection between 9-11 (al-Qaeda) and Iraq: YES: 34% NO: 66% Do you believe there is international support for US actions: YES: 23% NO: 76% Do you believe there is world support for the Iraqi invasion: YES: 27% NO: 72% Do you believe there will be an international fall-out for US actions: YES: 78% NO: 22% Do you believe there will be terrorist attacks on US soil: YES: 80% NO: 20% Do you plan to re-elect George W. Bush: YES: 24% NO: 76% Do you plan to vote in 2004: YES: 92% NO: 8% Should American troops attack Syria and Iran while in Iraq: YES: 8% NO: 92% Should US troops attack North Korea now or wait for 1st strike: WAIT: 88% NOW: 12% Will a terrorist attack harm US citizens in more or less than 1 week: MORE: 77% LESS: 23% Would you like ECTV to continue coverage of war/invasion events: YES: 75% NO: 25% Try a Google search for "impeach Bush" and see what you find, rather interesting. >I think that expressing >shame and sadness would have been a more appropriate >reaction and those few journalists who did that are worth a >lot of respect. They're there, quite a few of them - the journalists, that is, the real ones. The media outlets, well, that's another matter. >Our generation understand how important symbolism Guernica >been and how bad it reflected on the perpetrators. I do not think >that the Americans are winning friends in the Arab world and this >kind of humiliation, with lack of respect for the Arab sense of pride >and honor is bound to make the actions backfire in long term. I don't think there's any doubt of that. So many voices of sanity cautioned after Sept 11 against exactly this path that Bush has taken, warning that it would simply be sowing dragon's teeth >Anyway, Paul did not had the guts to stay, recover and make >good. Not a major loss. No, I guess not. I do suspect that what he was really after was "proof" that we suppress pro-war views here, a self-fulfilling prophecy - otherwise it's a bit hard to credit that he could have been so dumb and inept about so many things. Though even as a set-up it was dumb and inept. Oh well. Best Keith >Hakan > > > > >At 12:35 PM 3/24/2003 +0900, you wrote: > >Hi Hakan > > > >So now Paul Schwartz chooses to continue his foolishness off-list by > >writing to you. > > > >He sent me two more letters off-list, both sent to > >"[EMAIL PROTECTED]", but addressing me by name, so he > >knows the score on that well enough. In the first he protested again > >that he'd been booted for his opinions (not!), then in the second it > >finally dawned on him that, as my message had said in the first > >place, his posting privileges had been suspended until he'd > >apologized to Andrew - but that I'd stopped him doing that by banning > >him (not!). > > > >By this time, please take note, his posting privileges had been > >restored, as I'd said on the list, as he had apologized to Andrew > >(though indirectly). So he had in fact, in his bumbling fashion, > >succeeded in submitting his apology, by the obvious route, and had > >not been stopped from doing so, had not been banned, had not been > >"bounced in less than 24 hours", and his posting privileges had been > >restored, as promised, but he hadn't figured that out yet. (This > >person presumes to be teaching me about list management, LOL!) > > > >It's hard to find anything he got right, but this is his conclusion, > >no matter what, and I'm sure it's completely unshakable: > > > > >Good one Keith, I apologize, you ban my posts so they won't go through and > > >then say I wasn't banned, I had my posting privileges revoked until I > > >apologize--but, you won't let me apologize. You know, I think that's > > >really clever. It's clear you want no dissent on your board. So I'll go > > >away, I have to earn a living and this is taking up too much of my time. > > > > > >But, we know what really happened here. > > > > > >Paul > > > >Right from the start, he instantly jumped to the conclusion (along > >with others in the war party) that his precious views were being > >unjustly suppressed - WHILE CRITICIZING ME FOR NOT SUPPRESSING THE > >VIEWS OF THOSE HE DISAGREES WITH, as others in the war party > >continued to do all along, baying for the "USA bashers" to be > >silenced (but not them of course). > > > >And with this ludicrous series of fact-free disconnects he "proves" > >it - Viola! - suppression of his views! And the rest of the war party > >will believe it too. > > > > >But, we know what really happened here. > > > >So he unsubscribed. Despite the incompetence of its delivery, his > >apology to Andrew was accepted, his posting privileges restored as > >promised - everything exactly as promised: but try telling the guy he > >wasn't banned because of his views. Naah, he knows better. From > >below, off-list to Hakan: > > > > > >Second question, when I suffer quietly while my country is bashed by > > those > > > >on the list for weeks and then I decided to talk on all comers and > > defend my > > > >homeland, I get bounced in less than 24 hours. Who acting >like Dr. Joseph > > > >Goerbels here? > > > >See? "Bounced." Nothing about his calling Andrew a fascist of course. > >(From mice to gerbils, LOL!) > > > >He did get a reply: > > > > >>But, we know what really happened here. > > > > > >WE do, but you're just kidding yourself. So what. > > > >Which is about as much as it bothers me. If people want to fool > >themselves, that's their problem. But this kind of weak-minded denial > >and obfuscation here is list-pollution, and that's my problem. So > >he's gone, good riddance. That much less noise. > > > >Keith > > > > > > > > >Paul, > > > > > >Since I learned that you have the posting rights again and I > > >hope that name calling is no longer necessary, I will post > > >may answer on the list as follows, > > > > > >At 11:31 AM 3/23/2003 -0800, you wrote: > > > >My replies to the group have apparently been blocked, although I am > > getting > > > >the posts. So for the time