Re: Re: O.T. a link/WARNING!!! - For Terry

November 1, 2001

Oh C'mon ! You aren't talking about Terry's personal views are you?

That anyone could possibly characterize her as " very biased indeed to the

extreme right " is absurd. As usual, you stoop to character assassination

when someone disagrees with you. Terry did not refer to you in her posts

although she was very upset by your post.

You know. I think it's kind of insulting that anyone would think we're

incapable of finding the kind of information you're posting on our own. Or,

even worse, that we didn't know that it exists.

Perhaps, you should understand that we didn't want this war. It was brought

to us by people that crossed our borders, killed 5K+ of our citizens in our

own land, tried to assassinate our President, probably tried to wipe out our

Capitol Building and hit our Pentagon. What is that but an act of war? It

was far worse than Pearl Harbor yet I don't recall reading about anyone

anywhere (except maybe Germans and the Japanese) that would have wanted us

to keep out of WWII. In fact, I'm sure most of Europe was glad when we

entered the war. What if we wouldn't have? I think of the people that did

what they did on 9/11 as the same type as Hitler.

Reading up on the history of these kinds of groups, I fully support what we

are doing. They have been plotting for over 15 years to do this kind of

thing. War is very ugly and there will be a lot of innocent deaths on both

sides. That it has been state sponsored makes it even worse. But they left

us with little choice.

Take care,

O.T. a link

> >

> > A must read.

> > It's absolutely necessary to take action soon, friends.

> >

> > http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?

story=100895

> >

> > More articles by this honest unbiased author can be found at the

> > Independent's search machine. All of them are worth reading.

> >

> > My best to you all.

> >

> > .

> >

Terry,

I've been at this community since the very first day, I've posted

many messages indeed (too many, in my opinion) and never have I

quoted unreliable references. Never means *never. I haven't abused of

OT either, and in case I'm not being objective, don't hesitate

correcting me. If you're right I'll assume it.

So your big WARNING, wasn't really necessary, as far as I never

misled the fellow listers here, as indicated above. Your WARNING

rather was meant to discount my opinion and, you'll agree with me

that it is not fair play. You're entitled to have your own opinion,

but. you're courteously requested to respect those of other's.

It must also be taken into consideration that fellow listers here are

grown up people who can freely choice opening an OT-message or not,

reading the article or not, and buying its opinions or not. Anyway, I

understand that you are under big pressure now, and this highly

censored and heavy pro-war propaganda you're having, makes Fisk's

humanitarian appeal, which I heartedly second, appear as politically

incorrect. Though it is not.

This is the second time you allude to Chomsky, whom you've already

disqualified in an older post, stating that he was a sham. This

comment surprised me, as far as he is a very respected intellectual

in this part of the world, and a lucid analyst indeed.

Even the New York Times, semi-official spokesman of the American

elite, had to admit -though reluctantly- that he is " arguably the

most important intellectual alive " . This praise is remarkable, if we

consider that the New York Times is a main target for Chomsky's

eloquent criticisms.

Chomsky is one of the most important linguists in the world, and most

of his life has been dedicated to the study of disinformation, and

how this is used and administered in order to make population act

against their own interests and in favour of the privileged

minorities.

So, you are entitled to your opinion, for sure, and you may well not

like neither him, nor his analysis. However, labelling him this way

makes no justice to his credentials.

And labelling Fisk as " politically to the left of Chomsky and

his ilk " , " about as unbiased as a trip to a Taliban pep rally "

and " tripe " , is very biased indeed to the extreme right. So. it well

may show, not how on the left he is, but how far on the right you

are. Agree?. Again, you are entitled to your political (and whatever)

options. So, please, don't take this as judgemental.

Fisk's article I mentioned is a *very *humanitarian insight on what

is cynically called as " collateral damage " , focusing in this case on

the terrible human disaster, the genocide, that is about to be

committed to 7.500.000.- innocent torn Afghans, by us, the civilised

west. As far as the campaign is called a " war " , I wonder how would

you like the innocent victims of WTC being called " collateral

damage " . Indecent, isn't it?. Then we agree.

Indecent denomination " collateral damage " is.

What Fist couldn't predict when he edited the article is that today a

barrage would be bombed, same as the earthbanks at the rice camps in

Vietnam had been bombed many years ago. So, some more million people

should be added to the 7.500.000.- already estimated by the United

Nations' urgent alarm in September past.

Again, Fisk is an honest unbiased author, as I stated, and yet

more, he is a prominent specialist in Near and Middle East area.

For your information:

Here you have Fisk's Profile.

