現在地 HOME > 掲示板
> Ψ空耳の丘Ψ３１ > 223.html
★阿修羅♪
|
現在地 HOME > 掲示板
> Ψ空耳の丘Ψ３１ > 223.html
★阿修羅♪
|
|
(回答先: Re: 官能的、、、一応状況説明です。 投稿者 電磁波洗脳ヤメロヨ 日時 2003 年 10 月 16 日 23:33:07)
これが多分きっかけの上乗せでした。
ちなみに私は自由主義者で平和主義者で仏教徒です。
Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2003 11:14 PM
Subject: The answer
Conversation
A Japanese Buddhist (JB),
A pious American Protestant (PAP),
A general American Protestant (GAP)
(JB); Hello, PAP. I would like to ask whether the Protestant Church supports Israel or not, because I have no idea due to a Buddhist.
(PAP) Yeah, Protestants support Israel because the Bible says Palestine is the Promised Land for Israel.
(JB) What? Is that the only reasons?
(PAP) Oh, just a minute. Hey, GAP, do you have any idea the reason why Protestants support Israel?
(GAP) Yeah, because the Bible says so.
(JB) (I think the Koran may also say so for Palestine窶ヲ)
So, do you know whether Catholic Church support Israel or not, because I have no idea due to a Buddhist.
(PAP)(GAP) We don窶冲 know. Both Churches have the same the Bible, but both read it differently.
(JB) Who is the representative for the Protestant Church? For example, the Pope is the representative for the Catholic Church.
(PAP)(GAP) We don窶冲 know who the representative for the Protestant Church is.
(JB) O.K窶ヲ By the way, do you have any idea why the U.S. government supports Israeli government, because I have no idea due to a foreigner?
(GAP) Because Jewish people has strong lobbying.
(JB) I think Jewish population is 2.5% in the U.S. I can not think so. Moreover, I think Jewish in the U.S. is not the same as those in Israel. I think the U.S. government must have stable reasons to support Israeli government.
(GAP) Because Jewish people have strong influence in mass-media in the U.S.
(JB) So, you think the U.S. mass media supports Israeli government? As the U.S. mass media not necessarily supports every U.S. government, the media does not necessarily have to supports every Israeli government, I guess. Moreover, assuming some Jewish in the U.S. supports every Israeli government, it is limited population. In my country, we have rights to vote for or against Japanese government. I think U.S. citizens also have such rights.
(PAP) Majority of the U.S. is Protestants. In addition, we cannot vote regarding Israeli government. We do not have Israeli citizenships.
(JB) So, that窶冱 the reason majority in the U.S. supports every Israeli government, right?
(GAP) No窶ヲ We feel guilty against Jewish. We did not save Jewish from the holocaust in the WWII. That窶冱 the reason why we support every Israeli government.
(JB) I think the U.S. save lots of Jewish from Nazi.
(GAP) We could do so at the earlier stage.
(JB) What taught that the U.S. citizens had been guilty against Jewish? Textbook, Protestant Church, or mass media?
(PAP)(GAP)窶ヲ
(JB) For example, Imperial Japan invaded Asian countries in the WWII. Japanese text book says we are guilty regarding the invasion.
(PAP)(GAP) Textbook, Protestant Church, and mass media say we have been guilty.
(JB) So, when you can be free from the emotion of guilty in the future? What achievement by the U.S. government makes you free from the emotion?
(PAP) The time when Israel become safe from suicide bombers.
(JP) I think some religions have terrorists, such as Islamic fundamentalists, AUM in Japan, and Zion extremists. Have you seen U.K. newspapers or Canadian newspapers? Their contents differ from the U.S. newspapers. I actually read both Jewish paper and Arabic paper in addition to the papers above mentioned in order to avoid prejudge. Oh, sorry, I lost my focus. Well, how you can make Israel safe in order to be free from the emotion? I wonder the U.S. citizens have to feel guilty forever.
(PAP)(GAP)窶ヲ
(JP) For example, if Israel government establishes reservations for Palestine people by the same scheme of the U.S. which did for Native Americans, do you think Israel became safe?
(PAP)(GAP) It窶冱 not good idea. We know we did mistakes regarding Native American issues. Well, if Israel dominates in the near east, Israel becomes safe.
(JP) So, you have to feel guilty until Israel dominates in the near east, right?
(PAP)(GAP)縲It窶冱 nether good idea nor right idea.