being, I assume my presence is unwelcome > > in the > > > >forum. I did post a reply, but it came back to me. I suggest >you talk to > > > >the list monitor and ask him for a copy, if he still has > > it. Apparently, I > > > >can be called names, but I can't return the favor. I do believe that > > > >Liberals and the Left, in general, are more intolerant of dissent > > than the > > > >conservatives. > > > > > >I fully and completely disagree with your identification of Andrew, > > >even if I agreed I am upset about someone saying it. I have full > > >understanding of Keith reaction and I am happy that you now > > >can post your apology. > > > > > > > > > >The short answer > > > > > >Your answer might to some extent cover the Spanish civil war, > > >but not Guernica. Now it is my turn to wonder if you know what > > >you are talking about. > > > > > > > > > >Spain: > > > > > > > >1. Civil war > > > > > >Yes, and with the Franco's side heavily supported by the Germans. > > >By this "helping" the Spanish people to get rid of the legal > > >Government. > > > > > > > > > >2. Terrorist act committed by the Spanish, and their proxies, on the > > > >Spanish. > > > > > >No, committed by the German pilots and planes, who flew the Stukas > > >used in Guernica. It was the first live test of terror bombing tactics, > > >developed by the Germans. Later frequently used by Germans and > > >the opposite side in WWII. > > > > > > > > > >3. Intended targets were civilians. > > > > > >The target is the psychological effect on the general population, > > >their leaders and the military. In absolute number of civilian > > >casualties (collateral damage) Baghdad is probably larger, > > >but in percentage of the targets population very much smaller. > > >I get sick when I see Rumsfeld purring like a cat, when he talks > > >about it. On the other hand, the German defence minister was > > >probably very pleased with Guernica also. > > > > > > > > > >4. One of the greatest works in the history of art was painted to > > > >commemorate the occasion. > > > > > >By Pablo Picasso and hanging in UN and was covered when Powell > > >and others did the press conferences about Iraq. Was regarded as > > >unsuitable at the occasions. > > > > > > > > > >Iraq: > > > > > > > >1. Saddem is financing wars in other parts of the world. He is no > > different > > > >from John Gotti, he hires killers to do his dirty work. It >doesn't matter > > > >that the killers always die in the attack. > > > > > >The only known financing known was the financial support to families of > > >suicide bombers, which other states in the neighborhood also did. > > > > > > > > > >2. He signed an agreement to stop a "Internationally sanctioned" war > > in 1991 > > > >and has gone back on that agreement. For that reason alone we have the > > > >right to attack. > > > > > >He signed an agreement with UN and not with "we". UN has not > > >sanctioned this attack and occupation. > > > > > > > > > >3. He is harboring those who attacked us and others. He won't give > > them up. > > > >So we claim the right to go get them ourselves. > > > > > >This is not in any way proved and the perception is a propaganda > > >ploy for the American public. > > > > > > > > > >4. Not a civil war. > > > > > >Americans are supporting the Iraqi people to get rid of Saddam? > > > > > >It is done in the name of the suppressed part of the people and > > >as a help to them. I think that US by this is trying to advertise > > >this as a civil war. You are right, it is not, it is an aggression by > > >a foreign power and against the UN charter. What I don't understand > > >is that you are not supporting Bush/Blair on this issue. > > > > > > > > > >5. Our targets are not civilians; true we some time kill or main the > > > >innocent, but so does he. > > > > > >For "shock and awe" the target is the psychological effect on the > > >general population, their leaders and the military. This is what I said > > >and why I compared "shock and awe" with Guernica. I still stand for > > >my impression. > > > > > > > > > >6. Saddams policies are causing the death of about 5000 >children a month > > > >(or do Amnesty Intern. say a year?). We are doing this, "For the > > children." > > > >%^) > > > > > >The UN blockade that US refuse to lift, is the direct cause for those > > >death, nothing else. We can discuss the validity or smartness of the > > >blockade itself, but it is no question that US have been very >hard on this. > > >US thought that by letting the people suffer, Saddam would be removed > > >by the people. If the medicin and starvation was an issue, it has been > > >many attempt by other nations to stop it. > > > > > > > > > >7. No great works of art will commemorate this action. > > > > > >I am not so sure. Maybe a great Arab painter will do something of > > >this also. > > > > > > > > > > > > >Now, answer the question I posed and which was bounced. Would the > > world be > > > >a better place without Saddam in it? > > > > > >Does that have anything to do with the comparison between > > >Guernica and Baghdad? > > > > > > > > > >Second question, when I suffer quietly while my country is bashed by > > those > > > >on the list for weeks and then I decided to talk on all comers and > > defend my > > > >homeland, I get bounced in less than 24 hours. Who acting >like Dr. Joseph > > > >Goerbels here? > > > > > >I think you mean Goebbels and he is recognized as one of the most > > >genius propaganda specialists during the last century, but the cause was > > >despicable. His master who was very impressed by the American way > > >of control of people with propaganda, did find the best in Goebbels. I > > >think that Goebbels choose the wrong account. > > > > > > > > > >Paul ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Your own Online Store Selling our Overstock. http://us.click.yahoo.com/rZll0B/4ftFAA/46VHAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
