Dubyaman!

[paul108 0]

Visit http://www.timesofindia.com for more tales of our hero, Dubyaman!

 

 

 

[paul108 0]

 

The short list.

[Guest guest]

It must really stick in your craw, Paul108, that Dubya has 92% support of Amerikans. You are the looney-tunes left. Try burning a flag in my hood.

 

Ground forces are now exterminating your Tali friends. Step up to the plate.

[Bhaktavasya 0]

Originally posted by rand0M aXiS:

It must really stick in your craw, Paul108, that Dubya has 92% support of Amerikans. You are the looney-tunes left. Try burning a flag in my hood.

 

Ground forces are now exterminating your Tali friends. Step up to the plate.

Before the bombing campaign started I had the good fortune to help a woman with her own campaign called 'Not in my name', an extention of a peace group from England, mostly older, seasoned women peace activists, who promote the choice of paying one's taxes for peaceful purposes instead of pouring them into the war machine. While speaking with people on the street from the united states and other tourists, as well as from here in Victoria, young and old and in between, from various cultural backgrounds, I realized that the polls can't be taken at face value. For example, if you ask almost anyone if terrorism (training terrorists, funding terrorists, harbouring terrorists) should be 'wiped out', they'll almost all agree. Then we have to say that the School of the Americas, the original blueprint from which all other terrorist camps have been patterned after, should have been shut down decades ago.

The petition I helped present to people said, basically, that in light of the tragedy of September 11, the undersigned agree that the suspected perpetrators of the crime be brought to justice and tried by the international court of justice. That no innocent civilians should be victimized or killed because of any action taken in bringing the criminals to justice.

Here are some examples of responses:

 

An American woman, mid 30's, biologist; "Most of the American people DIDN'T vote for Bush, everyone I know thinks the Republicans are arrogant, greedy ********. I'll sign this but I really don't believe that they'll start bombing. They wouldn't be so stupid, now that so much information if coming about about the people suffering in Iraq because of the Gulf War bombings and the U.S. enforced sanctions, and what we did in Yugoslavia...bombing their infrastructure and killing citizens there. People in America wouldn't stand for it again. (The bombing began 3 days later)

 

2 local Victorian, late 30's, slightly intoxicated: (half-reading the petition before handing it back angerly)

"Do you realize that over 6,000 people died in New York on September 11th?"

 

me: "Of course I realize it, why do you think I'm standing out here?"

 

Chris (the woman from 'Not in my name'):

"Do you realize sir, that 200 Iraqi children die everyday, because of American backed sanctions against that country?"

 

slightly intoxicated guy no.1: (shrugging) "Oh well. There's overpopulation over there anyway."

s.i.g. no.2: " Ya, who gives a ****, come on, let's get going."

 

A young (20-something) local girl signed the petition, as did an elderly couple from England, an elderly woman from 'out of town' (her husband didn't want to get involved), some people just walked by, another man got angry and called us names but wouldn't read the petition, another young man (20's, longish hair, deceptively attired to affect a 'cool, hip' look) "They should just go in there and blast the whole country to bits, man! Those guys started it first."

Chris reminded him that the people of Afganistan never were responsible for what happened, but that still didn't pacify the man's thirst for seeing 'them all' blasted off the face of the earth.

 

In conclusion, it is ignorance that fuels and consents to this 'new war'.

 

p.s. I'll bet bin Laden is off somewhere in the Sudan or Tripoli, sipping iced marqaritas!

 

 

[valaya 0]

Originally posted by Bhaktavasya:

Before the bombing campaign started I had the good fortune to help a woman with her own campaign called 'Not in my name', an extention of a peace group from England, mostly older, seasoned women peace activists, who promote the choice of paying one's taxes for peaceful purposes instead of pouring them into the war machine. While speaking with people on the street from the united states and other tourists, as well as from here in Victoria, young and old and in between, from various cultural backgrounds, I realized that the polls can't be taken at face value. For example, if you ask almost anyone if terrorism (training terrorists, funding terrorists, harbouring terrorists) should be 'wiped out', they'll almost all agree. Then we have to say that the School of the Americas, the original blueprint from which all other terrorist camps have been patterned after, should have been shut down decades ago.

