The Phillipenes capitulates to terrorist whims

[Capitalist Imperial]

So, the Phillipenes is looking at early withdrawl from Iraq for absolutely no reason except to satisfy terrorist thugs.

Spain's excuse was " It is well known that we were always going to pull out after the elections voted in socialist scum anyway". OK, at least they have that.

What is the Philipenes excuse?

What will the terrorists learn from this? That the Phillipenes can be bullied and easily intimidated with ultimatums, so maybe other nations can be too.

Who wins? The terrorists. Absolutely, unequivocally, they acheived their objective of striking fear into the hearts of Filipinos. However, considering how inept filipinos are at snuffing out their own islamic militants, I'm not surprised.

Thanks, Manilla, thanks a lot.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

No, the Phillipines going over there in the first place was giving in to American terrorist thugs. I'm glad that they finally put the lives of their own people before their subservant relationship with America. I hope that more such actions by the Iraqi resistance can put some sence into other nations who lack the courage to say no to the American terrorists.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 14 2004, 05:27 PM
What will the terrorists learn from this? That the Phillipenes can be bullied and easily intimidated with ultimatums, so maybe other nations can be too.
They've already learned that from watching the Phillipenes being bullies about by America for the last 80 or so years.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 06:23 PM
No, the Phillipines going over there in the first place was giving in to American terrorist thugs. I'm glad that they finally put the lives of their own people before their subservant relationship with America. I hope that more such actions by the Iraqi resistance can put some sence into other nations who lack the courage to say no to the American terrorists.
"American terrorist thugs".

What a horrible metaphor. To compare US military actions to terrorism is one of the worst analogies you commies have come up with. You guys cite it al the time, too.

Anyway, MM, so you concede that you support capitulation to terrorism"?

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 07:05 PM
They've already learned that from watching the Phillipenes being bullies about by America for the last 80 or so years.
off the issue, address the topic

[Sabocat]

The Phillipines were going to remove their 50 person detachment by August anyway.

Is it really so horrible that they are pulling them out a little early to prevent them from cutting the poor bastards head off?

This guy is a father of 8.

[gummo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 08:23 PM
The Phillipines were going to remove their 50 person detachment by August anyway.

Is it really so horrible that they are pulling them out a little early to prevent them from cutting the poor bastards head off?

This guy is a father of 8.
It has nothing to do with him being a father of eight. Him being decapitated would be horrible whether he had kids or not. The problem is that they are, in affect, giving in to the demands of terrorists.

The terrorist are trying to achieve a goal. Decapitating people is one of the tools they are using. If they see that they are achieving their goal then they will most likely continue doing it and could possibly start doing it more often.

[Sabocat]

The terrorist are trying to achieve a goal. Decapitating people is one of the tools they are using. If they see that they are achieving their goal then they will most likely continue doing it and could possibly start doing it more often.


Terrorists?

If your home were invaded by foreign occupiers what would you do? Wouldn't you do anything you had to to expel them? If cutting enemies heads off encouraged the departure of the occupiers, wouldn't you do it too?

Maybe the Phillipines are pulling out because they realize they shouldn't have sent anyone to start with.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 08:45 PM


Terrorists?

If your home were invaded by foreign occupiers what would you do? Wouldn't you do anything you had to to expel them? If cutting enemies heads off encouraged the departure of the occupiers, wouldn't you do it too?

Maybe the Phillipines are pulling out because they realize they shouldn't have sent anyone to start with.
but they were all too happy to have us there to remove saddam. only after our common enemy, the baathist regime, is eradicated do they conduct insurgency operatons against liberation forces

honestly, we would be gone a lot sooner if they weren't causing more problems, don't they realize that?

[The Sloth]

To be quite honest, I hope the terrorists will be succesful in capturing dozens more of individuals, then releasing them unharmed after the respective nations agree to the reasonable terms set forth.

Fellow comardes, Capitalist Imperial is merely irrational.

Patriotism - an irrational attachment to a country especially for the reasons of emotional (irrational) reaction and a desperate seeking of identity.

So, this patriot falls into the same category with every other "compassionate conservative." [smirk] If one should decide to spit some logic and reasoning at these type of individuals, it would merely slide off of them like their bodies are waterproof. Thus, "debating" is useless....but, of course, you can "debate" for your own entertainment.

See, I hate to break it to you, but the terrorists are not out to destroy us for the sake of a "hate" for freedom or some other non-sense. I don't like the tactics that are used by terrorists, but I also understand that you can't "kill off" every terrorist in hopes of attenuating its status as a global problem. This is only turning one form of distress into another, which does nothing except in the short-term, while retaining the causes for terrorism in the first place. Actually, terrorism is similar to the crime in non-white neighborhoods throughout America: it is a product of imperialism (domestic colonialism), desperation, poverty and etcetera. Terrorism is worse because it is against the backdrop of a religion (which would foster fanatacism ipso facto). But please don't make the claim of "Islam is not a religion of peace", because last time I checked, Colin Powell exclaimed, ever so foolishly, "We're going to wage jihad on you!" or something to that effect.

We actually have an interview with Osama bin Laden on why he terrorizes. This is from 1998:



The call to wage war against America was made because America has spear-headed the crusade against the Islamic nation, sending tens of thousands of its troops to the land of the two Holy Mosques over and above its meddling in its affairs and its politics, and its support of the oppressive, corrupt and tyrannical regime that is in control. These are the reasons behind the singling out of America as a target. And not exempt of responsibility are those Western regimes whose presence in the region offers support to the American troops there. We know at least one reason behind the symbolic participation of the Western forces and that is to support the Jewish and Zionist plans for expansion of what is called the Great Israel. Surely, their presence is not out of concern over their interests in the region. ... Their presence has no meaning save one and that is to offer support to the Jews in Palestine who are in need of their Christian brothers to achieve full control over the Arab Peninsula which they intend to make an important part of the so called Greater Israel....

"Christian brothers"? An objection to "tyrannical regime[s]"? Hmmmm....and I thought bin Laden wanted to simply massacre all non-Muslims for the hell of it, and establish a system of slavery throughout the world!


In today's wars, there are no morals, and it is clear that mankind has descended to the lowest degrees of decadence and oppression. They rip us of our wealth and of our resources and of our oil. Our religion is under attack. They kill and murder our brothers. They compromise our honor and our dignity and dare we utter a single word of protest against the injustice, we are called terrorists. This is compounded injustice. And the United Nations insistence to convict the victims and support the aggressors constitutes a serious precedence which shows the extent of injustice that has been allowed to take root in this land...

And I thought there was no such thing as "oppression", nor did I know that Arabic people even had a sense of "dignity" and "brotherhood"! I thought those were all mere inventions by the liberals in a plot with the terrorists to help them rule the world. Hmmmm....

The Western regimes and the government of the United States of America bear the blame for what might happen. If their people do not wish to be harmed inside their very own countries, they should seek to elect governments that are truly representative of them and that can protect their interests. ...

Wait, wait, I thought the American government always had our best interests at heart! Just like capitalist businessmen and huge corporations always have our best interests at heart.

The leaders in America and in other countries as well have fallen victim to Jewish Zionist blackmail. They have mobilized their people against Islam and against Muslims. These are portrayed in such a manner as to drive people to rally against them. The truth is that the whole Muslim world is the victim of international terrorism, engineered by America at the United Nations. We are a nation whose sacred symbols have been looted and whose wealth and resources have been plundered. It is normal for us to react against the forces that invade our land and occupy it ... .

I guess the definitions belong to the definers, where thd definers are those that have the power and means of spreading the propaganda, correct?

Through history, American has not been known to differentiate between the military and the civilians or between men and women or adults and children. Those who threw atomic bombs and used the weapons of mass destruction against Nagasaki and Hiroshima were the Americans. Can the bombs differentiate between military and women and infants and children? America has no religion that can deter her from exterminating whole peoples. Your position against Muslims in Palestine is despicable and disgraceful. America has no shame. ... We believe that the worst thieves in the world today and the worst terrorists are the Americans. Nothing could stop you except perhaps retaliation in kind. We do not have to differentiate between military or civilian. As far as we are concerned, they are all targets, and this is what the fatwah says ... . The fatwah is general (comprehensive) and it includes all those who participate in, or help the Jewish occupiers in killing Muslims.

And do you still think that the terrorists would act the way they do if Americans did not treat others' civilians like they were legitimate targets? Wake up, because the civilian death toll in Iraq has reached 11,000. The civilian death toll in Palestine is at 200,000. In Lebanon alone, thousands of Arabs (men, women, and children) were lined against a wall and shot by Israeli soldiers...you want to call them "war crimes"? No, it's terrorism.

And I would hate to bring up American support of dictators such as Pol Pot, then wanting to try him for his crimes for which he received total support simply because he was a nice "addition" to our imperial motives in Vietnam.

And our support of Popa Doc Duvalier?

Baby Doc Duvalier?

Pinochet?

...Hitler?

"I don't know something called International Principles. I vow that I'll burn every Palestinian child (that) will be born in this area. The Palestinian woman and child is more dangerous than the man, because the Palestinian child's existence infers that generations will go on, but the man causes limited danger. I vow that if I was just an Israeli civilian and I met a Palestinian I would burn him and I would make him suffer before killing him. With one hit I've killed 750 Palestinians (in Rafah in 1956). I wanted to encourage my soldiers by raping Arabic girls as the Palestinian women is a slave for Jews, and we do whatever we want to her and nobody tells us what we shall do but we tell others what they shall do."

Ariel Sharon, current Israeli Prime Minister, In an interview with General Ouze Merham, 1956

My hero!

[Guerrilla22]

the Philipino governmnet did the smart thing, why spend millions maitaining an army in Iraq, simply because the US and the UK aren't capable of handling a situation that they instigated by going too war for no reason. Bush lacked the resourcres to go into Iraq and handled things from the start and now the Bush administration is calling on other governmnets to bail him out. How laughable and at the same time, how very sad.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Brooklyn-[email protected] 14 2004, 11:55 PM
To be quite honest, I hope the terrorists will be succesful in capturing dozens more of individuals, then releasing them unharmed after the respective nations agree to the reasonable terms set forth.

Fellow comardes, Capitalist Imperial is merely irrational.

Patriotism - an irrational attachment to a country especially for the reasons of emotional (irrational) reaction and a desperate seeking of identity.

So, this patriot falls into the same category with every other "compassionate conservative." [smirk] If one should decide to spit some logic and reasoning at these type of individuals, it would merely slide off of them like their bodies are waterproof. Thus, "debating" is useless....but, of course, you can "debate" for your own entertainment.

See, I hate to break it to you, but the terrorists are not out to destroy us for the sake of a "hate" for freedom or some other non-sense. I don't like the tactics that are used by terrorists, but I also understand that you can't "kill off" every terrorist in hopes of attenuating its status as a global problem. This is only turning one form of distress into another, which does nothing except in the short-term, while retaining the causes for terrorism in the first place. Actually, terrorism is similar to the crime in non-white neighborhoods throughout America: it is a product of imperialism (domestic colonialism), desperation, poverty and etcetera. Terrorism is worse because it is against the backdrop of a religion (which would foster fanatacism ipso facto). But please don't make the claim of "Islam is not a religion of peace", because last time I checked, Colin Powell exclaimed, ever so foolishly, "We're going to wage jihad on you!" or something to that effect.

We actually have an interview with Osama bin Laden on why he terrorizes. This is from 1998:



The call to wage war against America was made because America has spear-headed the crusade against the Islamic nation, sending tens of thousands of its troops to the land of the two Holy Mosques over and above its meddling in its affairs and its politics, and its support of the oppressive, corrupt and tyrannical regime that is in control. These are the reasons behind the singling out of America as a target. And not exempt of responsibility are those Western regimes whose presence in the region offers support to the American troops there. We know at least one reason behind the symbolic participation of the Western forces and that is to support the Jewish and Zionist plans for expansion of what is called the Great Israel. Surely, their presence is not out of concern over their interests in the region. ... Their presence has no meaning save one and that is to offer support to the Jews in Palestine who are in need of their Christian brothers to achieve full control over the Arab Peninsula which they intend to make an important part of the so called Greater Israel....

"Christian brothers"? An objection to "tyrannical regime[s]"? Hmmmm....and I thought bin Laden wanted to simply massacre all non-Muslims for the hell of it, and establish a system of slavery throughout the world!


In today's wars, there are no morals, and it is clear that mankind has descended to the lowest degrees of decadence and oppression. They rip us of our wealth and of our resources and of our oil. Our religion is under attack. They kill and murder our brothers. They compromise our honor and our dignity and dare we utter a single word of protest against the injustice, we are called terrorists. This is compounded injustice. And the United Nations insistence to convict the victims and support the aggressors constitutes a serious precedence which shows the extent of injustice that has been allowed to take root in this land...

And I thought there was no such thing as "oppression", nor did I know that Arabic people even had a sense of "dignity" and "brotherhood"! I thought those were all mere inventions by the liberals in a plot with the terrorists to help them rule the world. Hmmmm....

The Western regimes and the government of the United States of America bear the blame for what might happen. If their people do not wish to be harmed inside their very own countries, they should seek to elect governments that are truly representative of them and that can protect their interests. ...

Wait, wait, I thought the American government always had our best interests at heart! Just like capitalist businessmen and huge corporations always have our best interests at heart.

