Assurances

Somebody: I really would like to send president Bush to hell!

Lawyer: That would be an illegal act. Satan would torture him, and that is illegal.

???

Somebody: What if I *obtain assurances* from Satan, that he will not torture him?

Lawyer: Then it is legal.

Somebody: OK!


--
Mogens Michaelsen
http://mogmichs.blogspot.com/

Where can we watch President Clinton Speech on Climate (Montreal) ?

AC skrev:

Does anyone have a link to President Clinton's speech on Climate on Dec
09 ? All I can find is the press conference :

http://unfccc.streamlogics.com/unfccc/agenda.asp

Thanks,
AC

There is a link here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4515898.stm



--
Mogens Michaelsen
http://mogmichs.blogspot.com/

Yes boss? (2)

Lars Eighner wrote:

In our last episode, <437fb23b$0$11698$ba624c82@nntp02.dk.telia.net>, the lovely and talented Mogens Michaelsen broadcast on alt.politics:

The TV-station sends to millions of Kurds the world over.

But you don't seem to understand. To get the use of Turkish
bases, Bush had to promise to suppress the Kurds.

Did cross my mind, actually.

Officially they want ROI closed down because they *know* that the TV-station is connected to terrorists.

But as we all know: the official motives given by Bush & co.
doesn't have much to do with the *real* motives.

Since 911 the common fear of terror-attacks have clearly been
misused politically.


--
Mogens Michaelsen
http://mogmichs.blogspot.com/

Yes boss?

At the moment the U.S. is trying to press the Danish government
to close down a TV-station sending from Denmark - in spite of the
fact that:

1. The TV-station is fully legal in Denmark.
2. The Danish constitution forbids the government to do that.
Only a court-decision or a new law can do that.

According to the Danish paper "Berlingske" the government has
received what is called a demarch from USA saying: "We strongly
urge the Danish government to close down ROI TV".

Apparently the U.S. government doesn't respect the sovereignty of
other countries, not even a country having soldiers in Iraq.

If you are interested, here is a link to ROI TV's homepage:

http://www.roj.tv/en/default/index.php

The TV-station sends to millions of Kurds the world over.


--
Mogens Michaelsen
http://mogmichs.blogspot.com/

Something wrong in the State of Denmark?

At the moment Ultra-Right-Wing bloggers are trying to misinform the world about what is going on here in Denmark. The trick is to deliberately translate an article in a Danish newspaper in a manipulative way to English, and spread it (very few people understand Danish!)

You can find my documentation here:

http://globalresearch.ca.myforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=1966



--
Mogens Michaelsen
http://mogmichs.blogspot.com/

info

The date for each post is the time of copying, not the original date of the post. From now on I will make a copy here immediately after publizicing the post on the news group.

George Bush: Iran's best friend

J wrote:

In the 1980's, Iran and Iraq fought a war -- Iran attacked Iraq, Iraq defended, and the resulting war dragged on for almost eight years, took one million lives.

Iran had three objectives in this war:
1. Remove Saddam Hussein from power.
2. Ensure that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction.
3. Install Shiite majority rule in Iraq, replacing the minority Sunnis (Saddam is Sunni).

Now, almost three years after the US attack on Iraq, we find that George Bush has handed Iran a major victory by achieving all three of their objectives:
1. Saddam Hussein has been removed from power.
2. We determined that Iraq has no WMD and we have ensured they will have none.
3. The US-engineered Iraqi constitution ensures a Shiite majority.

Not exactly what the Bushitters had in mind. But, then, when you base your foreign policy on lies, deceit, and forgeries, what do you expect?

Obviously Bush is not the only liar in this world!
It was not Iran that attacked Iraq, but the opposite, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_war

Your text is an exact copy of another post from you, to which I
have replied. Why don't you answer that?

It seems to me, that you deliberately try to manipulate this
group in order to discredit Bush on the basis of repeated lies.
What is the purpose of that? There are more than enough *facts*
to critizise Bush to hell. You don't have to lie...