(ref: http://msanews.mynet.net/Scholars/Fisk/)

Profile

Born and educated in England, Fisk, is currently living in

Beirut. He is the Middle East correspondent for the London

Independent (home icon on left). Has a Ph.D. in Political Science

from Trinity College, Dublin (1985) and has received an honorary

degree in Journalism from the University of Lancaster. He was the

Irish correspondent of the London " Times " based in Balfast between

1971 and 1975. From 1976 till present he has been reporting from the

Middle East. He has covered the Israeli invasions of Lebanon (1978

and 1982), the Iranian Revolution (1979), the Iran-Iraq war (1980 -

1988), The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (1980), The Gulf war

(1991), the war in Bosnia (1992 - 1996) and the Algerian conflict

(1992 - onward).

He has been the recipient of:

-Amnesty International Overall Media Award, 1998.

-British International Journalist of the Year Award (seven times,

most recently in 1995 and 1996).

-United Nations Press Award, 1986.

-s Hopkins SIAS-CIBA prize for international journalism, 1996.

Sincerely,

PS- I would like to have replied this sooner, but I have not much

spare time, hence the delay. However, I wanted to make these comments

to you. I'll try not to post O.T. again, anyway.

J.

-------------------------------------

The Graves' list is intended for informational purposes only and is not

intended to replace expert medical care.

Please consult your doctor before changing or trying new treatments.

----------------------------------------

DISCLAIMER

Advertisments placed on this yahoo groups list does not have the endorsement

of

the listowner. I have no input as to what ads are attached to emails.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------

November 2, 2001

I fully agree with . No one likes war, not even I. I have family and

friends in the military. But, I also have a family to raise and I don't

think the U.S. can stand back and do nothing.

Yes, innocent people will be killed. On 9/11 innocent people were killed

also and alot of those people were the same people that have jobs to protect

us in our daily life. My family is involved with the fire dept., my husband

used to work for the sheriffs dept. This touched home with us.

Debbie R.

>

> Reply-To: graves_support

> Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 20:53:46 -0800

> To: <graves_support >

> Subject: Re: Re: O.T. a link/WARNING!!! - For Terry

>

> Oh C'mon ! You aren't talking about Terry's personal views are you?

> That anyone could possibly characterize her as " very biased indeed to the

> extreme right " is absurd. As usual, you stoop to character assassination

> when someone disagrees with you. Terry did not refer to you in her posts

> although she was very upset by your post.

>

> You know. I think it's kind of insulting that anyone would think we're

> incapable of finding the kind of information you're posting on our own. Or,

> even worse, that we didn't know that it exists.

>

> Perhaps, you should understand that we didn't want this war. It was brought

> to us by people that crossed our borders, killed 5K+ of our citizens in our

> own land, tried to assassinate our President, probably tried to wipe out our

> Capitol Building and hit our Pentagon. What is that but an act of war? It

> was far worse than Pearl Harbor yet I don't recall reading about anyone

> anywhere (except maybe Germans and the Japanese) that would have wanted us

> to keep out of WWII. In fact, I'm sure most of Europe was glad when we

> entered the war. What if we wouldn't have? I think of the people that did

> what they did on 9/11 as the same type as Hitler.

>

> Reading up on the history of these kinds of groups, I fully support what we

> are doing. They have been plotting for over 15 years to do this kind of

> thing. War is very ugly and there will be a lot of innocent deaths on both

> sides. That it has been state sponsored makes it even worse. But they left

> us with little choice.

>

> Take care,

>

> O.T. a link

>>>

>>> A must read.

>>> It's absolutely necessary to take action soon, friends.

>>>

>>> http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?

> story=100895

>>>

>>> More articles by this honest unbiased author can be found at the

>>> Independent's search machine. All of them are worth reading.

>>>

>>> My best to you all.

>>>

>>> .

>>>

>

> Terry,

>

> I've been at this community since the very first day, I've posted

> many messages indeed (too many, in my opinion) and never have I

> quoted unreliable references. Never means *never. I haven't abused of

> OT either, and in case I'm not being objective, don't hesitate

> correcting me. If you're right I'll assume it.

>

> So your big WARNING, wasn't really necessary, as far as I never

> misled the fellow listers here, as indicated above. Your WARNING

> rather was meant to discount my opinion and, you'll agree with me

> that it is not fair play. You're entitled to have your own opinion,

> but. you're courteously requested to respect those of other's.

>

> It must also be taken into consideration that fellow listers here are

> grown up people who can freely choice opening an OT-message or not,

> reading the article or not, and buying its opinions or not. Anyway, I

> understand that you are under big pressure now, and this highly

> censored and heavy pro-war propaganda you're having, makes Fisk's

> humanitarian appeal, which I heartedly second, appear as politically

> incorrect. Though it is not.