The leaders in America and in other countries as well have fallen victim to Jewish Zionist blackmail. They have mobilized their people against Islam and against Muslims. These are portrayed in such a manner as to drive people to rally against them. The truth is that the whole Muslim world is the victim of international terrorism, engineered by America at the United Nations. We are a nation whose sacred symbols have been looted and whose wealth and resources have been plundered. It is normal for us to react against the forces that invade our land and occupy it ... .

I guess the definitions belong to the definers, where thd definers are those that have the power and means of spreading the propaganda, correct?

Through history, American has not been known to differentiate between the military and the civilians or between men and women or adults and children. Those who threw atomic bombs and used the weapons of mass destruction against Nagasaki and Hiroshima were the Americans. Can the bombs differentiate between military and women and infants and children? America has no religion that can deter her from exterminating whole peoples. Your position against Muslims in Palestine is despicable and disgraceful. America has no shame. ... We believe that the worst thieves in the world today and the worst terrorists are the Americans. Nothing could stop you except perhaps retaliation in kind. We do not have to differentiate between military or civilian. As far as we are concerned, they are all targets, and this is what the fatwah says ... . The fatwah is general (comprehensive) and it includes all those who participate in, or help the Jewish occupiers in killing Muslims.

And do you still think that the terrorists would act the way they do if Americans did not treat others' civilians like they were legitimate targets? Wake up, because the civilian death toll in Iraq has reached 11,000. The civilian death toll in Palestine is at 200,000. In Lebanon alone, thousands of Arabs (men, women, and children) were lined against a wall and shot by Israeli soldiers...you want to call them "war crimes"? No, it's terrorism.

And I would hate to bring up American support of dictators such as Pol Pot, then wanting to try him for his crimes for which he received total support simply because he was a nice "addition" to our imperial motives in Vietnam.

And our support of Popa Doc Duvalier?

Baby Doc Duvalier?

Pinochet?

...Hitler?

"I don't know something called International Principles. I vow that I'll burn every Palestinian child (that) will be born in this area. The Palestinian woman and child is more dangerous than the man, because the Palestinian child's existence infers that generations will go on, but the man causes limited danger. I vow that if I was just an Israeli civilian and I met a Palestinian I would burn him and I would make him suffer before killing him. With one hit I've killed 750 Palestinians (in Rafah in 1956). I wanted to encourage my soldiers by raping Arabic girls as the Palestinian women is a slave for Jews, and we do whatever we want to her and nobody tells us what we shall do but we tell others what they shall do."

Ariel Sharon, current Israeli Prime Minister, In an interview with General Ouze Merham, 1956

My hero!
this amounts to little more than terrorist sympathy

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 12:06 AM
the Philipino governmnet did the smart thing, why spend millions maitaining an army in Iraq, simply because the US and the UK aren't capable of handling a situation that they instigated by going too war for no reason. Bush lacked the resourcres to go into Iraq and handled things from the start and now the Bush administration is calling on other governmnets to bail him out. How laughable and at the same time, how very sad.
Nice of you to sugar-coat the Philipenes' soft stance on terrorists. They straight -up capitulated. That was a "smart thing"? They set the precedent for themselves that they can be bullied, period. Only they will really lose out for it in the long run. It was a "weak thing" that they did, and nothing more.

As far as a "bail-out", it is an incorrect assessment to even suggest we need one. Saddam is captured, sovereignty has been handed to an interim government in Iraq, and infrastructue is built and repaired more daily. Contrary to what the sensationalist media suggests, Iraq is, overall, going OK, and getting better daily.

Believe me, the 50 or so Filipino peacekeepers won't really make a difference at all. It is what their pullout symbolizes that is the issue. The phillipenes responded to terrorist threats with fear and concession, bar-none.

There is no way that you can spin this, but nice try.

[Guerrilla22]

[QUOTE]As far as a "bail-out", it is an incorrect assessment to even suggest we need one. Saddam is captured, sovereignty has been handed to an interim government in Iraq, and infrastructue is built and repaired more daily. Contrary to what the sensationalist media suggests, Iraq is, overall, going OK, and getting better daily.

:lol: Is that why the US requested that India, Japan, Thailand and South Korea send troops, because they have the situation under contro? Or better yet, why was the US pushing its NATO allies to get involved, if not take over the operation in Iraq if things are going so smoothly?

The truth is les than 25% of the Iraqi infastructure has been rebuilt, the Iraqi government is nothing more than a puppet regime (the US has veto power over any decision that they make) and the oly thing they have done is essentielly declare marshall law. Better?

On top of that the US is extending the tour duties of thousands of soldiers and is calling up retirees to go and serve, aside from the fact that they don't even control the entire country. Al-Sahdr's militia still controls Najaf. But keep telling yourself everything is fine, Imperialist, you're in denial just like every other right wing, neo-con in this country over the diaster that is Iraq.

[The Sloth]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 15 2004, 12:26 AM
this amounts to little more than terrorist sympathy
LMAO, you're quite the humorous character, ain't ya?!

:lol:


I understand your refusal to actually debate, or even to at least acknowledge my points. It's the equivalent of me simply replying with a "no" to every pro-capitalist post you make, which means, it's equivalent to absolute and meaningless nothingness.

But hey, didn't I say that arguing with individuals such as yourself is only for the purpose of "entertainment", not "intellectual stimulation"?

If you want to "amount" to something more than an agent of comic relief in this forum, then go ahead and dissect my argument point-by-point possibly to, ummm, show me how I am wrong, exactly?

And if not, then simply humor us some more...we can all use a good laugh every now and then.

Anyway, I'm out for the night...I hope we can actually debate sometime in the near future.

[Osman Ghazi]

They set the precedent for themselves that they can be bullied, period.

I think America set that precedent for the Filipinos when they promised them freedom then slaughtered them in the hundreds of thousands.

[Capitalist Imperial]

OK, OK, here we go...



To be quite honest, I hope the terrorists will be succesful in capturing dozens more of individuals, then releasing them unharmed after the respective nations agree to the reasonable terms set forth.

Like they did with Nick Berg, that other American contractor, and the South Korean? If you hope that terrorists are successful in capturing more individuals, then you are suppporting the terrorists, period. Don't bother amending that notion by adding "then releasing them", as you must concede that based on their current record, said individuals will most likely be killed, and in a violent and abhorrent fashion at that. To suggest that they will "catch and release" is to simply ignore the facts of who they are and what they have already done.



Fellow comardes, Capitalist Imperial is merely irrational.

Go on


Patriotism - an irrational attachment to a country especially for the reasons of emotional (irrational) reaction and a desperate seeking of identity.

I'm guessing that you generated that definition yourself sans consultation of Websters, OED, or Funk & Wagnalls.

If we are generating our own definitions, I would submit that "Patriotism" can be a very broad concept. Heck, I concede that many leftists on this board are patriotic, even if their opinion is one of dissent Vs. the current administration. If they really want a better, but still Constitutionally adherant, America, then they are patriots. Personally, my patriotism stems from love for my nation, what it has done for the world, and what it has done for me. Whether you agree with its foreign policy or not, you have to admit that the US has significantly impacted the world in many positive ways in the 20th century, especially in regards to technology, business, industry, and economics, where we have been the unequivocal leader. I have a good life here, and a lot of that is due to the American system, and I thus reciprocate that by showing pride and support for my nation. Emotional? Yes, but definitely rational.



So, this patriot falls into the same category with every other "compassionate conservative." [smirk] If one should decide to spit some logic and reasoning at these type of individuals, it would merely slide off of them like their bodies are waterproof. Thus, "debating" is useless....but, of course, you can "debate" for your own entertainment.

Just like you fall into the same category with every othe self-righteous Afro-centric Muslim pseudo-intellectual who loves to look at his own prose almost as much as he likes to hear his own voice while espousing about the evils of his capitalist oppressors in Jesse-Jacksonesqe dialect?. As your very pretentious avatar suggests, you are actually melodramatic enough to consider yourself a "slave". If you want to discuss logic, then go to dictionary.com, look up slave, and tell me specifically how the definition applies to you. Oh, let me guess, you do not adhere to American dictionaries because they are written by agents of your oppressors and thus do not fully take into account your culture, people, or issues central to your community or history, blah, blah, blah...


See, I hate to break it to you, but the terrorists are not out to destroy us for the sake of a "hate" for freedom or some other non-sense.

Oh, I'm sorry, their flying 2 Jets into the WTC and the Pentagon, summarily executing more than 3000 innocent civilians, most of who had little to do with US foreign policy, must have confused me. Oh, and Osamas's commentary on more than one occasiaon that he wants every single American, and non-muslim for that matter, dead, threw me off a little as well. My bad, I guess.

Get serious.


I don't like the tactics that are used by terrorists, but I also understand that you can't "kill off" every terrorist in hopes of attenuating its status as a global problem.

You don't like the tactics used by terorists, huh? May I quote you from this very post?

"To be quite honest, I hope the terrorists will be succesful in capturing dozens more of individuals, then releasing them unharmed after the respective nations agree to the reasonable terms set forth."

So, Brooklyn Mecca, when did you lie, when you made the 1st statement supporting the terrorist tactics, or the second about not liking terrorist tactics?

We don't hope to kill off every terrorist, nor do we think we can, but we will absolutely not take a soft stance on them, and we will definitely bring the fight to their doorstep as they so did to us. We are addressing terrorism on every scale, from the macro to the micro. Direct engagement of terrorist cells is just a very small part of what is being done, not the only thing being done.



This is only turning one form of distress into another, which does nothing except in the short-term, while retaining the causes for terrorism in the first place. Actually, terrorism is similar to the crime in non-white neighborhoods throughout America: it is a product of imperialism (domestic colonialism), desperation, poverty and etcetera.

As we see, more apologism and excuse-maiking for mass murderers is the order of the day for Brooklyn-Mecca. The terrorists are responsible for their actions, just like criminals in any nation are responsible for theirs, and that is the bottom line. Socio-economic concerns are legitimate, and should be addressed, and I think that we are working to acheive equities where they didn't exist before, and I acknowledge that we have a lot of work to do, but it absolutely does not excuse individuals from their actions, as you seem to suggest it should.


Terrorism is worse because it is against the backdrop of a religion (which would foster fanatacism ipso facto). But please don't make the claim of "Islam is not a religion of peace", because last time I checked, Colin Powell exclaimed, ever so foolishly, "We're going to wage jihad on you!" or something to that effect.

You won't get an argument from me on the futility of any religion, or how those mythological belief systems have been used to justify horrible actions throughout human history. However, I don't believe I ever referenced Islam specifically. I will say that I hold any myth-based belief system in contempt. Lets get serious, if you want to talk irrationalty, lets talk religion.


We actually have an interview with Osama bin Laden on why he terrorizes. This is from 1998:

This interview has been posted on this board a myriad of times. It is simply his interpretation of world events. He naturally makes some good points, he also makes some illogical points and submits a number of fallacies. Again, everything he does is for the "Glory of Allah", and he admits this, and thus he is a minion of mythology,and I give him no creedence. Besides, the body of his argument involves criticizing the US for doing what mankind has done since the beginning of time. His own people did it in their own region years before the US even existed. America just happens to be particularly adept at it in this point in history. His own family, the Bin Ladens, are actually pro-America, and have heavy investment in the US and strong ties with the US government and the Bush family in particular. That in and of itself sugggests that Osama is only one opinion of what America means to the middle east, not the absolute outlook of the middle-east. He is the balck sheep of the family, not the voice of it. By the way, where was the anti-american rhetoric and action when we were supporting him against the Soviet invaision in the late 70's & early 80's? He certainly didn't have a problem with the US then. Only after to soviets fall doe he select a new target, and it is the very people that helped liberate him from the USSR. He is the very embodiment of political hypocracy, sir.

And lets not kid ourselves, the man is a sociopath.

Your posting of the OBL interview is indicative of you lending him even an iota of credibility, and that in and of itself compomises your own credibility and dare I say inegrity. However, as a fellow American I defend your right to espouse such illogical pap.

I await your response...

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 15 2004, 11:53 AM
OK, OK, here we go...




Like they did with Nick Berg, that other American contractor, and the South Korean? If you hope that terrorists are successful in capturing more individuals, then you are suppporting the terrorists, period. Don't bother amending that notion by adding "then releasing them", as you must concede that based on their current record, said individuals will most likely be killed, and in a violent and abhorrent fashion at that. To suggest that they will "catch and release" is to simply ignore the facts of who they are and what they have already done.




Go on



I'm guessing that you generated that definition yourself sans consultation of Websters, OED, or Funk & Wagnalls.

If we are generating our own definitions, I would submit that "Patriotism" can be a very broad concept. Heck, I concede that many leftists on this board are patriotic, even if their opinion is one of dissent Vs. the current administration. If they really want a better, but still Constitutionally adherant, America, then they are patriots. Personally, my patriotism stems from love for my nation, what it has done for the world, and what it has done for me. Whether you agree with its foreign policy or not, you have to admit that the US has significantly impacted the world in many positive ways in the 20th century, especially in regards to technology, business, industry, and economics, where we have been the unequivocal leader. I have a good life here, and a lot of that is due to the American system, and I thus reciprocate that by showing pride and support for my nation. Emotional? Yes, but definitely rational.




