Re: Off Beat: U.S. Navy to Mask Swastika-Shaped Barracks

["Brian Loe" <knobdy () gmail com>]

On 9/29/07, Åke Nordin <polymorpevz () gmail com> wrote:

> > I'm sorry you don't know how to interpret an example pulled from
> > current news. Its not fear mongering, it's arguing. I could have said
> > Korea, Japan or the UK - it doesn't matter. You don't prepare just for
> > the known threats, but all threats.
>
> I don't neessarily make the effort to ponder all possible interpretations,
> I usually focus on the subject at hands, Makes me a bit narrow
> minded, I know. The subject at hand was the images of Coronado.
> Generalizations come across better marked as such. Not that I
> am without error in this or other regards...

The subject at hand, as I framed it, is what could be considered
sensitive satellite images released to the general public. I was
arguing for the censorship of all of them - not just this one. I'll
apologize now if I wasn't clear on that point.

> Mr George W. Bush is perceived outside the U.S to be a leader
> of an agressive military power with a strong, religious right-wing
> lobby. The U.S. is well recognized for being very vocal about
> other states affairs.
>
> Now, I'm not very well versed in politics, but as poorly as I've
> figured it out, when a head of state (in this case GWB)
> expresses the threat of a full war with another state in his
> speeches, it is usually motivated more by the need tho cheer
> his own masses, than by the tactical or strategical needs of
> dealing with the other state. With what I grasp about the
> current leadership and political situation in Iran, they certainly
> welcome war threats from their "Great Satan" and might even
> welcome the attack, at least initially.

I think you're completely wrong. I won't pretend to be anymore
politically astute than you, but I think when Reagan "joked" about
bombing Russia he wasn't really joking and he wasn't trying to rally
the masses. When Bush rattles the sabers I don't think he's doing so
just for the purpose of rallying the masses either - he's making
political points with congress and he's sending messages to foreign
states. I think Bush speaks more  for the purpose of letting certain
countries know where they stand than for any other reason, frankly.


> > Israel is a nuclear power - there is an implicit threat of full
> > nuclear attack anytime your show animosity toward a nuclear power.
>
> Yeah, right. We're not discussing the level of that implicit threat,
> do we? It appears to me it would require far, far more than verbal
> animosity, even if that is on the level of "wishing Israel was wiped
> off the map".

What Israel is facing is a known and sworn enemy who is trying to
become a nuclear power.

You speak as if Iran has only talked about getting rid of Israel,
they've done much more. They attack Israel on a virtually daily basis,
killing innocent Israelis, not soldiers. For soldiers they appear to
prefer kidnapping them (and who can blame them, really, for not
wanting to actually fight them, like soldiers as opposed to cowards).
Because they're under constant attack from this known and sworn enemy,
Iran, the would obviously want to be on the offense when it comes to a
nuclear stand-off.

I personally don't see it going that far. Too many other countries
with influence over Iran would not wish to have to deal with the
after-effects, in their own countries, of a nuclear attack. Therefore,
lots of "talk" from Israel, so long as its seen as conviction by these
influential countries, and possibly a bombing raid or two, is enough
for now.


> > I guess we need to decide on a new word for "fundamentalists" when it
> > comes to muslims then. I have yet to see a video out of DC depicting a
> > priest beheading someone...
>
> Fundamentalism is fundamentalism regardless of religion.

Not so. "Fundamentalist Christians" are not all that fundamental.
Their beliefs have matured and, if you'll forgive the irony, evolved
the same as any other "mainstream" religion has. Some of them have
bizarre ideas on evolution and science, but they're harmless.


> I really don't know to what degree their dogma actually allows for those decapitations,
> but I'd rather label them as political murderers, since it seems to me
> that all that fundamentalism just is a cover for their power hunger.

Well I'm not sure I can actually disagree with you there. But I do
know what they yell while they're doing it, same as what they yell as
they're flying planes into buildings.

> Sorry, I forgot that irony doesn't come across well on mailing lists.
> What I see as the Israeli strength (democracy, lawfullness, openness)
> that ist the ultimate driver behind the better Israeli progress is seen as
> a weakness by their totalitarian neighbours. They maintain an illusion
> of efficiency of their state affairs while their society is all impotent and
> incapable of the progres that "weak" Israel shows.

I'm still not sure I understand what you are saying but I think I agree...?

_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.