--
Mogens Michaelsen
Dansk weblog: http://mogmich2.blogspot.com/
English weblog: http://mogmich.blogspot.com/

George Bush: Best friend Iran has

Joe S. wrote:

In the 1980's, Iran and Iraq fought a war that lasted almost eight years, cost 1 million lives, and drained the two nations. Iran attacked Iraq, Iraq defended, and the war essentially became a stalemate.

Iran had three objectives in this war:
1. To overthrow Saddam Hussein.
2. To ensure that Iraq did not develop WMD.
3. To establish a Shiite majority in Iraq.

Now, after three years of George Bush's war in Iraq, we find that Bush has accomplished each of Iran's objectives.
1. Saddam Hussein has been overthrown.
2. We know that Iraq had no WMD and we have ensured there will be none.
3. The US-sponsored Iraqi constitution now ensures a Shiite majority in Iraq.

Yep, ol' George Bush is the best friend Iran has and he and his advisors are too damn dumb to see what they have done.

JS

I think you got it all wrong - it was Iraq that attacked Iran in
that war! See the article in:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_war

By the way: Saddam Hussein had "positive relations" to USA at
that time, some might even suggest it was an american war with a
substitute (Saddam).

Today there are american military present on a massive scale in
two of Iran's neighboring countries: Afghanistan and Iraq. So
maybe you should ask yourself if not *any* government in Iran
would consider getting nuclear weapons?

Why give the disgusting theocratic regime in Iran some kind of
excuse to try to develop WMD - unless it is war that you want?


--
Mogens Michaelsen
Dansk weblog: http://mogmich2.blogspot.com/
English weblog: http://mogmich.blogspot.com/

intelligent design of evolution! (2)

Randy Cox wrote:

"Mogens Michaelsen" wrote in message news:4307fafd$0$1158$ba624c82@nntp02.dk.telia.net...

Randy Cox wrote:

Intelligence, IQ, is defined as the ability to solve problems. The problem solving process involves taking action to solve the problem, observing the results of that action, adjusting the action to get better results, repeating the process until the problem is solved.

I think you are confusing intelligence and scientific method.
Scientists use their intelligence to make theories (Einstein).
Other scientists use experiments to verify or falsify the theory.
Both are essential in science.

That is what intelligent people do to solve problems. It's a pretty intelligent thing to do.

No, intelligent people try to figure things out before acting.

You are confusing meta level process with primary level process. Meta level action is the action that takes place internally. An intelligent being thinks of the action to solve a problem, takes the action internally (in his mind) observes the probable results (via accessable stored memories and associations from past experiences )then keeps adjusting those meta level actions until one gets the meta level result he wants. That is the intelligent person tests his proposed action as far as he is able internally. Then from all the possible actions he discovers in this manner, he choices one to implement on the primary level.....the level outside himself....reality, ourside world whatever you want to call it.

You reduced the mental action, observation, and adjustment process to words "figure things out". It is really the same process on the meta level as it is on the primary level which is where you first see the action as an action.

You could take a dogmatic stance and dismiss my thoughts as rubbish if you wish to be dogmatic.

It is also the way evolution approaches problems. The species is adjusted until it become more adept to the conditions. That's a pretty intelligent design process.

That is exactly what it is not.
Evolution *lacks* intelligence, that is why the cosmic process of
creation takes millions and billions of years.

Excellent point! Let us examine your point and learn from it. You and I have the sense of a timeline of life being about 120 years (120 circles of our earth around the sun) Even knowing that, our sense of time porportion is still different based upon our ages. A one year old child experiences a day as 1/365 of his lifetime to that point--a significantly longer day relative to his existence than a day is to a 58 year old man such as myself. We can exterpolate a sense of time based on our expected lifetime.