The petition I helped present to people said, basically, that in light of the tragedy of September 11, the undersigned agree that the suspected perpetrators of the crime be brought to justice and tried by the international court of justice. That no innocent civilians should be victimized or killed because of any action taken in bringing the criminals to justice.

Here are some examples of responses:

 

An American woman, mid 30's, biologist; "Most of the American people DIDN'T vote for Bush, everyone I know thinks the Republicans are arrogant, greedy ********. I'll sign this but I really don't believe that they'll start bombing. They wouldn't be so stupid, now that so much information if coming about about the people suffering in Iraq because of the Gulf War bombings and the U.S. enforced sanctions, and what we did in Yugoslavia...bombing their infrastructure and killing citizens there. People in America wouldn't stand for it again. (The bombing began 3 days later)

 

2 local Victorian, late 30's, slightly intoxicated: (half-reading the petition before handing it back angerly)

"Do you realize that over 6,000 people died in New York on September 11th?"

 

me: "Of course I realize it, why do you think I'm standing out here?"

 

Chris (the woman from 'Not in my name'):

"Do you realize sir, that 200 Iraqi children die everyday, because of American backed sanctions against that country?"

 

slightly intoxicated guy no.1: (shrugging) "Oh well. There's overpopulation over there anyway."

s.i.g. no.2: " Ya, who gives a ****, come on, let's get going."

 

A young (20-something) local girl signed the petition, as did an elderly couple from England, an elderly woman from 'out of town' (her husband didn't want to get involved), some people just walked by, another man got angry and called us names but wouldn't read the petition, another young man (20's, longish hair, deceptively attired to affect a 'cool, hip' look) "They should just go in there and blast the whole country to bits, man! Those guys started it first."

Chris reminded him that the people of Afganistan never were responsible for what happened, but that still didn't pacify the man's thirst for seeing 'them all' blasted off the face of the earth.

 

In conclusion, it is ignorance that fuels and consents to this 'new war'.

 

p.s. I'll bet bin Laden is off somewhere in the Sudan or Tripoli, sipping iced marqaritas!

 

 

Guess this is what passes as sankirtan these days for some of Srila Prabhupada's (slightly intoxicated) initiated disciples...

 

 

[gopal 0]

The 92 per cent figure is simplistic, biased, speculative, and wishful. In any poll various factors have to be cited such as what sector of the population was polled, under what circumstances, whether educated or not, etc. Details such as Bhaktavyasa's attest to this fact. Besides, even if 92 per cent were for, that doesn't mean they include the majority of Americans who basically don't think much further than their own sense gratification and dont have a clue whats going on.

 

Name calling on the other hand, does not support the other view, in any way shape or form. Just makes people laugh and shake their heads. Whatever someone does in their private life does not detract from the facts they present. Any discussion worth its salt will provide facts from both sides. Not this infernal inane immature and endless namecalling.

[Bhaktavasya 0]

Originally posted by valaya:

Guess this is what passes as sankirtan these days for some of Srila Prabhupada's (slightly intoxicated) initiated disciples...

 

 

I haven't had the chance to go on line much, and have just read your '2 cents worth' this morning. I'm going to put the same question to you as I did to Bhuta Bhavana; How is it that other people have 'admitted' to smoking pot, including Mahaksha, and you don't brand them as (always?) slightly intoxicated whenever they contribute a post. You really do hit below the belt, because you know that I am hepatitis C positive and have said that smoking marijuana helps with the wasting effects of the disease, particularly with nausea. Are you intimating that anything I have to contribute to these forums is somehow 'contaminated' because I'm not 'strictly following the rules and regulations of sadhana bhakti'? Are you?

 

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by Bhaktavasya (edited 10-23-2001).]