Just like you fall into the same category with every othe self-righteous Afro-centric Muslim pseudo-intellectual who loves to look at his own prose almost as much as he likes to hear his own voice while espousing about the evils of his capitalist oppressors in Jesse-Jacksonesqe dialect?. As your very pretentious avatar suggests, you are actually melodramatic enough to consider yourself a "slave". If you want to discuss logic, then go to dictionary.com, look up slave, and tell me specifically how the definition applies to you. Oh, let me guess, you do not adhere to American dictionaries because they are written by agents of your oppressors and thus do not fully take into account your culture, people, or issues central to your community or history, blah, blah, blah...



Oh, I'm sorry, their flying 2 Jets into the WTC and the Pentagon, summarily executing more than 3000 innocent civilians, most of who had little to do with US foreign policy, must have confused me. Oh, and Osamas's commentary on more than one occasiaon that he wants every single American, and non-muslim for that matter, dead, threw me off a little as well. My bad, I guess.

Get serious.



You don't like the tactics used by terorists, huh? May I quote you from this very post?

"To be quite honest, I hope the terrorists will be succesful in capturing dozens more of individuals, then releasing them unharmed after the respective nations agree to the reasonable terms set forth."

So, Brooklyn Mecca, when did you lie, when you made the 1st statement supporting the terrorist tactics, or the second about not liking terrorist tactics?

We don't hope to kill off every terrorist, nor do we think we can, but we will absolutely not take a soft stance on them, and we will definitely bring the fight to their doorstep as they so did to us. We are addressing terrorism on every scale, from the macro to the micro. Direct engagement of terrorist cells is just a very small part of what is being done, not the only thing being done.




As we see, more apologism and excuse-maiking for mass murderers is the order of the day for Brooklyn-Mecca. The terrorists are responsible for their actions, just like criminals in any nation are responsible for theirs, and that is the bottom line. Socio-economic concerns are legitimate, and should be addressed, and I think that we are working to acheive equities where they didn't exist before, and I acknowledge that we have a lot of work to do, but it absolutely does not excuse individuals from their actions, as you seem to suggest it should.



You won't get an argument from me on the futility of any religion, or how those mythological belief systems have been used to justify horrible actions throughout human history. However, I don't believe I ever referenced Islam specifically. I will say that I hold any myth-based belief system in contempt. Lets get serious, if you want to talk irrationalty, lets talk religion.



This interview has been posted on this board a myriad of times. It is simply his interpretation of world events. He naturally makes some good points, he also makes some illogical points and submits a number of fallacies. Again, everything he does is for the "Glory of Allah", and he admits this, and thus he is a minion of mythology,and I give him no creedence. Besides, the body of his argument involves criticizing the US for doing what mankind has done since the beginning of time. His own people did it in their own region years before the US even existed. America just happens to be particularly adept at it in this point in history. His own family, the Bin Ladens, are actually pro-America, and have heavy investment in the US and strong ties with the US government and the Bush family in particular. That in and of itself sugggests that Osama is only one opinion of what America means to the middle east, not the absolute outlook of the middle-east. He is the balck sheep of the family, not the voice of it. By the way, where was the anti-american rhetoric and action when we were supporting him against the Soviet invaision in the late 70's & early 80's? He certainly didn't have a problem with the US then. Only after to soviets fall doe he select a new target, and it is the very people that helped liberate him from the USSR. He is the very embodiment of political hypocracy, sir.

And lets not kid ourselves, the man is a sociopath.

Your posting of the OBL interview is indicative of you lending him even an iota of credibility, and that in and of itself compomises your own credibility and dare I say inegrity. However, as a fellow American I defend your right to espouse such illogical pap.

I await your response...
This amounts to little more then arrogant ethnocentrism...

[Osman Ghazi]

Like they did with Nick Berg, that other American contractor, and the South Korean?

Actually, they were killed because America and South Korea unconditionally refused to bring back their troops. Who knows, they might just keep their word and let that Filipino go. Hey, anything's possible.


Personally, my patriotism stems from love for my nation, what it has done for the world

Like say killing millions of people? Seriously though, what have htey done that is so great?


what it has done for me.

Oh, I see. That makes sense. People who benefit materially from capitalisms continued existance rarely have any complaints about it.


Just like you fall into the same category with every othe self-righteous Afro-centric Muslim pseudo-intellectual who loves to look at his own prose almost as much as he likes to hear his own voice while espousing about the evils of his capitalist oppressors in Jesse-Jacksonesqe dialect?.

Actually I believe that Brooklyn-Mecca is Russian, but nice try champ.


We don't hope to kill off every terrorist, nor do we think we can, but we will absolutely not take a soft stance on them, and we will definitely bring the fight to their doorstep as they so did to us.

So you'll sacrifce the lives of thousands to kill them even though you recognize that it wont do anything? All so you wont look like pussies for 'taking a soft stance on terrorism'?. You guys are fucked up.


Socio-economic concerns are legitimate, and should be addressed, and I think that we are working to acheive equities where they didn't exist before

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHA
HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA

You can really make me laugh CI. Dont tell me your so brainwashed as to believe that nations are capable of altruism.


I will say that I hold any myth-based belief system in contempt.

Except for capitalism, but only because it benefits you materially. If you were a priest for example, you would have no problem tolerating the myth-based system of Christianity, for the same reason. Your just a selfish bastard.


He is the very embodiment of political hypocracy, sir.


If ever there was a hypocritical statement, you just made it. You have no problem with the U$ wielding Iraq as a weapon against Iran and then attacking them when their country lay in ruins; yet, for Osama Bin Laden to accept help from someone who was using him for their own plans and then turn on them is hypocracy. You need to make up your mind about what is right and wrong. Or is it that America is allowed to do whatever it wants and everyone else has to play by a different set of rules?

[antieverything]

Last I checked, Spain swung socialist not because of the terrorist attacks but rather because the ruling party LIED about it for political gain. The Socialists had been promising to pull out the troops since the beginning since the vast majority of Spaniards were opposed to the war in the first place.

As to the rest of this discussion...most of it from both sides is utter crap.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 09:17 PM
Last I checked, Spain swung socialist not because of the terrorist attacks but rather because the ruling party LIED about it for political gain. The Socialists had been promising to pull out the troops since the beginning since the vast majority of Spaniards were opposed to the war in the first place.


that is exactly what I said

[antieverything]

No, you said that was the "excuse."


Spain's excuse was " It is well known that we were always going to pull out after the elections voted in socialist scum anyway". OK, at least they have that.

[The Sloth]

OK, OK, here we go...

Beautiful.




Like they did with Nick Berg, that other American contractor, and the South Korean?

America didn't "give in" to the "horrible" demands of the terrorists, i.e. "end the oppression", etc. South Korea didn't, either.

If you hope that terrorists are successful in capturing more individuals, then you are suppporting the terrorists, period. Don't bother amending that notion by adding "then releasing them", as you must concede that based on their current record, said individuals will most likely be killed, and in a violent and abhorrent fashion at that. To suggest that they will "catch and release" is to simply ignore the facts of who they are and what they have already done.

Why don't you like the fact that I added the word "release"? Could it be because the terrorists are actually human beings with legitimate concerns, but unfortunately are blinded about the way to go about securing their legitimate demands? Wouldn't the solution to terrorism be the removal of a need to resort to terrorism in the first place? Like I said, I don't want the terrorists to "capture and kill", but "capture and release." I support the ultimate aim of the terrorists, not the methods they use. "Capturing and releasing" is fine with me because not only is no one hurt, but we are one step closer to reaching peace on all sides, not peace on the American side by waging "jihad" (as Colon Powell said) against the Muslim world.

By the way, how do you propose the removal of terrorism? I already mentioned that terrorism is a reaction to oppression in many forms. So, do you suppose terrorism may be removed by retaining the current foreign policy, while hoping to destroy every last "terrorist cell", "terrorist bloc", "rogue nation", etc.? Or is there a better solution, such as the removal of exploitation, the condemnation of the genocidal campaign against the Palestinians by the hypocritcal Israelis that don't give a fuck about their own people?

Do you want leaders such as Ariel Sharon in power? Look at this raging lunatic:

"I don't know something called International Principles. I vow that I'll burn every Palestinian child (that) will be born in this area. The Palestinian woman and child is more dangerous than the man, because the Palestinian child's existence infers that generations will go on, but the man causes limited danger. I vow that if I was just an Israeli civilian and I met a Palestinian I would burn him and I would make him suffer before killing him. With one hit I've killed 750 Palestinians (in Rafah in 1956). I wanted to encourage my soldiers by raping Arabic girls as the Palestinian women is a slave for Jews, and we do whatever we want to her and nobody tells us what we shall do but we tell others what they shall do."

- Ariel Sharon, current Israeli Prime Minister, in an interview with General Ouze Merham, 1956



I'm guessing that you generated that definition yourself sans consultation of Websters, OED, or Funk & Wagnalls.

Yes, I generated that definition myself.

Heck, I concede that many leftists on this board are patriotic, even if their opinion is one of dissent Vs. the current administration. If they really want a better, but still Constitutionally adherant, America, then they are patriots.

Of course the individuals on this board want to create a "better America" in the short-term. However, it's interesting that you bring up the constitution...your interpretation of the current American realities are that we are a "great democracy." Unfortunately for you, that is simply not the case because the masses' thoughts are controlled by those with the means of control itself, and the presidential candidates themselves represent bullshit and temporary "solutions" to appease the growing demand of justice. You're quite right when you said that "we are generating our own definitions." In the case of America, and the Western world, the "definitions belong in the hands of the definers" (to quote School Teacher from Toni Morrison's Beloved), where the definers are those with the means to power.

Personally, my patriotism stems from love for my nation, what it has done for the world, and what it has done for me. Whether you agree with its foreign policy or not, you have to admit that the US has significantly impacted the world in many positive ways in the 20th century, especially in regards to technology, business, industry, and economics, where we have been the unequivocal leader.

You love your nation, thus you are a nationalist. A "patriot" is simply a nice way of saying "nationalist", and we all know where "nationalism" leads us. "Nationalism" goes hand-in-hand with ethno-centricity, racism, justification for exploitation, etc. except now you're doing it on a much smaller scale. Sure, the United States impacted the world in many positive ways, but you seem to be turning a blind eye to our evils, and our continual evils even to this day. A recent example is that we have helped remove Jean-Bertrand Aristide from power in Haiti, the first democratically elected president of the country. We have systematically blamed him for the economic problems there, while America knows that its support of the two grotesque dictators "Popa Doc" and "Baby Doc" Duvalier is really what's to blame for the current situation there. While we have refused to show the documents which prove that while the elections there were flawed to an extent, Aristide still had the support of the overwhelming majority, a fact that Bush cannot claim about himself. At the same time, we have withdrawn funds from the country which could have been used to combat the immense AIDS epidemic that is ravaging Haiti.

Also, your "good life here", I'm sure, is just excellent. However, where do you live, if I may ask? Would you like to go down the streets of Brooklyn with me (and I'm not talking about the Jewish, Italian, and Russian neighborhoods)? You will come to find that you are living at the expense of many others. However, the blacks' and hispanics' situation in places like New York City is horribly minute compared to the situation in India, Africa, and South America. Odd, I didn't see any famines in those areas before the imperialist interventions, who have come to turn their backs on economic development in the region after raping the African continent's pussy.

Also, your "nationalism" is also irrational despite what you believe. It's no different than a "white nationalist" who believes in his races great achievements by creating an irrational attachment to them as if he actually had something to do with their successes. It's a lame attempt to find an identity. And despite your accusations of the communists' "nationalism" or "patriotism" simply because they are in a "common struggle", this makes no sense because we are actively in this "common struggle" and hope to broaded its effects upon everyone in the world, not limit it to "certain regions."