>

> This is the second time you allude to Chomsky, whom you've already

> disqualified in an older post, stating that he was a sham. This

> comment surprised me, as far as he is a very respected intellectual

> in this part of the world, and a lucid analyst indeed.

>

> Even the New York Times, semi-official spokesman of the American

> elite, had to admit -though reluctantly- that he is " arguably the

> most important intellectual alive " . This praise is remarkable, if we

> consider that the New York Times is a main target for Chomsky's

> eloquent criticisms.

>

> Chomsky is one of the most important linguists in the world, and most

> of his life has been dedicated to the study of disinformation, and

> how this is used and administered in order to make population act

> against their own interests and in favour of the privileged

> minorities.

>

> So, you are entitled to your opinion, for sure, and you may well not

> like neither him, nor his analysis. However, labelling him this way

> makes no justice to his credentials.

>

> And labelling Fisk as " politically to the left of Chomsky and

> his ilk " , " about as unbiased as a trip to a Taliban pep rally "

> and " tripe " , is very biased indeed to the extreme right. So. it well

> may show, not how on the left he is, but how far on the right you

> are. Agree?. Again, you are entitled to your political (and whatever)

> options. So, please, don't take this as judgemental.

>

> Fisk's article I mentioned is a *very *humanitarian insight on what

> is cynically called as " collateral damage " , focusing in this case on

> the terrible human disaster, the genocide, that is about to be

> committed to 7.500.000.- innocent torn Afghans, by us, the civilised

> west. As far as the campaign is called a " war " , I wonder how would

> you like the innocent victims of WTC being called " collateral

> damage " . Indecent, isn't it?. Then we agree.

> Indecent denomination " collateral damage " is.

>

> What Fist couldn't predict when he edited the article is that today a

> barrage would be bombed, same as the earthbanks at the rice camps in

> Vietnam had been bombed many years ago. So, some more million people

> should be added to the 7.500.000.- already estimated by the United

> Nations' urgent alarm in September past.

>

> Again, Fisk is an honest unbiased author, as I stated, and yet

> more, he is a prominent specialist in Near and Middle East area.

>

> For your information:

>

> Here you have Fisk's Profile.

> (ref: http://msanews.mynet.net/Scholars/Fisk/)

>

> Profile

>

> Born and educated in England, Fisk, is currently living in

> Beirut. He is the Middle East correspondent for the London

> Independent (home icon on left). Has a Ph.D. in Political Science

> from Trinity College, Dublin (1985) and has received an honorary

> degree in Journalism from the University of Lancaster. He was the

> Irish correspondent of the London " Times " based in Balfast between

> 1971 and 1975. From 1976 till present he has been reporting from the

> Middle East. He has covered the Israeli invasions of Lebanon (1978

> and 1982), the Iranian Revolution (1979), the Iran-Iraq war (1980 -

> 1988), The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (1980), The Gulf war

> (1991), the war in Bosnia (1992 - 1996) and the Algerian conflict

> (1992 - onward).

>

> He has been the recipient of:

>

> -Amnesty International Overall Media Award, 1998.

> -British International Journalist of the Year Award (seven times,

> most recently in 1995 and 1996).

> -United Nations Press Award, 1986.

> -s Hopkins SIAS-CIBA prize for international journalism, 1996.

>

> Sincerely,

>

> PS- I would like to have replied this sooner, but I have not much

> spare time, hence the delay. However, I wanted to make these comments

> to you. I'll try not to post O.T. again, anyway.

>

> J.

>

> -------------------------------------

> The Graves' list is intended for informational purposes only and is not

> intended to replace expert medical care.

> Please consult your doctor before changing or trying new treatments.

> ----------------------------------------

> DISCLAIMER

>

> Advertisments placed on this yahoo groups list does not have the endorsement

> of

> the listowner. I have no input as to what ads are attached to emails.

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

> ----------

>

November 2, 2001

To everyone who's expressed their desire to end all this, I promise this is

my last post on the subject! Next thing that's posted here, I'll IGNORE and

won't even read. I know I've escalated this stuff over time, rather than

having the opposite and more desirable effect of ending the debate, I just

can't seem to let it go by right now. I am really more interested in keeping

this a GD forum, and know that there is a selfishness to taking up space

here with politics. The fact remains here that I reacted to 's post a

while ago, and replied to me personally at this point, and I have to

reply again--and if I do it privately, some of you may wonder where I am and

why I never did answer. So, I am stuck again in a dilemma of my own making,

and you needn't read the rest if you don't want to. On The Other Hand...a

little healthy debate is a good exercise to prove that GD fogged brain still

works...