[valaya 0]

Originally posted by Bhaktavasya:

I haven't had the chance to go on line much, and have just read your '2 cents worth' this morning. I'm going to put the same question to you as I did to Bhuta Bhavana; How is it that other people have 'admitted' to smoking pot, including Mahaksha, and you don't brand them as (always?) slightly intoxicated whenever they contribute a post. You really do hit below the belt, because you know that I am hepatitis C positive and have said that smoking marijuana helps with the wasting effects of the disease, particularly with nausea. Are you intimating that anything I have to contribute to these forums is somehow 'contaminated' because I'm not 'strictly following the rules and regulations of sadhana bhakti'? Are you?

 

 

[This message has been edited by Bhaktavasya (edited 10-23-2001).]

 

What disturbed me was your post branding others, whose views happened to conflict with yours, as `slightly intoxicated`, so I used those same words sarcastically in my reply.

 

So far as initiated disciples not maintaining their vows yet expecting to be treated as if they were, my opinions are clearly stated in my first post on the `Debate This` thread. Like Janus, I believe Prabhupada has invested himself in his disciples and more should be expected from them.

 

Your personal situation continues to concern me, Bhaktivasya...you must know though how it hurt me when you stopped communicating personally and we were unable to meet as expected in August. The worst thing you can do for Hepatitus or any other disease of the liver is to consume drugs. Please believe me when I say it is only an addiction and overall cannot be considered helpful. I know of an African herb which has apparently shown amazing results, if you're interested.

 

Your fighting spirit impresses me still, as it has from the start, whatever your politics may be. If you remember, my first post in reply to your `story` on VNN forums was, "Your spirit humbles me." That remains true, prabhu.

 

valaya RR

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by valaya (edited 10-23-2001).]

[valaya 0]

Are you intimating that anything I have to contribute to these forums is somehow 'contaminated' because I'm not 'strictly following the rules and regulations of sadhana bhakti'?

The rules and regulations of vaidhi sadhana can be helpful and even necessary, but ultimately they must be transcended somehow or other if one is to wholeheartedly engage in raganuga bhakti as a follower of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Most of us are struggling somewhere in between.

 

No, I do not think that you or your posts are `contaminated`. What I do hold important and in high esteem are vows taken to the spiritual master. As mentioned previously, I prefer to keep vows without making them rather than making them without keeping them. That puts us in two different situations, since I am not formally initiated while you are, but I consider neither to be any better/easier than the other.

 

Nor do I wish to condemn devotees who in good faith and full sincerity took such vows, but now find themselves unable to maintain them. We must above all try to be honest with ourselves and each other, without attempting to establish a superior position at the expense of anyone else.

 

After all, Lord Caitanya has a special concern for the most-fallen, does He not? Why then would we want to claim ourelves to be anything else but exactly that?

 

valaya RR

[valaya 0]

Originally posted by Bhaktavasya:

You pompous self-righteous ass. This post is costing me by the minute, so I'll be brief. I stopped communicating personally with you and nixed a meeting in Toronto because you started giving me the creeps, to tell the truth. I don't care to impress you, and have lived in this 52 year old body long enough to know what helps my mind, body and spirit and what brings it down, sucks out the life force. Stop with the patronizing fake concern.

 

...and there's the sting, as usual! Oh well, can't say I didn't try...

 

 

[Bhaktavasya 0]

Originally posted by valaya:

What disturbed me was your post branding others, whose views happened to conflict with yours, as `slightly intoxicated`, so I used those same words sarcastically in my reply.

 

So far as initiated disciples not maintaining their vows yet expecting to be treated as if they were, my opinions are clearly stated in my first post on the `Debate This` thread. Like Janus, I believe Prabhupada has invested himself in his disciples and more should be expected from them.

 

Your personal situation continues to concern me, Bhaktivasya...you must know though how it hurt me when you stopped communicating personally and we were unable to meet as expected in August. The worst thing you can do for Hepatitus or any other disease of the liver is to consume drugs. Please believe me when I say it is only an addiction and overall cannot be considered helpful. I know of an African herb which has apparently shown amazing results, if you're interested.

 

Your fighting spirit impresses me still, as it has from the start, whatever your politics may be. If you remember, my first post in reply to your `story` on VNN forums was, "Your spirit humbles me." That remains true, prabhu.