And before I'm done with this section of your argument, I also want to re-post a few great words by a fellow comrade on this board which addresses the question of "foreign policy" and our great commitment to democracy:


The United States overthrew the populist Mohammad Mossadegh of Iran while keeping the dictatorial Shah in power and subsequently taking control of much of Iran's oil, terminated the Democratic Spring in Guatemala in 1954 and backing a series of dictatorships for the next thirty years making Guatemala have one of the worst Human Rights and poverty records in the world(with results that continue today, Guatemala is still a miserable country with meaningless elections and horrendous Human Rights abuses), helping South Korean dictator Syngman Rhee murder 100,000 South Koreans and crush local progressive forces right after World War II, launching a war against North Korea which killed about four million North Koreans and purposely destroyed every building in the country and subsequently the targeted bombing of dams, attempted to terminate Costa Rican Democracy twice, hired fomer Nazis as spies and terrorist agents and subsequently helped them escape mainly to Latin America, helped escalate and perhaps start a civil war in Greece which ended up with the progressive former anti-fascists resitance forces being crushed and Nazi collaborators and monarchists coming to power causing 1,500,000 deaths during the war and many more after that in concentration camps under the Greek dictators, launched a terrorist war against Nicaragua murdering 30,000-40,000 people, organized and trained the violent jihadi Mujahideen in Afghanistan to lure in Russia and overthrow the local progressive government, crushed the Huks in the Philippines and replaced them with a series of dictatorial governments, aided dictator Suharto in his genocidal atrocities in Aceh, West Papua, and East Timor, gave weapons to both sides in the Iran/Iraq War to increase casualties, organized the most extensive campaign of international terrorism against Cuba plus subjecting it to economic strangulation, sent troops to the Dominican Republic to ensure the Democratically-elected President Juan Bosche is not able to stay in office, launced foreign invasions and genocidal bombings in Laos and Cambodia which decimated the peasent populations, started the Vietnam War and killed 3 to 4 million people, directed Thai dictators in a "counterinsurgency" program of assassinations against local dissidents, ended the presidency and ultimately the life of Democratically-elected President Salvador Allende of Chile and replaced him with dictator Augusto Pinochet, overthrew Democratically-elected President Cheddi Jagan of Guyana, attempted to assassinate President Charles de Gaulle of France, organized the overthrow of the Iraqi leader Abdel Karim Kassem and replaced him with the Ba'ath Party, aided in the assassination of Patrice Lumumba of the Congo and helped dictator Mobutu Sese Seko stay in power after numerous slaughters, attempted to assassinate Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru of India, backed Pol Pot in his fight against the Vietnamese and punished the Vietnamese for their liberation of Cambodia by subjecting them to sanctions and later an embargo, engaged in terrorist attacks against Libya, shot down four Iranian planes, perverted elections in Italy more than once, crushed an independence rebellion in Puerto Rico, aided the military forces in El Salvador while escalating a civil war in which 70,000 people were killed mainly by the U.S.-backed mercenary army of El Salvador, overthrew the Democratically elected President Joao Goulart of Brazil and replaced him with a serious of Neo-Nazi dictatorships, participated in Israel's merciless war in Lebanon which killed almost 20,000 people in ten months, attacked protestors in Panama, aided the South African Apartheid in its wars in the surrounding countries and South Africa itself, trained numerous armies in other nations in tactics of torture and terror, and backed over 80 dictatorships. The U.S. record against primarily the Third World during the period we ridicolously call the Cold War was horrendous.

(Thank you, Lu)


Just like you fall into the same category with every othe self-righteous Afro-centric...

Afro-centric? I'm white and don't believe in nationalism unless the movement is there for the purpose of a short-term solution of ridding the shackles of an oppressor. And if the agenda is purely nationalist forever, with no other thoughts of future progress, then I'll be forever against it. Kinda like the Black Muslim movement, 5% Nation, etc.

Muslim...

Haha, nice try. I'm an ex-Christian, now an atheist.

pseudo-intellectual...

Can't I apply the same term to you? Or are you exempt from this title for undisclosed reasons? Or do you simply consider yourself intellectually superior to everyone else on this board?

who loves to look at his own prose...

That I do, except I could hardly call this debate filled with any such "prose."

almost as much as he likes to hear his own voice while espousing about the evils of his capitalist oppressors in Jesse-Jacksonesqe dialect

No, actually, I equally love to look at my own prose as much as I love to espouse the evils of my capitalist oppressors. :lol: I don't follow Jesse Jackson, so I wouldn't know about his "dialect."



As your very pretentious avatar suggests, you are actually melodramatic enough to consider yourself a "slave".

And do you know even the "nature" of my avatar, the context that it is even in, where it actually appeared, who is on it, and what it even represents?

Or are you merely speculating?

Of course it's the latter, so allow me to explain.

The person on my avatar is not me, as I assume that you think (considering that you called me an afro-centric Muslim). It is actually Ras Kass, a politically-charged underground rapper that has been around since 1993, landed a recording contract with Priority Records, only to have his only hip-hop masterpiece taken off the shelves one month after its release, with Priority refusing to work on his music further, only making false promises. I could understand their reaction if he was a horrible emcee, but that's simply not the case. When Ras Kass attempted to get out from Priority after cancellations on projects, musical tracks, pushing back on dates, etc. they refused to let him leave even though they were not focusing on him. Thus, they kept him part of the "contract" of which he wanted no part of, of which he was giving them work but getting nothing in return. Thus, he took a picture and wrote the words "slave" on his cheek, which is very much justifiable.

If you want to discuss logic, then go to dictionary.com, look up slave, and tell me specifically how the definition applies to you.

Well, since we're talking about me now, and not Ras Kass, the word "slave" may be an exaggeration, but since I am in fact trying to change a world that seems a little hopeless, with resistance from those that can actually help to improve our conditions, then I guess I am a "slave" in the sense that I am working and getting not too much in return. In the broader sense, while I may not be a "slave" because capitalism has been reformed and reformed again domestically, ask the question to a South American "worker" that gets paid virtually nothing for his labor.

Or, ask a black South African laborer that is slaving away at a gold mine to appease the disgusting desires for gold that a black man has in America, to make himself feel "worth" anything. Ras Kass was the first to say this, and it's become a favorite quote of mine:

"You want to know why white people seem to laugh at blacks?
Because brothers in South Africa slaving to death in diamond mines
Meanwhile, we spending every penny to over-shine
Tellin' the next nigga he's lesser,
Simply because he can't afford to buy ice from his oppressor
So now he's ready to pull out nines,
Ready to homicide for mine,
While George Bush got a war on crime..."

and, of course, here's another aspect to consider:

"I say 'fuck the police', that's how I treat them
We buy our way out of jail, but can't buy freedom
We buy a lot of clothes but we don't really need them
The things we buy, to cover up what's inside
'Cause they made us hate ourself, and love their wealth..."

Is that an incorrect analysis?

Oh, let me guess, you do not adhere to American dictionaries because they are written by agents of your oppressors and thus do not fully take into account your culture, people, or issues central to your community or history, blah, blah, blah...

Ummmmmmm, sure.


Oh, I'm sorry, their flying 2 Jets into the WTC and the Pentagon, summarily executing more than 3000 innocent civilians, most of who had little to do with US foreign policy, must have confused me.

That's why I disagree with the "terrorist method."

You don't like the tactics used by terorists, huh? May I quote you from this very post?

"To be quite honest, I hope the terrorists will be succesful in capturing dozens more of individuals, then releasing them unharmed after the respective nations agree to the reasonable terms set forth."

I have already elaborated on this.

We don't hope to kill off every terrorist, nor do we think we can, but we will absolutely not take a soft stance on them, and we will definitely bring the fight to their doorstep as they so did to us. We are addressing terrorism on every scale, from the macro to the micro. Direct engagement of terrorist cells is just a very small part of what is being done, not the only thing being done.

And you believe that this will do anything other than kill the current terrorists? I'm sure you know that terrorists are easy to replace.

As we see, more apologism and excuse-maiking for mass murderers is the order of the day for Brooklyn-Mecca.

I understand it's easy to see it that way, but I also understand that you have something against the truth. I can just as easily say that you're an apologist for the American terrorism that has been going on for such a long time, but I won't. Actually, I don't think you're even aware of the American atrocities, so I won't even bother.

I prefer to be realistic, and address the causes of terrorism. You, on the other hand, want to go on a blind shooting spree to destroy every terrorist cell that is found, hoping to attenuate their impact. Since the sole purpose of counter-terrorism should be to render the terrorists incapable of attacking us, then your plan of action does not coincide with this goal.

The terrorists are responsible for their actions, just like criminals in any nation are responsible for theirs, and that is the bottom line. Socio-economic concerns are legitimate, and should be addressed, and I think that we are working to acheive equities where they didn't exist before, and I acknowledge that we have a lot of work to do, but it absolutely does not excuse individuals from their actions, as you seem to suggest it should.

No, I don't suggest any such thing. Did you ever see me say that we should grant amnesty to every American criminal, or amnesty to every terrorist? Of course not. However, while you claim that "socio-economics" are "legitimate", I don't think you care about them as much as you do about the punishment aspect of your argument. Because I see Republicans always mentioning the "progress" we are making. Wow, that's just great, right? Let's take a look at our capitalistic progress:

Some basic stats for the last 20 years in the United States:

Children living in poverty increased 38%
Wages down for those under 25 33%
Wages down for high school dropouts 23%
Wages down for high school graduates 17%
Wages down for some college 8%
Wages up for college graduates 5%
Average wage down 14% since 1988.
Unemployment rates in inner city America is between 30% and 50%.

And who is this mostly affecting? Whites? No, of course not. So, where will crime increase? In Harlem? You're damn right!

Trade Unions

Ninety-one percent of employers, when faced with employees who want to join together in a union, force employees to attend closed-door meetings to hear anti-union propaganda; 80% require immediate supervisors to attend training sessions on how to attack unions; and 79% have supervisors deliver anti-union messages to workers they oversee.
Eighty percent hire outside consultants to run anti-union campaigns, often based on mass psychology and distorting the law.

Hmmm....

Poverty:

Per capita, more Americans live in poverty than anytime since 1959.

The World Health Organization claims the biggest killer in the world today is not cancer or any other disease but “deep poverty”.

In the United States the richest society in the whole of human history, 32 million people were living below the poverty line in 1988 (this was at the height of a 1980’s boom) and nearly one in five children were born into poverty.

Catholic Charities said that the number of meals they provided nationwide in 1996 had increased by 16%, and nights people spent in shelters increased 35%.

In Britain one in three children grow up in poverty (defined as being half the average wage), and one in five households have no breadwinner.

In 1992 the total economic output of the whole world was five times what it was in 1950, yet poverty is worse than what it was 45 years ago.

97 percent of the rural population of Bolivia (the poorest Latin American country) are below the UN poverty line.

In Britain, working class people are two times more likely to die of cancer and three times more likely to die of heart disease than the rich or middle classes.

Stress:

Work [within the capitalist paradigm] is a major cause of stress and of 5000 office workers surveyed in 16 countries by the Financial Times said that there stress levels had risen in the last two years.

Americans now work an average of 164 more hours annually than 20 years ago that amounts to about a month more at the work place.


Progress?!


This interview has been posted on this board a myriad of times. It is simply his interpretation of world events. He naturally makes some good points, he also makes some illogical points and submits a number of fallacies. Again, everything he does is for the "Glory of Allah", and he admits this, and thus he is a minion of mythology,and I give him no creedence. Besides, the body of his argument involves criticizing the US for doing what mankind has done since the beginning of time. His own people did it in their own region years before the US even existed. America just happens to be particularly adept at it in this point in history. His own family, the Bin Ladens, are actually pro-America, and have heavy investment in the US and strong ties with the US government and the Bush family in particular. That in and of itself sugggests that Osama is only one opinion of what America means to the middle east, not the absolute outlook of the middle-east. He is the balck sheep of the family, not the voice of it. By the way, where was the anti-american rhetoric and action when we were supporting him against the Soviet invaision in the late 70's & early 80's? He certainly didn't have a problem with the US then. Only after to soviets fall doe he select a new target, and it is the very people that helped liberate him from the USSR.

You're right, he makes both idiotic and worthy points. He is a sociopath. But, all things considered, don't you think that terrorism should be addressed in different ways? Don't you think that the Israeli thugs/terrorists need to be re-assessed? Do you think that Osama bin Laden is lying when he mentions Israel's plan for expansion into other territories for the purpose of establishing a "Greater Israel"? If so, I can give you quotes by Zionist leaders that show this idiocy. Do you think he's lying when he mentions neo-imperialism, exploitation, etc.?

Your posting of the OBL interview is indicative of you lending him even an iota of credibility, and that in and of itself compomises your own credibility and dare I say inegrity. However, as a fellow American I defend your right to espouse such illogical pap.

I guess credibility belongs to those with power, because those with power are always the ones that are the righteous? Israel, for example, is righteous. Ariel Sharon's disgusting references to Arabic women as "slaves to the Jewish people" is also righteous? Hmmmm....

[__ca va?]

I don't understand your problem, CI, why leaving 58 soldiers there for another 6 weeks? It's just not worth the life of a person! And when hundreds of thousands of soldiers are in Iraq that 58 just doesn't count! I wish the Hungarians were as 'afraid' of the terrorists as the Filipinos and 'capitulated' ;)

And I think invading Iraq was a very bad step because now America can't handle the situation and when they'll leave the Iraqi the people will establish a new fundamentalist shiite republic, like Iran. And America can't blame them for this, have a look at my signature!

[Guerrilla22]

Good point,
There were only 58 Filllipino soldiers in Iraq, is it really going to make that much of a difference if they are there or not, especially since "things are under control" as CI claims.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 15 2004, 07:16 PM

Actually, they were killed because America and South Korea unconditionally refused to bring back their troops. Who knows, they might just keep their word and let that Filipino go. Hey, anything's possible.



Like say killing millions of people? Seriously though, what have htey done that is so great?



Oh, I see. That makes sense. People who benefit materially from capitalisms continued existance rarely have any complaints about it.



Actually I believe that Brooklyn-Mecca is Russian, but nice try champ.



So you'll sacrifce the lives of thousands to kill them even though you recognize that it wont do anything? All so you wont look like pussies for 'taking a soft stance on terrorism'?. You guys are fucked up.



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHA
HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA

You can really make me laugh CI. Dont tell me your so brainwashed as to believe that nations are capable of altruism.



Except for capitalism, but only because it benefits you materially. If you were a priest for example, you would have no problem tolerating the myth-based system of Christianity, for the same reason. Your just a selfish bastard.



If ever there was a hypocritical statement, you just made it. You have no problem with the U$ wielding Iraq as a weapon against Iran and then attacking them when their country lay in ruins; yet, for Osama Bin Laden to accept help from someone who was using him for their own plans and then turn on them is hypocracy. You need to make up your mind about what is right and wrong. Or is it that America is allowed to do whatever it wants and everyone else has to play by a different set of rules?