Your point above brings with it a certain accusation of inefficiency as if "intelligence" would have shortened the cosmic process of creation. Don't rush into defending your position. Hold off a moment. We can both learn from it. The religeous creationists make a similiar mistake. They have the same finite sense of time, and they equally infer that an intelligent creation would not take millions of years. So they reduce it down to six days with a rest on the seventh day, then they add the begets and come up with about 6,000 years of existence for this universe. Their story has the sun being created on the third day. They don't bother explaining what the first days were before the existence of the sun. A full half of the timeline of their understanding of creation falls apart, but they are more comfortable with 6,0000 years than they are with billions and billions.

Now, you and I think a little more expansively. We don't box ourselves into a six thousand year universe. Still, we can hardly escape our sense of lifetime. We are "intelligent" beings. We have a sense of urgency for those things we want to accomplish, including our own thoughts and understandings. We don't feel as if we have billions and billions of years to waste. So if we are intelligent and we can't afford to waste billions of years, then it is hard to imagine an intelligence that could afford that much time. Therefore the creative force that takes billions of years must not be an intelligent one.

Wait! I know this is not the single ruling authority of thought that goes into whatever thought process that brings us to whatever conclusion we may have about intelligence and creation. I'm not really trying to say that it is. I am pointing out and examining one of many such internal biases that may affect our conclusions.

I'm not trying to say I've got it all figured out either. I am aware of the gap between the awareness and will of a creative force and the one of accident. I can't know the full face of the cosmos anymore than I can know the full face of God.

Very quickly, I point out that in the models of chaos they are now seeing predictable and repetitive patterns of order develop among purely random and unpredictable individual events. In other words the number of purely 50/50 probablities that have such a magnitude of effect ever which way they fall that prediction can't be determined; yet the collective results of these random probablities still gather into predictable larger patterns. There is order and chaos.

Intelligence dominates our discourse. It is primary! Right or wrong, we are both aware of that which we are aware of and that which we are unaware of. At the highest levels it is our awareness and our intelligence that processes all the things touching your world and all the things touching mine. As Descartes pointed out. Our senses may get the experiences wrong. We can't know for a certainty that things we experience are real, but we can know we think. We can't be fooled into thinking we think....unless somehow we are made to think. Thinking is intelligence and it is the one thing we can be sure is real. All else may be real or imagined. The whole of existence might be nothing more or less than a huge endless thought. If it were...it would be none the less real.

If we are self-aware of our own intelligence, then how can we ignore the likely hood of intelligence in the force that moves the universe and all its components one to the other. Of course, we can not prove it, but it seems more likely than not, and it is within the scientific
method to accept the most simple explanation as the most likely.

Time is only the space relationship between the objects moving around in the universe. There is no waste or inefficiency....there is only movement

Randy R. Cox

--
Mogens Michaelsen
Dansk weblog: http://mogmich2.blogspot.com/
English weblog: http://mogmich.blogspot.com/

Your thoughts is quite interesting, I think. A little diffent
from other posts about I.D.

The reason why I expressed myself in a rather "compressed" form
is that this newsgroup is about politics, not philosophy.

I understand that for americans "Intelligent Design" and other
kinds of Creationism has become politically relevant, because
some fools doesn't understand the *danger* in polluting science
with religion (or political ideology).

Not saying that *you* are a fool, but the president surely are.


--
Mogens Michaelsen
Dansk weblog: http://mogmich2.blogspot.com/
English weblog: http://mogmich.blogspot.com/

intelligent design of evolution!

Randy Cox wrote:

Intelligence, IQ, is defined as the ability to solve problems. The problem solving process involves taking action to solve the problem, observing the results of that action, adjusting the action to get better results, repeating the process until the problem is solved.

I think you are confusing intelligence and scientific method.
Scientists use their intelligence to make theories (Einstein).
Other scientists use experiments to verify or falsify the theory.
Both are essential in science.

That is what intelligent people do to solve problems. It's a pretty intelligent thing to do.

No, intelligent people try to figure things out before acting.

It is also the way evolution approaches problems. The species is adjusted until it become more adept to the conditions. That's a pretty intelligent design process.