(JP) I wonder the U.S. citizens have to feel guilty forever. How much are you guilty? Tooooo much or this much? As I said, Imperial Japan was guilty against the invasion in the WWII. We could not allowed and discuss this touchy issue for fifty years or so. Of course, it is still touch issue in Japan. I was not brave enough to discuss the issues even with my friends, because text book said, 窶忱ou are guilty, you are guilty, you are guilty, you are guilty, you are guilty, you are guilty, you are guilty, you are guilty, and you are guilty.窶擒 Therefore, I had to say, 窶廾h, I am guilty窶・without considerations. However, recent study revealed lots of forged evidences regarding Imperial Japan窶冱 war criminals. Imperial Japan was guilty, I am sure. However, Japanese became free from everlasting slavery of feeling guilty by knowing very truth. We had not been properly realize d how much guilty until recent studies showed. Japanese people and government proposed cooperative studies with Korea and China, but they still refuse cooperative researches. How about the U.S. citizens窶・guiltiness? Is the research allowed in the country of freedom?
(PAP)(GAP) Hard to tell窶ヲ
(JB) I wonder why the U.S. citizens, Protestants, and Jewish have to voice supporting EVERY Israeli government, even though their GOD in their mind does not allow creating reservation and dominance by arm, which is not coherent with American spirits. In my country, we have rights to vote for or against Japanese government. I think the U.S. citizens, Protestants, and Jewish also have such rights in the country of freedom.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(JB) I, as a foreigner, can never think U.S. citizens, Protestants, and Jewish are guilty enough for it.
Muslims is not terrorists, Japanese is not AUM, and Jewish is not Zion extremist.
What brainwashed to make them feel guilty without consideration?
> PN: I give up.
>
>
> Net: War is Peace.
>
> Freedom is Slavery.
>
> Ignorance is Strength.
>
> Welcome back to reality.
Hey Net or WARMONGER(WM), are you feeling guilty? Against whom?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 7:23 PM
Subject:
This is so beautiful! Thank you very much! I bet somebody spent several
days writing this, but that really worth it! I just anticipate that many
people while reading this would still say: "We've got so many objective
rationales for invading Iraq!"
--
> Quote:
> For those that missed Network today...
> Soooo good. Read on:
>
> A WARMONGER (WM) EXPLAINS WAR TO A PEACENIK (PN)
>
>
> PN: Why did you say we are we invading Iraq?
>
> WM: We are invading Iraq because it is in violation of Security Council
> resolution 1441. A country cannot be allowed to violate Security Council
> resolutions.
>
> PN: But I thought many of our allies, including Israel, were in
> violation of more Security Council resolutions than Iraq.
>
> WM: It's not just about UN resolutions. The main point is that Iraq could have weapons of mass destruction, and the first sign of a smoking
> gun could well be a mushroom cloud over NY.
>
> PN: Mushroom cloud? But I thought the weapons inspectors said Iraq had
> no nuclear weapons.
>
> WM: Yes, but biological and chemical weapons are the issue.
>
> PN: But I thought Iraq did not have any long-range missiles for
> attacking us or our allies with such weapons.
>
> WM: The risk is not Iraq directly attacking us, but rather terrorist
> networks that Iraq could sell the weapons to.
>
> PN: But couldn't virtually any country sell chemical or biological
> materials? We sold quite a bit to Iraq in the eighties ourselves, didn't
> we?
>
> WM: That's ancient history. Look, Saddam Hussein is an evil man that has
> an undeniable track record of repressing his own people since the early
> eighties. He gasses his enemies. Everyone agrees that he is a
> power-hungry lunatic murderer.
>
> PN: We sold chemical and biological materials to a power-hungry lunatic
> murderer?
>
> WM: The issue is not what we sold, but rather what Saddam did. He is the
> one who launched a pre-emptive first strike on Kuwait.
>
> PN: A pre-emptive first strike does sound bad. But didn't our ambassador
> to Iraq, April Glaspie, know about and green-light the invasion of
> Kuwait?
>
> WM: Let's deal with the present, shall we? As of today, Iraq could sell
> its biological and chemical weapons to al-Qaida. Osama Bin Laden himself
> released an audio tape calling on Iraqis to suicide-attack us, proving a
> partnership between the two.
>
> PN: Osama Bin Laden? Wasn't the point of invading Afghanistan to kill
> him?
>
> WM: Actually, it's not 100% certain that it's really Osama Bin Laden on
> the tapes. But the lesson from the tape is the same: there could easily
> be a partnership between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein unless we act.
>
> PN: Is this the same audio tape where Osama Bin Laden labels Saddam a
> secular infidel?
>
> WM: You're missing the point by just focusing on the tape. Powell
> presented a strong case against Iraq.
>
> PN: He did?
>
> WM: Yes, he showed satellite pictures of an al-Qaida poison factory in
> Iraq.
>
> PN: But didn't that turn out to be a harmless shack in the part of Iraq
> controlled by the Kurdish opposition?
>
> WM: And a British intelligence report...
>
> PN: Didn't that turn out to be copied from an out-of-date graduate
> student paper?
>
> WM: And reports of mobile weapons labs...
>
> PN: Weren't those just artistic renderings?
>
> WM: And reports of Iraqis scuttling and hiding evidence from
> inspectors...
>
> PN: Wasn't that evidence contradicted by the chief weapons inspector,
> Hans Blix?