[QUOTE]Actually, they were killed because America and South Korea unconditionally refused to bring back their troops. Who knows, they might just keep their word and let that Filipino go. Hey, anything's possible.

Exactly, we won't capitulate to terrorist demands to any degree. I agree wholeheartedly.


Like say killing millions of people? Seriously though, what have htey done that is so great?

if you want to address "killing millions", address humanity, not America. Address the vikings, the huns, the goths, the moores, the christians, the muslims, the chinese, the rusians, the germans, etc. This is par for the course on earth, sir, and not as simple as you suggest

Oh, lets see... WWI, WWII (you can split hairs on exactly how and when we joined. The point is, we contributed.), the Cold War , the assembly line, the airplane, the telegraph, the telepone, the television (debatable), the radio (debatable) the helicopter, the personal computer, the light bulb, generated electricity, nuclear power, the internet, the cotton gin, the space shuttle the leadership role on the international space station, rock n' roll, jazz, blues, hip-hop, windows OS, pretty much all modern cinema, blue jeans, leaders in biotech, leaders in nanotech, leaders in genetics, the artificial heart

are those great enough for you? if you can come up with a more impressive list from one single nation or even a combination of countries, please do


Oh, I see. That makes sense. People who benefit materially from capitalisms continued existance rarely have any complaints about it.

Not just material benefit, but quality of life, a cool history, the world's most beautiful natural landscape, and endless opportunity. You are trying to put words in my mouth, sir.


Actually I believe that Brooklyn-Mecca is Russian, but nice try champ.

His description states he is from brooklyn. Where did you get that he was russian? Maybe he can shed some light on this.
If I made a mistake, I apologze, but that is really off-topic.


So you'll sacrifce the lives of thousands to kill them even though you recognize that it wont do anything? All so you wont look like pussies for 'taking a soft stance on terrorism'?. You guys are fucked up.

If you are refering to collateral damage, I will concede that such incidentals are unfortunate, but must be taken in the greater context of fighting global terrorism. It not about "not looking like wussies", it is about addressing terrorism, and I never "recogized that it wouldn't do anything", I think that it is doing quite a lot. 3 years since 9/11 and not a single attack on US soil. Quadafi has surrendered his weapons program. The results are there.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHA
HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA

You can really make me laugh CI. Dont tell me your so brainwashed as to believe that nations are capable of altruism.


Simply labeling me as brainwashed means nothing, I can say the same about you or anyone else that I disagree with. That is nd ad-hominem attack.
I would say that America has gven more aid and help for disaster relief, and has relieved more of other nation's debt, than any other nation that exists. Isn't that alturistc, sir?


If ever there was a hypocritical statement, you just made it. You have no problem with the U$ wielding Iraq as a weapon against Iran and then attacking them when their country lay in ruins; yet, for Osama Bin Laden to accept help from someone who was using him for their own plans and then turn on them is hypocracy. You need to make up your mind about what is right and wrong. Or is it that America is allowed to do whatever it wants and everyone else has to play by a different set of rules?

Actually, we sort of played iraq and iran against each other at the same time in that one. Besides, what are talking about "attacking them when their country lay in ruin"? When did that happen? You sem to be guilty of the same confusion over rght and wrong that you accuse me of.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by __ca [email protected] 15 2004, 10:47 PM
I don't understand your problem, CI, why leaving 58 soldiers there for another 6 weeks? It's just not worth the life of a person! And when hundreds of thousands of soldiers are in Iraq that 58 just doesn't count! I wish the Hungarians were as 'afraid' of the terrorists as the Filipinos and 'capitulated' ;)

And I think invading Iraq was a very bad step because now America can't handle the situation and when they'll leave the Iraqi the people will establish a new fundamentalist shiite republic, like Iran. And America can't blame them for this, have a look at my signature!
I agree with what you are saying. I concede that 58 soldiers does not matter. It is what the action represents that matters. The filipinos gave in to terrorist demands, straight up. They have set a precedent for themselves, and sent a statement that "terrorism works against us".

I said something to this effect in my 1st post,

And the US is doing fine in Iraq. Let us suspend judgement until we are done there, and let history decide. All of your analysis of the US in Iraq is for not. It is like you are trying to determine who won a basketball game at half-time.

[Daniel Karssenberg]

Why are you named Capitalist Imperial? As a capitalist, you should not favour military interference...

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 10:55 PM
Good point,
There were only 58 Filllipino soldiers in Iraq, is it really going to make that much of a difference if they are there or not, especially since "things are under control" as CI claims.
it will make a difference for terrorists who know how to make the philipenes bend

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Daniel [email protected] 15 2004, 11:28 PM
Why are you named Capitalist Imperial? As a capitalist, you should not favour military interference...
I favor military supplementation to help maintain and strengthen existing economic interests and spheres of influence. The US has never had a problem with the military interfering in business.

[Daniel Karssenberg]

I favor military supplementation to help maintain and strengthen existing economic interests and spheres of influence. The US has never had a problem with the military interfering in business.

That's insane and imperialist, you can't just decide to attack a country because it is interesting for a certain group of people. You're working against the sovereignty of a nation. If they find great diamond supplies in, lets say, Germany, do you think you should send soldiers so and force German workers to work harder and to export it to your nation at a low price?

Don't you think it is wrong to interfere in another country, if it isn't for self-defence. Surely, the invasion on Iraq wasn't all about that.

[The Sloth]

His description states he is from brooklyn. Where did you get that he was russian? Maybe he can shed some light on this.
If I made a mistake, I apologze, but that is really off-topic.


I can't be Russian and live in Brooklyn?

Anyway, I replied to your post, let's carry on.

[__ca va?]

I agree with what you are saying. I concede that 58 soldiers does not matter. It is what the action represents that matters. The filipinos gave in to terrorist demands, straight up. They have set a precedent for themselves, and sent a statement that "terrorism works against us".

I said something to this effect in my 1st post,

And the US is doing fine in Iraq. Let us suspend judgement until we are done there, and let history decide. All of your analysis of the US in Iraq is for not. It is like you are trying to determine who won a basketball game at half-time.

Yes, they gave in to terrorist demands. But you can't judge this separated from the fact that they had 58 soldiers. The two are linked! They are not cowardly, because I'm sure they wouldn't have left Iraq if they'd had let's say 10000 men there. It's only that 58 soldiers aren't worth the life of a Filipino citizen! And I'm sure no one (at least not too many) but you conclude of their action that they don't dare to leave their soldiers there. I think they knew that their allies would agree with them.

And how do you know that things are going so fine in Iraq? Have you been there?
:hammer:

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Brooklyn-[email protected] 16 2004, 01:35 AM
His description states he is from brooklyn. Where did you get that he was russian? Maybe he can shed some light on this.
If I made a mistake, I apologze, but that is really off-topic.


I can't be Russian and live in Brooklyn?

Anyway, I replied to your post, let's carry on.
No, I agree you can that of course can be Russian and from brooklyn. But between "Brooklyn", "Mecca", and your avatar, I just drew a conclusion.

My bad.

[The Sloth]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 16 2004, 02:38 PM
No, I agree you can that of course can be Russian and from brooklyn. But between "Brooklyn", "Mecca", and your avatar, I just drew a conclusion.

My bad.
It's alright, a lot of people confuse me for being a non-white Muslim online

Even in person people I assume I'm puerto rican instead of white.

But anyway, in case you'rew wondering, my name "Brooklyn-Mecca" is not really a reference to "Mecca" the city in Saudi Arabia. Rather, it's a slang term for "New York City". This is because, just like Mecca, it is New York City that was the birth-place of a new movement; Mecca had Islam, and NYC had hip-hop in the south Bronx.

"Brooklyn" is thrown in there because it's the borough that I grew up in most of my life.

[Capitalist Imperial]

America didn't "give in" to the "horrible" demands of the terrorists, i.e. "end the oppression", etc. South Korea didn't, either.

That is exactly my point, we don't give in to terrorist demands. Do you really call what we are doing there "oppression"? All we are doing is trying to re-establishh the darn nation. Do you want to see oppression? Then let the islamic militants that are responsible for the insurgency take over. I'm sure that they'll rip the women right out of the universities and workplaces and strap burkhas on their faces faster than you can say Taliban.


Why don't you like the fact that I added the word "release"? Could it be because the terrorists are actually human beings with legitimate concerns, but unfortunately are blinded about the way to go about securing their legitimate demands? Wouldn't the solution to terrorism be the removal of a need to resort to terrorism in the first place? Like I said, I don't want the terrorists to "capture and kill", but "capture and release." I support the ultimate aim of the terrorists, not the methods they use. "Capturing and releasing" is fine with me because not only is no one hurt, but we are one step closer to reaching peace on all sides, not peace on the American side by waging "jihad" (as Colon Powell said) against the Muslim world.

The terrorists deserve absolutely no benefit of the doubt from me. Absolutely none. "Removal of the need to support terrorism"? What does that mean? Do you mean withdrawl all US forces from the region? What about US businesses? What about US investment? What about US aid? The militants in the middle east are one voice, and they are a relatively small contingent, and they are religiously driven at that. There are many reasonable people in that region that are happy to having a US presence and US money helping their nations and communities. The terrorists do not represent the middle east, just ask any Bin Laden except for Osama. Also, ask those iraqis that were helping us tear down Saddams statue in Bagdad square. They seemed to be glad we wrere there. That Powell quote is played out, dude.


By the way, how do you propose the removal of terrorism? I already mentioned that terrorism is a reaction to oppression in many forms. So, do you suppose terrorism may be removed by retaining the current foreign policy, while hoping to destroy every last "terrorist cell", "terrorist bloc", "rogue nation", etc.? Or is there a better solution, such as the removal of exploitation, the condemnation of the genocidal campaign against the Palestinians by the hypocritcal Israelis that don't give a fuck about their own people?

I would say that the foreign policy has already ben adjusted. We've committed to reducing our presence in Saudi arabia and other Arabic nations (not as a reaction, but to realign US forces and presence to accomodate the current world political picture, and its was planned long before 9/11 anyway). US presence, in realtiy, will not diminish worldwide. In fact, sphreres of influence and interests will likely expand. I don't necessarily support the Israelis, and I don't condemn them either. I don't know enough about the issue to make a judgement on it.



"I don't know something called International Principles. I vow that I'll burn every Palestinian child (that) will be born in this area. The Palestinian woman and child is more dangerous than the man, because the Palestinian child's existence infers that generations will go on, but the man causes limited danger. I vow that if I was just an Israeli civilian and I met a Palestinian I would burn him and I would make him suffer before killing him. With one hit I've killed 750 Palestinians (in Rafah in 1956). I wanted to encourage my soldiers by raping Arabic girls as the Palestinian women is a slave for Jews, and we do whatever we want to her and nobody tells us what we shall do but we tell others what they shall do."

- Ariel Sharon, current Israeli Prime Minister, in an interview with General Ouze Merham, 1956

That was horrible, but it was made 40 years ago, what was he, 20? I would say he was a hot-headed militant in his youth, and he would condemn the tone of his own statement today. Again, I defer to those with more knowledge of the Israel/Palestine issue. You must concede that while the comment was atrocious, the sentiment is grounded in some sort of dispute, and the Palestinians must share reponsibility for the conflict. Besides, if I search archives, i'm sure I can track down an abhorrent quote from Yassir Arafat as well.


Of course the individuals on this board want to create a "better America" in the short-term. However, it's interesting that you bring up the constitution...your interpretation of the current American realities are that we are a "great democracy." Unfortunately for you, that is simply not the case because the masses' thoughts are controlled by those with the means of control itself, and the presidential candidates themselves represent bullshit and temporary "solutions" to appease the growing demand of justice. You're quite right when you said that "we are generating our own definitions." In the case of America, and the Western world, the "definitions belong in the hands of the definers" (to quote School Teacher from Toni Morrison's Beloved), where the definers are those with the means to power.

This seems to me to be a bunch of meaningless rhetoric. How are the masses minds controlled? That is a cliche and a common, canned assertion by many pudits on this board, and highly inaccurate. Americans have a great freedom of information, from TV news media, to papers, including very liberal independent publications that aree distributed for free (I'm sure if you mosey down to Soho or the east village alone, you'll see what I mean, and these countercultuure media publications exist across the nation), let alone the internet, book stores, public libraries, and libraries of congress. If someone lets themselves be brainwashed by only subscribing to a single or biased information source, that is the individual's problem, and not attribute it to "the masses". No one is holding a gun to our heads telling us what to think. America has the world's most varied and abundant media sources, so don't even try and play that "mind control/brainwash" conspircy crap with me. If you want to allege brainwashing, lets look at al-jazzera or some sommunist states that have 1 exclusive, centrally controlled, state sponsored media outlet, where one-sided reporting and censorship carries the day. Those are tools for controlling their masses much more so than the free in the US. Becuase of these facts, your argument does not sell.


You love your nation, thus you are a nationalist. A "patriot" is simply a nice way of saying "nationalist", and we all know where "nationalism" leads us. "Nationalism" goes hand-in-hand with ethno-centricity, racism, justification for exploitation, etc.