That is exactly what it is not.
Evolution *lacks* intelligence, that is why the cosmic process of
creation takes millions and billions of years.

The only thing missing in the theory of evolution is the observation that happens between changes in action via the natural process.

Descartes proved that thinking (observation or awareness) existed at least for him, because he knew he could be fooled into thinking things around him were real when they might only be a dream or hallucination, but no one could fool him into thinking he thought without him thinking. "I think; therefore I am!"

So with a little dialogue even the most die hard atheist will usually agree that they can think........observe.....be aware.

Now, since it follows in logic that a thing created is not likely (science always chooses the most likely, the most simple explanation) to be greater than the force that created it, it can be scientifically postulated that if the creative force creates something with intelligence then that force must have had intelligence.

That is simply not valid logic. But it *is* correct, that there
is no scientific proof that there is no "creative force" having
some kind of intention or will - but that is a question of faith.

Now we know intelligence exists in the result...it seems most simple that intelligence existed in the first cause.

So here we have two seemingly divergent ideas needing the other to make sense. Evolution is both extant and intelligent.

I can't understand why two sides oppose each other. That is like people on one side saying George is President, and folks on the other
side saying Bush is President.

I'm just the fool! I say George Bush is the Emperor.....and he has no clothes!

Randy R. Cox

Well, both of them, George and Bush, have a policy consisting of
military try-and-error, much like ants have. *Intelligence* is
something you fix in order to mislead people.


--
Mogens Michaelsen
Dansk weblog: http://mogmich2.blogspot.com/
English weblog: http://mogmich.blogspot.com/

Now here's a little something to chew on

Joe S. wrote:

http://www.wokr13.tv/news/national/
story.aspx?content_id=422B960A-26BA-4891-9E60-21C8818788D4


QUOTE

Ex-Marine Says Public Version of Saddam Capture Fiction


United Press International


A former U.S. Marine who participated in capturing ousted Iraqi President
Saddam Hussein said the public version of his capture was fabricated.

If that story is true it must be a violation of the Geneva
Convention, as far as I can see. According to this it is
prohibited to humiliate a POW in public.



--
Mogens Michaelsen
Dansk weblog: http://mogmich2.blogspot.com/
English weblog: http://mogmich.blogspot.com/

Perhaps the Blue states should leave the Union

E.L. Chamberlain wrote:

Since the conservatives hate the liberal blue states so much I suggest
we leave and start our own country. I'd be pretty happy; all the
technology industries would be with us, we'd have the major ports, and
Europe would be our ally.

I guess you don't mean this "country" should become a full member
of EU? But some kind of association would be possible, I think.
By the way: the inuit people of Greenland and Canada might be
positive.

All the red states can grow corn and spuds and teach their kids
"intelligent" design and have religion in school every day of the week.

And keep their women at home, much like the Talibans?

As for having a contiguous state, I'm sure something could be worked
out with the border of Canada. After all, they would happy to help, as
would the red states at the north of the US who want to get rid of us
nasty "liberals".

The Red states will be called the Christian States of God, while the
Blue states will be New America. Both sides would be happy.

Maybe you are joking a little bit? Hope so.


--
Mogens Michaelsen
Dansk weblog: http://mogmich2.blogspot.com/
English weblog: http://mogmich.blogspot.com/

Russia, China open first joint military exercises

"Peace Mission 2005" has started:

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type
=worldNews&storyID=2005-08-18T042244Z_01_SPI806560
_RTRUKOC_0_UK-CHINA-RUSSIA.xml


--
Mogens Michaelsen
Dansk weblog: http://mogmich2.blogspot.com/
English weblog: http://mogmich.blogspot.com/

NSA update

National Security Archive Update, August 17, 2005

State Department experts warned CENTCOM
before Iraq war about lack of plans for
post-war Iraq security

Planning for post-Saddam regime change
began as early as October 2001

http://www.nsarchive.org


--
Mogens Michaelsen
Dansk weblog: http://mogmich2.blogspot.com/
English weblog: http://mogmich.blogspot.com/

Russia opposes use of force against Iran

The following text is from Reuters:
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type
=worldNews&storyID=2005-08-17T120101Z_01_MCC741080
_RTRUKOC_0_UK-RUSSIA-IRAN.xml

strange thing: the Iranians have a nuclear power plant
called *Bushehr* !

