From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Thu Sep 12 2002 - 01:02:52 MDT
On 11 Sep 2002 at 22:59, Mermaid . wrote:
> [Joe Pees]This is like the pot calling the kettle a cauldron.
>
> [MerdeMade]I was only asking for the lies you uttered. So far I have
> gotten from your rant that I disagree with certain americans who
> promote hateful war for the wrong reasons. This is reason enough to
> accuse me of anti-americanism along with scores of other
> "anti-american americans". You still havent furnished the proof that I
> have criticised United States today or that I have expressed
> anti-american sentiments in the past year.
>
The war that is being proposed is not hateful; it is self-protective. But
you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge same.
>
> [Joe Dees]No, your antiamerican rantings have been put on display - by
> yourself - for all to see.
>
> [MerdeMade]You accused me. I am asking you to back it up. How do the
> 'others' come into the picture? Let me ask you again, how has my
> 'antiamerican rantings' been on display. That accusation implies that
> I said something that is hostile to the United States of America. I
> did not. I am against the third rate journalists you call your
> 'source'.
>
And I have also provided a list of these merdeMade-labeled 'third-rate
journalists' they include some of the foremost scholars in their field, and
their articles were taken from the most prestigious and illustrious
journals currently extant. Your mischaracterization is a sideways lie.
>
> [Joe Pees]I am concerned with our national and global defence, and
> with challenging those who would council us to forgo it.
>
> [MerdeMade]I am concerned too. But spitting vicious rumours of
> 'anti-american' sentiments isn't going to help national and global
> defence.
>
When you characterize a prudent proposed self-defensive pre-emptive
conventional action designed to forfend nuclear catastrophe as 'hateful
war' and those who counsel in favor of it as 'warmongers', I see no
other way to characterize your attitude.
>
> [Joe Dees]You criticized the Afghanistan action we undertook in
> response to it.
>
> [MerdeMade]Furnish proof that my comments were anti-american. That is
> what you squirted.
>
To oppose an action against those who had engineered the deaths of
three thousand of mostly American civilian citizens in her largest city,
and who had pledged to perpetrate more of the same, is itself anti-
american.
>
> [Joe Pees]The 'third-rate journalists' you have seen fit to criticize
> include Samuel P.Huntington, Bernard Lewis, Lee Harris, Graham Fuller
> and Robert Kagan,published in prestigious journals such as FOREIGN
> AFFAIRS and POLICY REVIEW, and you do so on the basis of writings by
> marginal figures unworthy to carry their jockstraps.
>
> [MerdeMade]As a student of journalism, I have always been interested in
> the workings of the media. I have limited my contributions to the list
> about my observations on the media and its failure to perform its
> duties. Unlike you, I don't have a point of view to sell or an agenda
> to promote.
>
Then why are you so persistently trying to sell the 'don't defend
yourselves' agenda?
>
> So, I am under no pressure to lie. You are a man who
> thinks Daniel Pipes and David Horowitz are quotable 'journalists'.
> Enough said.
>
Some of what they, Christopher Hitchens and Andrew Sullivan have
had to say is much more relevant than the dreck posted from the likes
of Chomsky and the denizens of the Guardian, the Progressive and the
Yellow News
>
> BTW, can you please tell me which are the articles by the
> above 'prestigous' folks that you quoted and how many of them have I
> disagreed with...also I'd like to make it very clear that I am only
> familiar with Samuel.P.Huntington's Clash of Civilisations. Can you
> please furnish the link to his publication in FOREIGN AFFAIRS and
> POLICY REVIEW? Did I criticise that one too? You have to tell me
> because I am just playing along as you are making things up. I wouldnt
> know who I disagreed with from the list of your alleged first class
> sources who, of course, have been published in 'prestigous' journals.
> I disagree with the essence of their writings and third rate
> journalists are third rate journalists because of what they write and
> they do not become shining examples of great journalism just because
> they are published in 'prestigous' journals like FOREIGN AFFAIRS and
> POLICY REVIEW. I dont remember names and the names of the
> 'prestigious' journals like you do. But then again, you need to. Poor
> thing, what else have you got.
>
First, FOREIGN AFFAIRS magazine:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/
Samuel P. Huntington published the paper he later expanded into the
book THE CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS in FOREIGN AFFAIRS
magazine in the Summer 1993 issue; he published the essay THE
LONELY SUPERPOWER in the March/April 1999 issue. Bernard Lewis
published THE WEST AND THE MIDDLE EAST in the
January/February 1997 issue, and LICENSE TO KILL: USAMA BIN
LADIN'S DECLARATION OF JIHAD in the November/December 1998
issue. Graham E. Fuller published the essay THE FUTURE OF
POLITICAL ISLAM in the March/April 2002 issue.
Next, POLICY REVIEW magazine:
http://www.policyreview.org/
Robert Kagan published POWER AND WEAKNESS in POLICY
REVIEW # 113. Lee Harris published AL QUAEDA'S FANTASY
IDEOLOGY in POLICY REVIEW # 114. Stanley Kurtz published THE
FUTURE OF "HISTORY", a comparison of Huntington (The Clash of
Civilizations) and Fukuyama (The End of History and the Last Man), in
POLICY REVIEW # 113.
On to the New Yorker.
http://www.newyorker.com/
Bernard Lewis published THE REVOLT OF ISLAM in the 11/19/2001
issue
And now for The Atlantic Monthly.
http://www.theatlantic.com/
Bernard Lewis published WHAT WENT WRONG? in the January 2002
issue, and THE ROOTS OF MUSLIM RAGE in the September 1990
issue.
> _________________________________________________________________ Send
> and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:57 MDT