That is not an apt analogy. Patriotism can be justified, as it is a reflection of pride and honor regarding positive tings an citizen's nation has done. Nations have choices on the actions they conduct, which are variable. Also, patriotism is considered a positive trait. Racism/ethnocentricity is simply taking certain action or thought due exclusively to someone's skin color, which is invariable and negative.


Sure, the United States impacted the world in many positive ways, but you seem to be turning a blind eye to our evils, and our continual evils even to this day.

Not really a blind eye, but the "evils" (I don't like that word, it is too absolute, when in reality absolutres rarely exist) you suggest are not exclusive to America. To address America's "evils" is to address humanities "evils". America is doing what nations have done for years, before America even existed. America happens to be particularly adept at it right now, and thus gets a lot of attention. If anything, I would say that at least America balances this out with benevolence and opportunity rarely granted by previous empires. "Evil" is really a concept of the human mind, and any action by nations or governments must be taken into political context. I don't think America does anything for the sake of "evil". I think Americatries to preserve her interests, as any nation does, and I can;'t fault her for this.



A recent example is that we have helped remove Jean-Bertrand Aristide from power in Haiti, the first democratically elected president of the country. We have systematically blamed him for the economic problems there, while America knows that its support of the two grotesque dictators "Popa Doc" and "Baby Doc" Duvalier is really what's to blame for the current situation there. While we have refused to show the documents which prove that while the elections there were flawed to an extent, Aristide still had the support of the overwhelming majority, a fact that Bush cannot claim about himself.

Lets not kid wourselves, the Aristide election was morre than "a little flawed". he and his Lavalas thugs deserve exactly what they got. The US government got him out of that hotbed for his own protection. As far as the Bush election goes, I would suggest that you read up on the electoral college. It has been an institution in this republic since the constitution was written, and, despite many gadflies crying foul, the elctiuon wwas legitimate. If anything, i would blame the media who broadcasted Gore as a winner in Florida early, when the race was still very close. How many GOP voters did that discourage from even showing up tuesday evening?



At the same time, we have withdrawn funds from the country which could have been used to combat the immense AIDS epidemic that is ravaging Haiti.

If funds were diverted to other sources, I'm sorry, but Haiti's AIDS epidemic is the responsible of Haiti, not the US government. We can't pay for every social problem of every nation, no single country can. I would also ask, what other nation's have contributed any money to aiti, let alone more than the US? I would surmise none.


Also, your "good life here", I'm sure, is just excellent. However, where do you live, if I may ask? Would you like to go down the streets of Brooklyn with me (and I'm not talking about the Jewish, Italian, and Russian neighborhoods)? You will come to find that you are living at the expense of many others.

I live in a modest, middle class California neigborhood. However, be advised that I grew up in a very culturally diverse working-class neigborhood, and went to an urban school and an urban city college before x-ferring to a University. I'm not here espousing the benefits of capitalism with a silver spoon in my mouth. I earned my way. The "streets of brooklyn", while I'm sure tough, would not yield a "different world" that I have not seen before, as in fact I have been immersed in it for a good period of my life.


However, the blacks' and hispanics' situation in places like New York City is horribly minute compared to the situation in India, Africa, and South America.

Yes, i would say that it is a testament to America that even our poor are relatively well off compared to many of the world's citizens.


Odd, I didn't see any famines in those areas before the imperialist interventions, who have come to turn their backs on economic development in the region after raping the African continent's pussy.

There were no famines before imperialist interventons, huh? Even your ex-guidebook to life called the Bible (you are ex-christian by your own admission) mentions famines numerous times, before there even was America, Western civilization, or even modern empires or industry. Explain this contradiction sir.



Also, your "nationalism" is also irrational despite what you believe. It's no different than a "white nationalist" who believes in his races great achievements by creating an irrational attachment to them as if he actually had something to do with their successes. It's a lame attempt to find an identity.

To be quite honest, you can save the amatuer Freud. It is highly cliche, let alone innacurate. I am very comfortable with my identity, and never really struggled with it. Anyone who ever believes in anything can be excused of "a lame attempt to find an identity", and you are no exception with your title and provocative avatar, right? Again, Patriotism by it's very nature, is significantly different from a "white nationalist"(two terms that don't logically reconcile. I'll just assume you mean racist). See above, I've addressed this.


And despite your accusations of the communists' "nationalism" or "patriotism" simply because they are in a "common struggle", this makes no sense because we are actively in this "common struggle" and hope to broaded its effects upon everyone in the world, not limit it to "certain regions."

Many of the Avatar symbols, as well as countless posts on this site, heavily contradict your suggestion that the leftists and communists here are not highly nationalistic. You have to concede that, sir. Do you know how many red stars and hammer/sickles I've seen here? How many national flags? And check some of the nationalistic commentary submitted by a myriad of members here. You are wrong on this one, Brooklyn



And before I'm done with this section of your argument, I also want to re-post a few great words by a fellow comrade on this board which addresses the question of "foreign policy" and our great commitment to democracy:

No where in the US constitution was there a mandate to spread democracy outside of the US. I am not going to even try to research all of these issues right now, but rest assured there are two sides to every story, and this quote (I read it when it was first posted), is obviously an agenda-driven, anti-American diatribe that is obviously bised. For instance:

"organized and trained the violent jihadi Mujahideen in Afghanistan to lure in Russia and overthrow the local progressive government"

LOL, yeah, right, the US needed to "lure" the soviets into afghanistan? Come on, the Soviets went in there of their own volition, it was their Vietnam, end of story. I can't believe that someone would even attempt to blame the US for the soviet debauchle in afghanistan. This is the perfect example of how this entire quote is a lot of one-sided B.S. Did the Soviets "lure" America into southeast asia? No, we did it ourselves, and we accept full responsibility for it. Jeez... how much more of this quote is utter, unsubstantiated spin?



Afro-centric? I'm white and don't believe in nationalism unless...

I've already conceded error here. You understand, though, how I came to the conclusion based on your avatar, and "brooklyn mecca".


"I say 'fuck the police', that's how I treat them
We buy our way out of jail, but can't buy freedom
We buy a lot of clothes but we don't really need them
The things we buy, to cover up what's inside
'Cause they made us hate ourself, and love their wealth..."

Yeah, yeah, Kanye West, I know, I know, good song. I agree with him, he seems to be one of the few individuals that actually owns his own problems, and accepts responsibility for it. He still seems to blame the "big bad wealthy" for a lot of problems, but for African Americans I concede that there is a lot that was done to them in the new world that still affects them negatively today. It is deeply woven into American culture. We stll have a lot of work to do in this area, I concede, but we have also made great progress, especially in the last 40 years, and we'll get there someday, hopefully sooner or later.


And you believe that this will do anything other than kill the current terrorists? I'm sure you know that terrorists are easy to replace.

Like I said, that is just a small part of what we are doing. We are also freezing funds, and working with source nations to help them combat terrorism. Not just on the battlefield, but at the roots. This does not mean, however, that we will just lie down to attacks. We will go toe-toe in the short term, and we will not make it easy for them. almost 4 years since 9/11, and not 1 attack on USsoil. Doesn't that mean something, especially to a New Yorker like you?


I understand it's easy to see it that way, but I also understand that you have something against the truth. I can just as easily say that you're an apologist for the American terrorism that has been going on for such a long time, but I won't. Actually, I don't think you're even aware of the American atrocities, so I won't even bother.

I addressed this. I am aware of
alleged atrocities, but they need to be taken in context. Do you really think that the US goes into places and kills just to kill? Two sides to every story, sir. What is the other side?



No, I don't suggest any such thing. Did you ever see me say that we should grant amnesty to every American criminal, or amnesty to every terrorist? Of course not. However, while you claim that "socio-economics" are "legitimate", I don't think you care about them as much as you do about the punishment aspect of your argument. Because I see Republicans always mentioning the "progress" we are making. Wow, that's just great, right? Let's take a look at our capitalistic progress:

I won't bother pasting the stats, but before I address them, I would like your source. I simply don't believe the whole of statisitcs anyway, they can usually be manipulated to fiit the agenda. I am willing tho review them if you give me the source, though. There is a very famous quote: There are 3 kinds of deception: 1) Lies 2) Damn Lies 3) Statistics


You're right, he makes both idiotic and worthy points. He is a sociopath. But, all things considered, don't you think that terrorism should be addressed in different ways? Don't you think that the Israeli thugs/terrorists need to be re-assessed? Do you think that Osama bin Laden is lying when he mentions Israel's plan for expansion into other territories for the purpose of establishing a "Greater Israel"? If so, I can give you quotes by Zionist leaders that show this idiocy. Do you think he's lying when he mentions neo-imperialism, exploitation, etc.?

I've already addressed all of these points above. Further commentary would be a repetitive rehash.



I guess credibility belongs to those with power, because those with power are always the ones that are the righteous? Israel, for example, is righteous. Ariel Sharon's disgusting references to Arabic women as "slaves to the Jewish people" is also righteous? Hmmmm....

Again, addressed, I suspend judgement on Isrrael/palestine until I am more educated on it.

[The Sloth]

Do you really call what we are doing there "oppression"? All we are doing is trying to re-establishh the darn nation. Do you want to see oppression? Then let the islamic militants that are responsible for the insurgency take over. I'm sure that they'll rip the women right out of the universities and workplaces and strap burkhas on their faces faster than you can say Taliban.


Hmmmm, I wasn't necessarily referring to Iraq when I was speaking on the idea of "oppression." If you haven't noticed, oil has played an important role in international, but especially America, foreign policy since the 1920's. I don't agree with Islamic fundamentalists, or Muslims and Christians period, but what is happening in the Middle East right now is exactly what has been happening in the Western world for centuries: fundamentalism. However, it is obvious that the West outgrew their religious convictions in direct proportion to the developing material conditions. This has not happened in the Muslim world, partially because it has been stunted by both circumstances and economic imperialism.

The terrorists deserve absolutely no benefit of the doubt from me. Absolutely none. "Removal of the need to support terrorism"? What does that mean? Do you mean withdrawl all US forces from the region? What about US businesses? What about US investment? What about US aid? The militants in the middle east are one voice, and they are a relatively small contingent, and they are religiously driven at that. There are many reasonable people in that region that are happy to having a US presence and US money helping their nations and communities. The terrorists do not represent the middle east, just ask any Bin Laden except for Osama. Also, ask those iraqis that were helping us tear down Saddams statue in Bagdad square. They seemed to be glad we wrere there.

"Removal of the need for terrorism" means that we satisfy the conditions that would remove the need for terrorism. Economic conditions are one thing, and of course it's possible to re-build the Muslim world. But, of course, our "economic interests" are threatened, so I guess it's not an option. There are serious injustices going on in the Middle East perpetrated by the West, and you know this. By removing them, terrorism is attenuated. Islamic rulers will be more than happy to co-exist with Christians and Jews as long as their interests are not threatened. And once we get rid of the need for "nationalism" and "individual interests", then we're on our way to total cooperation, disintegration of religion, and other good things.

I don't necessarily support the Israelis, and I don't condemn them either. I don't know enough about the issue to make a judgement on it.

There is not much "to know" to make a rational "judgment on it." The issue is not that complicated. First of all, the United Nations made the partition unfairly. Most of the land was given to the minority, the Jews. Israel has been used as a gate for Western economic domination. Despite promises to the contrary by Zionist founding fathers, especially David Ben-Gurion, there is no "equal" state because most of the resources are given to Israel. Thousands of Israeli's have died, maybe around 3,000 civilians? 200,000 Palestinian civilians, on the other hand, have died. Hundreds of thousands were initially made into refugees. Terrorism is a reaction to these conditions. By the way, the U.N., upon the partition, promised TWO seperate states, but of course, only Israel is recognized. Hmmmmm.

That Powell quote is played out, dude.

But isn't it funny? :lol:

That was horrible, but it was made 40 years ago, what was he, 20? I would say he was a hot-headed militant in his youth, and he would condemn the tone of his own statement today. Again, I defer to those with more knowledge of the Israel/Palestine issue. You must concede that while the comment was atrocious, the sentiment is grounded in some sort of dispute, and the Palestinians must share reponsibility for the conflict. Besides, if I search archives, i'm sure I can track down an abhorrent quote from Yassir Arafat as well.

First of all, I don't care about the terrorist Yasser Arafat.

Second of all, you want an up-dated quote from Sharon, from 1982?

"You can call me anything you like. Call me a monster or a murderer. Better a live Judeo-Nazi than a dead saint. Even if you prove to me that the present war in Lebanon is a dirty immoral war, I don't care. Even if Galilee is shelled again by Katyushas in a year's time, I don't really care. We shall start another war, kill and destroy more and more, until they will have had enough.

Let them tremble, let them call us a mad state. Let them understand that we are a wild country, dangerous to our surroundings, not normal, that we might go crazy if one of our children is murdered, just one! If anyone even raises his hand against us we'll take away half his land and burn the other half, including the oil. We might use nuclear arms.

Even today I am willing to volunteer to do the dirty work for Israel, to kill as many Arabs as necessary, to deport them, to expel and burn them, to have everyone hate us. Hang me if you want, as a war criminal. What you don't understand is that the dirty work of Zionism is not finished yet, far from it."
Ariel Sharon to Amos Oz, editor of Davar, Dec. 17, 1982

Or quotes from some more Zionists who are the "victims"?