Terry

,

I may be hot headed when it comes to reacting to this threat to all I and

other Americans hold dear, but I will not apologize for being so. Any more

that you need to apologize for holding your views. Freedom of expression of

all points of view is the basis for this great country. My warning didn't

preclude anyone reading what you posted.

Just one informational thing though--from your vantage point, the NY Times

may seem to be the semi-official spokes-paper for the U.S. elite, however, a

rather substantial segment of the population holds very little respect for

its decidedly unbalanced political slant. You may not have known that, but

as someone who grew up in New York, and who reads widely, I assure you it's

true. Even as the child of New York intellectuals back in the '50's, my

family found it too slanted to subscribe to. Except for the Sunday paper

which my mom got for the extensive fashion and arts coverage it contained.

It hasn't changed politically since then, although, not being a fashion

person at all, I can't testify to the continued inclusion of that section.

If you would like an alternative New York paper to read, I highly recommend

that you try the Wall St. Journal, for an informative and quite balanced

presentation of events. Their daily op ed. section is the best I've found

anywhere, drawing on a wide selection of commentators with excellent

credentials, and presenting very astute analysis of many pressing issues. I

believe you can access it on line as well, if it's not delivered where you

live.

Finally, to say that Chomsky is a man who has dedicated his life to studying

disinformation -- well, I agree, he's clearly become a master at it, from

everything I've ever read of his.

There is nothing I would more love to see than a positive, peaceful end to

all of what 's going on right now. As a reader of history, I strongly

believe that there is only one way to achieve that--through strength of

will, of character, and of action.

Terry

> From: j_alicia39@...

> Reply-To: graves_support

> Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2001 02:13:10 -0000

> To: graves_support

> Subject: Re: O.T. a link/WARNING!!! - For Terry

>

>> Just a warning to all of you who are not politically to the Left of

> Noam

>> Chomsky and his ilk, this is about as unbiased as a trip to a

> Taliban pep

>> rally. Can't we just have a Graves Group without this tripe?

>>

>> Terry

>>

>>> From: j_alicia39@h...

>>> Reply-To: graves_support@y...

>>> Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 01:13:55 -0000

>>> To: graves_support@y...

>>> Subject: O.T. a link

>>>

>>> A must read.

>>> It's absolutely necessary to take action soon, friends.

>>>

>>> http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?

> story=100895

>>>

>>> More articles by this honest unbiased author can be found at the

>>> Independent's search machine. All of them are worth reading.

>>>

>>> My best to you all.

>>>

>>> .

>>>

>

> Terry,

>

> I've been at this community since the very first day, I've posted

> many messages indeed (too many, in my opinion) and never have I

> quoted unreliable references. Never means *never. I haven't abused of

> OT either, and in case I'm not being objective, don't hesitate

> correcting me. If you're right I'll assume it.

>

> So your big WARNING, wasn't really necessary, as far as I never

> misled the fellow listers here, as indicated above. Your WARNING

> rather was meant to discount my opinion and, you'll agree with me

> that it is not fair play. You're entitled to have your own opinion,

> but… you're courteously requested to respect those of other's.

>

> It must also be taken into consideration that fellow listers here are

> grown up people who can freely choice opening an OT-message or not,

> reading the article or not, and buying its opinions or not. Anyway, I

> understand that you are under big pressure now, and this highly

> censored and heavy pro-war propaganda you're having, makes Fisk's

> humanitarian appeal, which I heartedly second, appear as politically

> incorrect. Though it is not.

>

> This is the second time you allude to Chomsky, whom you've already

> disqualified in an older post, stating that he was a sham. This

> comment surprised me, as far as he is a very respected intellectual

> in this part of the world, and a lucid analyst indeed.

>

> Even the New York Times, semi-official spokesman of the American

> elite, had to admit –though reluctantly- that he is " arguably the

> most important intellectual alive " . This praise is remarkable, if we

> consider that the New York Times is a main target for Chomsky's

> eloquent criticisms.

>

> Chomsky is one of the most important linguists in the world, and most

> of his life has been dedicated to the study of disinformation, and

> how this is used and administered in order to make population act

> against their own interests and in favour of the privileged

> minorities.

>

> So, you are entitled to your opinion, for sure, and you may well not

> like neither him, nor his analysis. However, labelling him this way

> makes no justice to his credentials.

>

> And labelling Fisk as " politically to the left of Chomsky and

> his ilk " , " about as unbiased as a trip to a Taliban pep rally "

> and " tripe " , is very biased indeed to the extreme right. So… it well