>
> WM: Yes, but there is plenty of other hard evidence that cannot be
> revealed because it would compromise our security.
>
> PN: So there is no publicly available evidence of weapons of mass
> destruction in Iraq?
>
> WM: The inspectors are not detectives; it's not their JOB to find
> evidence. You're missing the point.
>
> PN: So what is the point?
>
> WM: The main point is that we are invading Iraq because resolution 1441
> threatened "severe consequences." If we do not act, the Security Council
> will become an irrelevant debating society.
>
> PN: So the main point is to uphold the rulings of the Security Council?
>
> WM: Absolutely ... unless it rules against us.
>
> PN: And what if it does rule against us?
>
> WM: In that case, we must lead a coalition of the willing to invade
> Iraq.
>
> PN: Coalition of the willing? Who's that?
>
> WM: Britain, Turkey, Bulgaria, Spain and Italy, for starters.
>
> PN: I thought Turkey refused to help us unless we gave them tens of
> billions of dollars.
>
> WM: Nevertheless, they might now be willing.
>
> PN: I thought public opinion in all those countries was against war.
>
> WM: Current public opinion is irrelevant. The majority expresses its
> will by electing leaders to make decisions.
>
> PN: So it's the decisions of leaders elected by the majority that is
> important?
>
> WM: Yes.
>
> PN: But George W. Bush wasn't elected by voters. He was selected by the
> U.S. Supreme C...
>
> WM: I mean, we must support the decisions of our leaders, however they
> were elected, because they are acting in our best interest. This is
> about being a patriot. That's the bottom line.
>
> PN: So if we do not support the decisions of the president, we are not
> patriotic?
>
> WM: I never said that.
>
> PN: So what are you saying? Why are we invading Iraq?
>
> WM: As I said, because there is a chance that they have weapons of mass
> destruction that threaten us and our allies.
>
> PN: But the inspectors have not been able to find any such weapons.
>
> WM: Iraq is obviously hiding them.
>
> PN: You know this? How?
>
> WM: Because we know they had the weapons ten years ago, and they are
> still unaccounted for.
>
> PN: The weapons we sold them, you mean?
>
> WM: Precisely.
>
> PN: But I thought those biological and chemical weapons would degrade to
> an unusable state over ten years.
>
> WM: But there is a chance that some have not degraded.
>
> PN: So as long as there is even a small chance that such weapons exist,
> we must invade?
>
> WM: Exactly.
>
> PN: But North Korea actually has large amounts of usable chemical,
> biological AND nuclear weapons, AND long range missiles that can reach
> the west coast AND it has expelled nuclear weapons inspectors, AND
> threatened to turn America into a sea of fire.
>
> WM: That's a diplomatic issue.
>
> PN: So why are we invading Iraq instead of using diplomacy?
>
> WM: Aren't you listening? We are invading Iraq because we cannot allow
> the inspections to drag on indefinitely. Iraq has been delaying,
> deceiving and denying for over ten years, and inspections cost us tens
> of millions.
>
> PN: But I thought war would cost us tens of billions.
>
> WM: Yes, but this is not about money. This is about security.
>
> PN: But wouldn't a pre-emptive war against Iraq ignite radical Muslim
> sentiments against us, and decrease our security?
>
> WM: Possibly, but we must not allow the terrorists to change the way we
> live. Once we do that, the terrorists have already won.
>
> PN: So what is the purpose of the Department of Homeland Security,
> color-coded terror alerts, and the Patriot Act? Don't these change the
> way we live?
>
> WM: I thought you had questions about Iraq.
>
> PN: I do. Why are we invading Iraq?
>
> WM: For the last time, we are invading Iraq because the world has called
> on Saddam Hussein to disarm, and he has failed to do so. He must now
> face the consequences.
>
> PN: So, likewise, if the world called on us to do something, such as
> find a peaceful solution, we would have an obligation to listen?
>
> WM: By "world," I meant the United Nations.
>
> PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the United Nations?
>
> WM: By "United Nations" I meant the Security Council.
>
> PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the Security Council?
>
> WM: I meant the majority of the Security Council.
>
> PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the majority of the Security
> Council?
>
> WM: Well ... there could be an unreasonable veto.
>
> PN: In which case?
>
> WM: In which case, we have an obligation to ignore the veto.
>
> PN: And if the majority of the Security Council does not support us at
> all?
>
> WM: Then we have an obligation to ignore the Security Council.
>
> PN: That makes no sense.
>
> WM: If you love Iraq so much, you should move there. Or maybe France,
> with the all the other cheese-eating surrender monkeys. It's time to
> boycott their wine and cheese, no doubt about that.
>
> PN: I give up.
>
>
> Net: War is Peace.
>
> Freedom is Slavery.
>
> Ignorance is Strength.
>
> Welcome back to reality.
題名には必ず「阿修羅さんへ」と記述してください。