"We shall reduce the Arab population to a community of woodcutters and waiters."
- Uri Lubrani, Israeli Prime Minister David Ben Gurions special adviser on Arab Affairs, 1960

"The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt to the Euphrates. It includes parts of Syria and Lebanon."
-Rabbi Fischmann, member of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, in his testimony to the U.N. Special Committee of Enquiry, 1947

We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population.
- The Koenig Report

"If I am asked, "Could you give from the UJA moneys to rescue Jews,
'I say, NO! and I say again NO!"
- Izaak Greenbaum -- head of Jewish Agency Rescue Committee, February 18, 1943.

"One Cow in Palestine is worth more than all the Jews in Poland"
- Izaak Greenbaum

I guess the Zionists just love their own people, huh?

The hopes of Europe’s six million Jews are centered on emigration. I was asked: “Can you bring six million Jews to Palestine?” I replied, “No.” ... From the depths of the tragedy I want to save ... young people [for Palestine]. The old ones will pass. They will bear their fate or they will not. They are dust, economic and moral dust in a cruel world ... Only the branch of the young shall survive. They have to accept it.
Chaim Weizmann reporting to the Zionist Congress in 1937 on his testimony before the Peel Commission in London, July 1937. Cited in Yahya, p. 55.

As late as 1943, while the Jews of Europe were being exterminated in their millions, the U.S. Congress proposed to set up a commission to "study" the problem. Rabbi Stephen Wise, who was the principal American spokesperson for Zionism, came to Washington to testify against the rescue bill because it would divert attention from the colonization of Palestine. This is the same Rabbi Wise who, in 1938, in his capacity as leader of the American Jewish Congress, wrote a letter in which he opposed any change in U.S. immigration laws which would enable Jews to find refuge. He stated:

"It may interest you to know that some weeks ago the representatives of all the leading Jewish organizations met in conference ... It was decided that no Jewish organization would, at this time, sponsor a bill which would in any way alter the immigration laws."
Ibid.

How are the masses minds controlled? That is a cliche and a common, canned assertion by many pudits on this board, and highly inaccurate.

The masses' minds are controlled through several ways.

First of all, and I think this is very important, we have a growing anti-intellectual attitudes among teenagers these days. Kids at my school, for example, mostly like to listen to garbage on the radio and general bullshit because it's popular. If blowing someone's brains out with a gun is the "in" thing, then such videos and songs will appear on T.V. and the radio because the crafty capitalist knows it's profitable. Thus, most individuals are kept ignorant, it seems. I don't know how old you are, but as for myself, I'm able to judge because of the disgusting school that I go to, the desperate neighborhoods that I spent some of my time in, the people that I talk with, etc. It's palpable to me.

Second, the media is known to be a machine of propaganda. I remember that when anyone condemned Israel, for example, I used to cry out "anti-Semite!" I remember "not believing" others' accusations when they said that Israel keeps Arabs in its nation as second-class citizens. I remember growing up knowing nothing about Malcolm X, other than the fact that he was a racist that wanted to kill all whites. Martin Luther King Jr, on the other hand, was a "great" man when we all know that, despite his successes, he was a religious hypocrite, a plagiarist, and very much considered "not dangerous." That's why we have a holiday in his honor, because he preferred "conservative progress", and as far as his communist sympathies go, these are kept from us. What will black boys do when they learn that this idol that they know nothing about was a communist? I thought the Black Panthers were a group of individuals that terrorized random white neighborhoods and wanted to sell whites into slavery. Wow, with no information to back this up, this is what I thought? Why is this?!!

Those with the desire to "express" their opinions, no matter how passionate or how well backed-up, can only do so through 1) luck, 2) owning a piece of the media. Sure, you can "work your way up", but there are two things working against you: 1) being born into disadvantages and living through "unlucky" circumstances, 2) the message you are trying to get across. If your message is "unacceptable", such as "socialism", or clearing up the propaganda regarding communism, then it will be very difficult to find an outlet. What you are forced to do is rely on secondary and independent outlets that reach very few individuals. They are usually not effective enough, and, of course, those that the message reaches are so far behind in consciousness that they can't even take the message objectively because they'll be pouting and scoffing and label the author as "crazy". Let's not even talk about if the author is pro-Palestine....let's not even talk about if the author provides the facts that prove Palestinians in Israel are discriminated against in the army, in employment, in property ownership, etc. If these facts are brought up in America, get ready for the cries of anti-Semitism! And if you bring up the fact that in Lebanon, the civilians were lined up and shot execution-style (men, women, and children), with the females raped, infants killed, then these pathologically sick motherfuckers will tell you, "well, it was necessary, maybe" only because they have such a strong pride that they cannot swallow, a pride that stems from the irrational idea that everything America supports has to be "correct." Or, of course, there may be a number of Jews that believe the Zionist agenda is in their favor. Now that's brainwashing!

Tell me, why do you think Mumia Abu-Jamal is still on death row? What was his crime?

"Truth."

Why was Assata Shakur rail-roaded in her trial, and why is she still being hunted?
When I see her picture up on the "most wanted" list in the Nazi-connected NJ State Trooper (look it up for yourself) website, it disgusts me. What was her crime?

"Truth."

And why was Sherman Austin arrested back in 2002, the black anarchist activist who found himself in unfavorable circumstances, and now finds himself in the middle of a campaign that wants to see him free? What did he spread that was more dangerous than weapons?

"Truth."

Text-books bullshit us, as I remember reading something like "the political theory of communism is tyranny." Of course, when I got my teachers alone, they told me they don't exactly believe such non-sense, but admit to teaching propaganda to us because on the state-wide tests expect us to respond to their questions in such a manner. I am taught nothing about African civilizations (I had to take some books out and learn about them on my own) and spend more time on Christianity's "contributions" rather than those of the Muslim world, when we both know that the Arabic word forced society to progress and Christianity did more to keep it in a state of non-movement. We are kept as patriotic, religious pro-capitalists.

Luckily, when I took the state-wide test a few weeks ago, only one devoted right-wing teacher was grading it. The other one was a "closet socialist". I wrote on the rise of capitalism from the 1300's and onward, plus the Bolshevik Revolution and the Leninist paradigm...my grade was a 99%, and the only other person to receive such a grade in my school was another communist......what irony!!!!!!!

Americans have a great freedom of information, from TV news media, to papers, including very liberal independent publications that aree distributed for free (I'm sure if you mosey down to Soho or the east village alone, you'll see what I mean, and these countercultuure media publications exist across the nation), let alone the internet, book stores, public libraries, and libraries of congress. If someone lets themselves be brainwashed by only subscribing to a single or biased information source, that is the individual's problem, and not attribute it to "the masses". No one is holding a gun to our heads telling us what to think. America has the world's most varied and abundant media sources, so don't even try and play that "mind control/brainwash" conspircy crap with me. If you want to allege brainwashing, lets look at al-jazzera or some sommunist states that have 1 exclusive, centrally controlled, state sponsored media outlet, where one-sided reporting and censorship carries the day. Those are tools for controlling their masses much more so than the free in the US. Becuase of these facts, your argument does not sell.

Except the "dangerous stuff" will never be allowed on the air. While we are allowed "Freedom of speech", what it really boils down to is that if we are not supporting the status quo, we are labled certain terms, such as "anti-Semite", "insane", etc. This is very true. Look at my above point if you want elaboration.

But if you really want to get an idea of "fair and balanced", check this:

My First (and Last) Time With Bill O'Reilly
by David Cole

It started innocuously enough. On Monday, June 21, a producer from Fox News's The O'Reilly Factor called to ask me to appear as a guest that evening to comment on a front-page story in the New York Times claiming that the Bush Administration had overstated the value of intelligence gained at Guantánamo and the dangers posed by the men detained there. I'm generally not a fan of shout-television, and I had declined several prior invitations to appear on O'Reilly's show, but this time I said yes. Little did I know it would not only be my first time, but also my last.

I sat in the Washington studio as the taping of the show began in New York with a rant from Bill O'Reilly. He claimed that "the Factor" had established the link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, and then played a clip from Thomas Kean, head of the Senate's 9/11 Commission, in which Kean said, "There is no evidence that we can find whatsoever that Iraq or Saddam Hussein participated in any way in attacks on the United States, in other words, on 9/11. What we do say, however, is there were contacts between Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Iraq, Saddam--excuse me. Al Qaeda."

I was impressed. O'Reilly, who had announced his show as the "No Spin Zone," was actually playing a balanced soundbite, one that accurately reported the commission's findings both that there was no evidence linking Saddam and 9/11, and that there was some evidence of contacts (if no "collaborative relationship") between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Maybe all those nasty things Al Franken had said about O'Reilly weren't true after all.

But suddenly O'Reilly interrupted, plainly angry, and said, "We can't use that.... We need to redo the whole thing." Three minutes of silence later, the show began again, with O'Reilly re-recording the introduction verbatim. Except this time, when he got to the part about Kean, he played no tape, and simply paraphrased Kean as confirming that "definitely there was a connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda." The part about no link to 9/11 was left on the cutting-room floor.

Now it was my turn. O'Reilly introduced the segment by complaining that we are at war and need to be united, but that newspapers like the New York Times are running biased stories, dividing the country and aiding the enemy. "The spin must stop--our lives depend on it," O'Reilly gravely intoned. He then characterized the Times story that day as claiming that the Guantánamo detainees were "innocent people" and "harmless." He said the paper's article "questions holding the detainees at Guantánamo."

I noted that the Times had said nothing of the sort. And I pointed out that the article relied on a CIA study finding that the detainees seemed to be low-level and had provided little valuable intelligence.

That didn't convince O'Reilly, however, who again criticized the Times for misleading its readers by terming the detainees innocent and not dangerous. I replied that he was misleading his own viewers, by exaggerating what the Times had said. "No, I'm not," he retorted. So far, the usual fare on newstalk television.

But then I decided to go one step further: "It seems to me like the pot calling the kettle black, Bill, because I just sat here five minutes ago as you re-recorded the introduction to this show to take out a statement from the head of the 9/11 commission stating that there was no evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11."

Apparently O'Reilly does not like being called "the pot." He exploded, repeatedly called me an "S.O.B." and assured me that he would cut my accusation from the interview when the show aired. He also said I would "never ever" be on his show again. At this point, I wasn't sure whether to take that as a threat or a promise.

Sure enough, when The O'Reilly Factor aired later that night, both Thomas Kean's statement about 9/11 and my charge about O'Reilly deleting it were missing. All that was left was Bill O'Reilly, fuming at the liberal media's lack of objectivity and balance, and ruing the divisive effect "spin" has on our national unity.

"Rediculous? Only if it's on the Factor. Thank you for watching us tonight...."


Patriotism can be justified, as it is a reflection of pride and honor regarding positive tings an citizen's nation has done. Nations have choices on the actions they conduct, which are variable. Also, patriotism is considered a positive trait. Racism/ethnocentricity is simply taking certain action or thought due exclusively to someone's skin color, which is invariable and negative.

*Sigh* Patriotism is.....bullshit. Can you not say that it would be beneficial if patriotism was abolished and instead we had strong international identity and cooperation?

America is doing what nations have done for years, before America even existed.

Is that justification?

America is doing what nations have done for years, before America even existed. America happens to be particularly adept at it right now, and thus gets a lot of attention. If anything, I would say that at least America balances this out with benevolence and opportunity rarely granted by previous empires. "Evil" is really a concept of the human mind, and any action by nations or governments must be taken into political context. I don't think America does anything for the sake of "evil". I think Americatries to preserve her interests, as any nation does, and I can;'t fault her for this.

While you can't fault America for this, I can because my consciousness has been raised far past this parochial vision of yours of "interests" and "patriotism". The American atrocities I have listed directly and indirectly killed millions, far beyond any "benolevence" that you can think of.

Lets not kid wourselves, the Aristide election was morre than "a little flawed". he and his Lavalas thugs deserve exactly what they got. The US government got him out of that hotbed for his own protection.

Oh fucking really? That seems to defy everything that I've been reading and learning about regarding Haiti. Here's something interesting:

I first went to Haiti in 1994, for research on an article about some of the American soldiers sent to restore the country's elected government. I have spent parts of the past several years there, working on a book about an American doctor and a public health system that he helped to create in an impoverished rural region. The Haiti that I experienced was very different from the Haiti that I had read about back in the United States, and this disconnection is even stronger for me today.

Recent news reports, for example, perhaps in laudable pursuit of evenhandedness, have taken pains to assert that President Aristide and his Lavalas Party have been using armed thugs of their own to enforce their will on the country. The articles imply that the current crisis in Haiti is an incipient war between two factions roughly equal in illegitimacy. But I have interviewed leaders of the opposition, and can say with certainty that theirs is an extremely disparate group, which includes members of the disbanded army and former officials of the repressive regime of Jean-Claude Duvalier — and also people who were persecuted by both these groups.

This is an opposition that has so far shown itself unable to agree on much of anything except its determination to get rid of Mr. Aristide. Most important, the various leaders of this opposition have enjoyed little in the way of electoral success, the true measure of legitimacy in any country that calls itself a democracy. Mr. Aristide, by contrast, has been elected president twice, by overwhelming margins, and his party won the vast majority of seats in Parliament in the last legislative elections, held in May 2000.