---QUOTE---

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia opposes using force to stop Iran's nuclear programme, the Russian Foreign ministry said on Wednesday.

"We favour further dialogue and consider the use of force in Iran counter-productive and dangerous, something which can have grave and hardly predictable consequences," a statement posted on the ministry's web site www.mid.ru said.

The West fears that the ultimate goal of oil-rich Iran's project to develop its own nuclear power sector is to develop atomic weapons.

Iran angered the European Union and the United States by resuming work at a uranium conversion plant earlier this month, rejecting an EU incentives package offered in return for giving up its nuclear programme.

The ministry statement did not say where threats to use force had come from and referred to unspecified media reports.

Earlier this month U.S. President George W. Bush said military force remained a last resort to press Tehran to abandon its nuclear programme.

Russia, which has constructed a nuclear power plant for Iran and is hoping for more such contracts, has criticised Tehran for restarting the uranium conversion.

Moscow says that there was no technical need for Iran to convert its own uranium since Moscow had agreed to supply all necessary nuclear fuel for the Bushehr power plant due to go into operation next year.

But it has been traditionally opposed to applying blanket pressure against Tehran.

"We consider that problems concerning Iran's nuclear activities should be solved through political and diplomatic means, on the basis of international law and Tehran's close cooperation with International Atomic Energy Agency," the Russian statement said.

---QUOTE---


--
Mogens Michaelsen
Dansk weblog: http://mogmich2.blogspot.com/
English weblog: http://mogmich.blogspot.com/

First Sino-Russo wargames

First military exercise involving Russia and China starting.
See details in this article from Aljazeera:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/
E15F03BD-6A03-4C77-AB34-5FDD34764D26.htm


--
Mogens Michaelsen
Dansk weblog: http://mogmich2.blogspot.com/
English weblog: http://mogmich.blogspot.com/

No mastermind behind London bombs?

From Reuters RSS i received the following article. Makes you
think about certain other possibilities, doesn't it?
---

By Kate Holton

LONDON (Reuters) - Groups behind the July London bomb attack that killed 52 people and a failed attempt to strike again soon after appear to have been acting independently of an al Qaeda mastermind abroad, a newspaper reported on Saturday.

The Independent, quoting police and intelligence officials, said it was also likely that four July 7 suicide bombers were probably not linked to another group of four who failed to blow up explosives on buses and underground trains two weeks later.

But some of the report's conclusions were questioned by a terror analyst, who said it would be difficult for Islamic militants in Britain to prepare and set off explosive devices without some training in Pakistan, Afghanistan or elsewhere.

The newspaper said police and intelligence sources felt the fact there was no leader from abroad showed how other "self-sufficient" units could be hiding in Britain.

"All the talk about 'Mr Bigs' and al Qaeda masterminds looks like something from a film script at the moment," the newspaper quoted a police source as saying.

"Of course, things could change if new intelligence comes through, but it looks increasingly as if these people were largely working on their own. It is not something we expected."

Four young British Muslims blew themselves up on three London underground trains and a bus on July 7, killing 52 people. An apparent bid to repeat the attacks on July 21 failed and police have arrested four people they say were behind it.

The newspaper report quoted one counter-terrorist source as saying: "the key point is that the events were not connected. It appears they were self-contained, rather than being organised by some kind of mastermind."

The attacks have raised alarm in Britain that militants are living and operating in the country. Police have yet to establish whether they are acting alone or being directed by international networks like al Qaeda.

