"D. Simmons" wrote:
>
> Martin Smith wrote:
> > Are you sure?  How did they know he was Jewish before they kidnapped
> > him?  I still think you are lying.
>
>    So now I am a liar. A liar about something specific, or a liar in general?
> Never mind, your answer would be irrelevant to me.

Obfuscation and rationalization. I asked two questions.  Your verbiage
didn't attempt to answer either one.

> > Unknown. Here's why.  <snip>  What would happen in your
> > hypothetical situation would depend on what was being done to help the
> > Muslim from Pakistan.
>
>   Obfuscation and rationalization. The answer is that the shrieking would
> still be increasing in intensity on this list from fellas like you.

More obfuscation and rationalization.  I gave a clear explanation of why
the answer is unknown.  You deleted it instead of responding to it,
because it wasn't the answer you wanted to hear.

>   More obfuscation and rationalization. The person you are referring to is
> suspected of being shot and killed by a fella who used the WTC attack as an
> excuse. He was quickly arrested and will stand trial for murder. Do I really
> need to point out that the act of this killer was not an organized action
> taken by a group dedicated to the destruction of Jews and America? Do you see
> why your comparison is misleading? Or was that your intention?

More obfuscation and rationalization.  The comparison you are describing
is not one that I made.  The point I tried to make, which you missed
(maybe I wasn't clear), was that I and the "Chomkyites" didn't raise our
voices in indignation about that Sikh case either.  That's what I meant
when I wrote this: "That case didn't raise anywhere near the level of
noise the Daniel Pearl case has," but I guess I should have been more
direct.  Do you see?  You didn't complain when we didn't raise our
voices in indignation about that Sikh.  You only complain when we don't
raise our voices in indignation where you think it proves one of your
obscure and obfuscated ideas.

> Do I really need to point out that the act of this killer was not an
> organized action taken by a group dedicated to the destruction of Jews
> and America?

No.  You don't.  I said it myself, actually in the quote you're
criticizing.  I wrote: The "Sikh gas station operator was murdered in
Utah or someplace around there, APPARENTLY BY BUBBAS BENT ON GETTING
REVENGE."  I put it in caps this time.  Does that sound like I thought
he was killed by an organization dedicated to the destruction of Jews
and America?

> > Sidebar:  What you would not see in your hypothetical case is the US Air
> > Force dropping cluster bombs and daisy cutters in northern Idaho.
> >
>
>     Point of fact: The US Air Force is not dropping anything on Pakistan as a
> result of the Pearl killing.

More obfuscation and rationalization.  Point of fact: The US Air Force
dropped bombs on civilian areas in Afghanistan.  Point of fact:  The US
Air Force dropped bombs on Red Cross facilities in Afghanistan.  Point
of fact: Both of the above can be charged as war crimes under the Geneva
Conventions.

>      People are able to discern between a crime and an act of war, Martin. We
> are increasingly living in a world of transnational entities. Corporations,
> NGOs, criminal cartels. Add to these militant political organizations like Al
> Qaeda. Like it or not, as the nation state continues to decline in relative
> power, the rules are changing. Membership in Al Qaeda is not at all
> equivalent to being born, without one's consent, into the citizenship of a
> state. Membership in Al Qaeda is a voluntary commitment to kill members of a
> different religion (or in fact, killing those holding a more moderate view of
> Islam) for the purpose of expanding Islamic domination.

Well, then to standardize this process of discerning, we a World
Congress (secular, of course) to standardize international law, and we
need a World police force to enforce that standardized international
law, and, above all, we need a World Court to ensure that the laws and
their enforcement are fair and just.  We don't have that now.  We have a
single world power, subject to no body of law, not even its own
constitution, and with the power to do whatever it wants whenever it
wants to whomever it doesn't like.  And you are still not raising your
voice in indignation.

martin

What does Issodhos mean?

--
Martin Smith               email: [log in to unmask]
Vollsveien 9               tel. : +47 6783 1188
P.O. Box 482               mob. : +47 932 48 303
1327 Lysaker, Norway