Press reports generally date the current crisis to those elections, which they describe as flawed. In fact, they were flawed, but less flawed than we have been led to believe. Eight candidates, seven of them from Lavalas, were awarded seats in the Senate, even though they had won only pluralities. Consequently, many foreign diplomats expressed concern, and some went so far as to call the election "fraudulent."

But to a great extent, the proceedings were financed, managed and overseen by foreigners, and in the immediate aftermath many monitors declared a victory for Haiti's nascent democracy. Sixty percent of the country's eligible voters went to polling stations, many trudging for miles along mountain paths, then waiting for hours in the hot sun to vote. Moreover, those eight contested Senate seats didn't affect the balance of power in Parliament. Even if it had lost them all, Mr. Aristide's party would still have had a clear majority.

Citing the flaws in those elections, the United States and other foreign governments refused to monitor the presidential election that followed, later in 2000, which Mr. Aristide won handily. The opposition boycotted the affair and still claims that the election was illegitimate, but it does so against the weight of the evidence. This includes a Gallup poll commissioned by the United States government but never made public. (I obtained a copy last year.) It shows that as of 2002 Mr. Aristide remained far and away the most popular political figure in Haiti.

Again citing the flawed elections as its reason, the Bush administration also led a near total embargo on foreign aid to the Haitian government — even blocking loans from the Inter-American Development Bank for improvements in education, roads, health care and water supplies. Meanwhile, the administration has supported the political opposition. This is hardly a destructive act, unless, as Mr. Aristide's supporters believe, the aim has been to make room for an opposition by weakening the elected government.

I have been following this for a short while now. Now, while you claim Aristide is running around with groups of thugs, ravaging the country, etc. tell me, is he worse than the United States-supported dictators, 'Popa Doc' and 'Baby Doc' Duvalier? After reading that article, isn't he the most popular politician? Do rebels that have absolutely no favor with the people deserve any consideration? And aren't you taking into consideration the fact that the rebels were systematically "convinced" by the United States that the elections were "flawed" to the exent of total deception? Wasn't the Bush election flawed just as well? From everything that I have seen, Aristide was doing a damn good job to clean up his country...it's not his fault that the empire up north is acting maliciously towards him, promising him funding, then taking it back, with Clinton being intimidated and blackmailed into accepting certain domestic policies that I'm sure also mean that he was bullied in taking a few bad policies towards Haiti after deciding to re-instate Aristide. So, the dictators that we backed up in Haiti destroy the country, and now we are to blame who for its problems? Jean-Bertrand Aristide?

Also, I think you will find in interesting that the New York Times ran a story in 1990, I believe, which proved that the CIA helped in overthrowing Aristide back at the beginning of the 1990's. At that time, Aristide wasn't "alleged" to have done anything wrong, but nonetheless, I guess our interests overpower any desire for "democracy" by the people.

As far as the Bush election goes, I would suggest that you read up on the electoral college. It has been an institution in this republic since the constitution was written, and, despite many gadflies crying foul, the elctiuon wwas legitimate. If anything, i would blame the media who broadcasted Gore as a winner in Florida early, when the race was still very close. How many GOP voters did that discourage from even showing up tuesday evening?

Alright, alright, you got me:

In the 2000 presidential election, 1.9 million Americans cast ballots that no one counted. "Spoiled votes" is the technical term. The pile of ballots left to rot has a distinctly dark hue: About 1 million of them -- half of the rejected ballots -- were cast by African Americans although black voters make up only 12 percent of the electorate.

This year, it could get worse.

These ugly racial statistics are hidden away in the mathematical thickets of the appendices to official reports coming out of the investigation of ballot-box monkey business in Florida from the last go-'round.

How do you spoil 2 million ballots? Not by leaving them out of the fridge too long. A stray mark, a jammed machine, a punch card punched twice will do it. It's easy to lose your vote, especially when some politicians want your vote lost.

While investigating the 2000 ballot count in Florida for BBC Television, I saw firsthand how the spoilage game was played -- with black voters the predetermined losers.

Florida's Gadsden County has the highest percentage of black voters in the state -- and the highest spoilage rate. One in 8 votes cast there in 2000 was never counted. Many voters wrote in "Al Gore." Optical reading machines rejected these because "Al" is a "stray mark."


and, let's continue:

But let's not get smug about Florida's Jim Crow spoilage rate. Civil Rights Commissioner Christopher Edley, recently appointed dean of Boalt Hall School of Law at UC Berkeley, took the Florida study nationwide. His team discovered the uncomfortable fact that Florida is typical of the nation.

Philip Klinkner, the statistician working on the Edley investigations, concluded, "It appears that about half of all ballots spoiled in the U.S.A. -- about 1 million votes -- were cast by nonwhite voters."

This "no count," as the Civil Rights Commission calls it, is no accident. In Florida, for example, I discovered that technicians had warned Gov. Jeb Bush's office well in advance of November 2000 of the racial bend in the vote- count procedures.

Herein lies the problem. An apartheid vote-counting system is far from politically neutral. Given that more than 90 percent of the black electorate votes Democratic, had all the "spoiled" votes been tallied, Gore would have taken Florida in a walk, not to mention fattening his popular vote total nationwide. It's not surprising that the First Brother's team, informed of impending rejection of black ballots, looked away and whistled.


If funds were diverted to other sources, I'm sorry, but Haiti's AIDS epidemic is the responsible of Haiti, not the US government. We can't pay for every social problem of every nation, no single country can. I would also ask, what other nation's have contributed any money to aiti, let alone more than the US? I would surmise none.

....Except immense foreign aid to help fight HIV in Haiti was promised to Aristide! The rationale behind "cancelling" this promise lays in the fact that the elections were "fraudulent" and that Aristide wasn't popular at the time of his election, things that have been proven inaccurate.


Yes, i would say that it is a testament to America that even our poor are relatively well off compared to many of the world's citizens.

But why do so many Americans live in poverty when other nations that have less money actually have lesser poverty proportions?

And while I agree that it is a "testament" to the world, you seem to be forgetting that I said America is rich at the expense of much of the world.

There were no famines before imperialist interventons, huh? Even your ex-guidebook to life called the Bible (you are ex-christian by your own admission) mentions famines numerous times, before there even was America, Western civilization, or even modern empires or industry. Explain this contradiction sir.

I was referring to places immediately before the intervention. Africa's people, for example, were much better off in 1850 compared to 1920. China was far better off before the Opium Wars, in another example. Are you trying to exploit the fact that I was too general in my statement, and are you trying to deny the fact that imperialism ruined nations that were once happy and gained an enormous amount of resources for the imperialists? Capitalism has helped in the past, but there comes at a time when it ceases to be progressive.

To be quite honest, you can save the amatuer Freud. It is highly cliche, let alone innacurate. I am very comfortable with my identity, and never really struggled with it. Anyone who ever believes in anything can be excused of "a lame attempt to find an identity", and you are no exception with your title and provocative avatar, right? Again, Patriotism by it's very nature, is significantly different from a "white nationalist"(two terms that don't logically reconcile. I'll just assume you mean racist). See above, I've addressed this.

Except "my identity" is rational because I'm hoping to connect "my identity" with my own "successes" rather than connect "my identity" to the past accomplishments of people that I have nothing to do with. "My identity" is broad and scope and encompasses even you, but "patriotism" is parochial and benefits only a single group. By the way, while "a lame attempt to find an identity" may not apply to you, please believe that it applies to many.

Many of the Avatar symbols, as well as countless posts on this site, heavily contradict your suggestion that the leftists and communists here are not highly nationalistic. You have to concede that, sir. Do you know how many red stars and hammer/sickles I've seen here? How many national flags? And check some of the nationalistic commentary submitted by a myriad of members here. You are wrong on this one, Brooklyn.

Except the general mentality of the members here is anti-nationalistic. Not only that, these "flags" and such represent a specific struggle, and if a “nation” just happens to represent that struggle, then its flag will be adopted. What is different between the struggle of “that nation” versus the struggle of “this nation” is that a communist nation with communist ideals hopes to create a sense of camaraderie amongst the people. This is true in America, but America is limited in scope because as you’ve said, we act primarily in our interests. Our camaraderie hopes to extend to all people with a single interest: cooperation and equality, meaning, it is not limited to a region.

And let’s say that I’m wrong and we really are patriots and nationalists in disguise. This camaraderie that encompasses all people may be “nationalistic” to you, but this “nationalism” is here for a brief period of time until we can create the material conditions that would warrant the final and permanent abolition of “nationalism”. This is because through our “nationalism” we hope to establish a non-capitalist society for everyone. You, on the other hand, are a patriot that hopes to perpetuate “nationalism” forever and still support capitalism, meaning, you still would still have “self-interest” and “nationalism for the sake of nationalism.”

I hope you see that there is a difference.

And why do you call me “sir”?! I appreciate the gesture but I am no “sir” to you and you are no “sir” to me. :)

Yeah, yeah, Kanye West, I know, I know, good song. I agree with him, he seems to be one of the few individuals that actually owns his own problems, and accepts responsibility for it. He still seems to blame the "big bad wealthy" for a lot of problems, but for African Americans I concede that there is a lot that was done to them in the new world that still affects them negatively today. It is deeply woven into American culture. We stll have a lot of work to do in this area, I concede, but we have also made great progress, especially in the last 40 years, and we'll get there someday, hopefully sooner or later.

Agreed.

Like I said, that is just a small part of what we are doing. We are also freezing funds, and working with source nations to help them combat terrorism. Not just on the battlefield, but at the roots. This does not mean, however, that we will just lie down to attacks. We will go toe-toe in the short term, and we will not make it easy for them. almost 4 years since 9/11, and not 1 attack on USsoil. Doesn't that mean something, especially to a New Yorker like you?

I don't feel safe riding the subways anymore, if that's what you're asking.

Let's not "lay down to attacks", but in all honesty, even though you claim we have been doing some things, it's still and never will be enough unless there are radical changes made.

I addressed this. I am aware of atrocities, but they need to be taken in context. Do you really think that the US goes into places and kills just to kill? Two sides to every story, sir. What is the other side?

No one goes in "just to kill." Osama bin Laden didn't kill "just to kill" because he had legitimate motives, but bad and desperate tactics. We go in not "just to kill" but to secure our economic interests, to perpretuate our wealthy existence at the expense, of course, of others.


I won't bother pasting the stats, but before I address them, I would like your source. I simply don't believe the whole of statisitcs anyway, they can usually be manipulated to fiit the agenda. I am willing tho review them if you give me the source, though. There is a very famous quote: There are 3 kinds of deception: 1) Lies 2) Damn Lies 3) Statistics

I have to go in like three seconds, so if you want the source, type some of those words in my statistics into google and see if you get anything. If nothing comes up, I'll find the site and give you the link tomorow.

Anyway, this has been a lot of writing, thank you for the debate. But I am out for the evening, so good night everybody.

[The Sloth]

Ummm, I'm going to bump this.

[Vinny Rafarino]

honestly, we would be gone a lot sooner if they weren't causing more problems, don't they realize that?


Are you saying that the people of Iraq should submit to the occupation forces, regardless of how they feel, so they can be treated "better" by those forces?

That's the same thing that the slave masters of the American South said to their slaves.

"Just do what we say and the whippings will stop, we may even make you a house nigger if you are real good."

You are lost my friend.


voted in socialist scum anyway

What is it that makes them "scum"?

Is it their love of humanity?

Is it their commitment to free education?

Is it their commitment to free healthcare?

Is it their commitment to free housing?

Is it their commitment to free transportation?

Is it their commitment to free food distribution?

Or is it really just your own personal commitment to your archaic caucus, because as far as I can tell, the commitments above hardly make them "scum".



Thanks, Manilla, thanks a lot.


Yes, thank you Manilla for showing that other nations do not have to submit to the whims of an insane redneck.



We don't hope to kill off every terrorist, nor do we think we can, but we will absolutely not take a soft stance

It should not be too hard, just look for the ones wearing Union Jacks and The Stars and Stripes on their BDUs.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 14 2004, 10:26 PM
honestly, we would be gone a lot sooner if they weren't causing more problems, don't they realize that?
The U.S. will never be gone from Iraq. They will install a puppet government such as the one in South Korea. In addition, they will have business interests in the country. The Americans will still be there once the American army leaves the country. The culture of the country, the political and economic system will forever be unfavourably altered.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 20 2004, 12:43 PM
The U.S. will never be gone from Iraq. They will install a puppet government such as the one in South Korea. In addition, they will have business interests in the country. The Americans will still be there once the American army leaves the country. The culture of the country, the political and economic system will forever be unfavourably altered.


Yeah, a system of trail justice as apposed to summary executuon and torture camps.

Democracy as opposed to dictatorship.

Favorably altered, sir.

[The Sloth]

Up for CI.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 20 2004, 03:26 PM


Yeah, a system of trail justice as apposed to summary executuon and torture camps.

Democracy as opposed to dictatorship.

Favorably altered, sir.
This things are on aspect of the changes that will take place in Iraq. I would suggest that in many other areas the Iraqi people wil be worse off. I do not recognise the existence of bourgeois democracy over bourgeois dictatorship. All societies are class dictatorships and democracy refers which class has state power.

Iraqi culture will be subsumed by American culture as many cultures have been. In addition, the Iraqi economy will only become more inequitous and stunted in growth by the American expropriation of Iraqi prosperity.