CRUDE DEVICES

A police spokesman said they were investigating several lines of inquiry and would not comment on the details of the newspaper report. He would not rule them out either.

But a terrorism expert who did not want to be named said it took time and knowledge to prepare such attacks, and would not rule out the involvement of a foreign-trained mastermind putting the plots together either, possibly from inside Britain.

"They're crude devices, but I think there is a mistaken belief that you can just go on the Internet and download these things," he said.

"It was possible that they (the two groups of bombers) are not linked, but it's inconceivable that you could just spontaneously get a group of people together in two weeks, get the material, build the devices and carry out the attacks."

He said that "the old al Qaeda" had been "shattered" after U.S. military action in Afghanistan and the crackdown on militant groups in neighbouring Pakistan since 2001.

But that did not mean that people who lived and trained in those countries could not now be operating in Britain.

He said both sets of men suspected of being behind the attacks were not particularly well educated and described them as "misfits".

"People like that generally aren't capable of building bombs. There is definitely someone who has catalysed them, who has given advice on materials, provided technical expertise and maybe paid for all this," he said.

"I wouldn't rush to discount the idea that there is a mastermind or puppet master somewhere, it just may not fit the traditional description.

"The ringleader may be someone who lives in this country and spent sometime in somewhere like Pakistan or Afghanistan where they honed these skills."



--
Mogens Michaelsen
Dansk weblog: http://mogmich2.blogspot.com/
English weblog: http://mogmich.blogspot.com/

Liberal Beatle John Lennon: "Woman is the nigger of the world"

The Conservative Intelligencer wrote:

"Bush War is for GOP Profit" wrote in
message news:1123900693.152181.186720@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

It was not written in that context you stupid ass, my God are you
stupid..

When have you liberals ever cared about context??? You take President
Bush's statements out of context all the time.

Besides, what "context" can be justified for such outrageous lyrics???


The Conservative Intelligencer

What context? Bush-statements typically sound like if they were
chosen more or less at random by a computer - without any
understanding of the world.


--
Mogens Michaelsen
Dansk weblog: http://mogmich2.blogspot.com/
English weblog: http://mogmich.blogspot.com/

'Sweet' Neo Cons Now Attacking Sir Mick Jagger

smutt butt wrote:

Neocon Oil Cheerleaders Wrote:

'Now the Fascists at Fox Are After Mick Jagger

Here we go again. First it was the Dixie Chicks,
then Eminem, then Bruce Springsteen, and then...
the list goes on and on. Now it's Mick Jagger's
turn to be slapped around.

According to Fox's Neil Cavuto, who saw fit to
air two segments about this looming crisis today
(August 9, 2005), Jagger took a 'big jab at the
White House' in a 'very controversial tune called
'Sweet Neo-Con' in which "Mick Jagger calls the
President a hypocrite and worse. A lot worse. . . .

.. . . Fox then showed a graphic with these lyrics:

You call yourself a Christian, I call you a hypocrite.
You call yourself a patriot.
Well, I think your are full of s**t!
How come you're so wrong, my sweet neo-con.'


source News Hounds
We watch FOX so you don't have to:
http://tinyurl.com/8gkfn


Be sure & BUY a copy of the new Stones CD

why would anyone care what elderly drug addicts from another country
think about anyone from america?

There are also some "anyones" living outside U.S.

Even "elderly drug addicts" have freedom of speech.

England is another *country* not another planet.

The President of USA isn't just "anyone" - he is the most
powerful idiot in history.

America is not just USA (I'm not Canadian).


--
Mogens Michaelsen
Dansk weblog: http://mogmich2.blogspot.com/
English weblog: http://mogmich.blogspot.com/

Nineteen Eighty Be4?

When war becomes literally continuous, it also ceases to be dangerous. When war is continuous there is no such thing as military necessity. Technical progress can cease and the most palpable facts can be denied or disregarded.

--
Mogens Michaelsen
Dansk weblog: http://mogmich2.blogspot.com/
English weblog: http://mogmich.blogspot.com/