 

valaya RR

 

[This message has been edited by valaya (edited 10-23-2001).]

You pompous self-righteous ass. This post is costing me by the minute, so I'll be brief. I stopped communicating personally with you and nixed a meeting in Toronto because you started giving me the creeps, to tell the truth. I don't care to impress you, and have lived in this 52 year old body long enough to know what helps my mind, body and spirit and what brings it down, sucks out the life force. Stop with the patronizing fake concern.

 

 

[Tarun 6]

TRIBUNALS ATTACK NATIONAL IDENTITY, WEAKEN SECURITY

 

26NOV2001 Napa Valley Register/Eureka Times-Standard/Press Democrat

 

By REP. MIKE THOMPSON

 

Communities throughout Napa County, our state and our nation celebrated Veterans Day this month by honoring those who fought for the values that define our national identity.

 

Free speech, free elections, an independent judiciary and due process were high on the list. Secret trials and summary executions without judicial review were not.

 

White House's recent executive order authorizing suspected terrorists to be tried by what may be seen as equivalent to a military Junta rather than under rule of law by our federal court system is dangerously ill-advised.

 

At best, it shreds 200 years of Constitutional law and undercuts our efforts to create international stability by spreading the freedoms of democracy in regions that need them most.

 

At worst, it could provide our enemies an enormous victory by creating a new generation of martyrs to feed bin Laden's propaganda machine long after his death.

 

Eliminating terrorism and preventing further attacks on America will require extraordinary measures and new laws that will challenge our values and liberties. No one denies that unprecedented times demand unconventional sacrifices.

 

All, however, should be done in the effort to improve our national security. Many of the new powers to thwart international money laundering and expand court-approved surveillance that were recently debated and overwhelmingly approved by Congress are prime examples. This executive order is not.

 

Signed by a president without congressional consideration, the order gives government sweeping powers to secretly prosecute suspected terrorists here and abroad. The rules of evidence and burden of proof would be substantially lower than those required by our Constitution in conventional courts.

 

The president himself will decide which defendants will be tried. The Secretary of Defense will appoint each panel and select each defendant's legal representation as well as set rules and procedures.

 

Under the order, cases can be heard in secret and in foreign lands. Hearsay and evidence that civilian courts may deem illegally obtained may be permissible. There would be no right of appeal to any other court. Unanimous decisions by presiding officers would not be required for executions.

 

The order comes on the heels of an Attorney General request for wiretapping conversations between prisoners and their attorneys.

 

Whether fair or not, is it worth losing the moral high ground granted to u& by our allies and an international community who may see due process substituted by a crude and unaccountable system?

 

In defense, the Administration claims that secret trials are necessary to protect the security of jurors and judges as well as classified information.

 

Recent history would prove otherwise. Organized crime bosses, international terrorists and anti-government mass murderers have all been successfully tried by out traditional court system without jeopardizing jurors or judges. Terrorists who first bombed World Trade Center were convicted without loss of national secrets.

 

Imagine the blowback from anti-government zealots in our own country had Timothy McVeigh, who killed 168 Americans, not been tried and convicted in an open court but rather executed after a secret tribunal.

 

Al Qaeda terrorists may be "non-privileged combatants" under the legal definitions of those who violated the laws of war and therefore sacrificed Constitutional considerations. But why dignify them as soldiers in a religious war against America when they can be tried as criminals and international outlaws under the same penalties?

 

lf terrorists must be tried abroad, United Nations Security Council should be required to establish an international tribunal similar to the fair and effective one that brought Slobodan Milosevic to justice.

 

Congressional hearings are needed to shine a laser on the long-term damage this initiative could have on our national security. Ill-advised executive orders can be signed without legislative or judicial review, but they can only breathe in a public vacuum.

 

With enough attention and exposure, we can ensure this is one order which should never be implemented lest we risk -turning into what we're fighting against.

 

The president's top political advisor recently traveled to Hollywood for a 90-minute meeting with movie studio executives. His mission was to enlist their help in showcasing freedoms of our democracy to a world that may not understand us.

 

Reversing this executive order would do more than Spielberg could ever imagine.