Log in

View Full Version : 5 war on terror lies - theyr big, theyr ugly, theyr govermen



Anonymous
15th October 2002, 22:13
here it is, five at the price of one! see the amazing american bulshit!!!

lie nş 1- "We arent at war with the afeghan people, notice we are giving them food!"

the truth:
Afghanistam is in the midle of a giant drought that directly threatens milions of people to starve. Even before the war on terror the World Food Program (WFP) said that about 6 million people needed food imidiatly or else they would starve. When USA promissed an attack to afghanistam, millions of refugies started to hit the road, because of that the number rised from 6 millions to 7 millions and a half, UN waere trying to keep gigantist amounts of people alive, but the promisse of war, along with the closed paquistan boarders (american orders) forced thw WFP to stop the deliverys of food. there is no oficial ot unoficial number of deaths caused by this barbarity. the USA droped 37 thousends of individual bags of food. So lets think for a second, those bags are the enough to feed about 37 thousends of hunger people for one day, but what about the 7 millions? and there is more, is it correct to send that food like that? dont forget the US army sends the food by plane so it isnt delivered but troued from the air, without any target is the worst kind of way to send help, in fact it creates more problems than it helps, dont forget afghanistam is the country with more operative mines, about 10 to 15 acidents hapen by day, with this "help" the unger people will have to probably look food in mined camps and the numbers of civilian casualitys wil rise...


lie nş 2 - "Oil?What Oil?"

the Truth:

the Caspian sea has the bigest oil reserves in the world what will probably turn central asia in the next midle east, the only problem is how to get that oil, well afghanistam is in a estrategical position betwean the Caspian sea and the markets of india and oriental asia. its the perfect spot for oleoducts, so it is vital for the USA to control that region in order to give good old profits to america

lie nş 3 - "USA are trying to free Afghanistam people from the repression of the Taliban."

the truth:

USA, Russia and Iran are helping a violent cohaliation of armed groups called the nort allience. the North alliance soldiers are mainly small minoritys that were attacked by the talibans. But north allience record is also bloody. Groups like the revolutionary Association of Women from Afghanistam (something like this) (RAWA), that fight against fundamentalism and fight for democracy in afghanistam (strange how CNN hasnt done any special report about this groups! and you say CNN is a news report LOL) well these women say the north allience is no alternative to the taliban, its not surprising becuase the Human Rights Watch said that the north allience makes "civilian aereal bombardments (USA style), direct attacks to civilians, sumarial execucions, religious/etnic persiguitions, child recruitments, antipersonel land mines.." resuming all sorts of human rights violations, at this point everyone knows that Osama was on the recruited Musahideen to fight the soviets, know the new generation....

lie nş4 "America is united!"

the true:

Thousends and thousands of people have been fired only in the aerial industry since 11/9, the ov acted quicly to the industry recession and gave thousends and tgousends of $ to the companys to mantain the produtivity and to pay the executive big bosses, yet when it was up to pay the fired workers the congressist Dick Army said that would be against the "american spirit". And maby it is. Maby the american spirit is to force workers (the exploieted class) to pay for the recession and suport the heavy burden of an expensive war. But it has nothing to do with Unite!

And finaly but not less important

Lie nş5 "Its possible to win a "war against terrorism"."

the truth:

Terrorism is a tactic (a prety bloody/stupid/gay/stalinist/motherfucker tactic) not a politic/social power, everyone can use terrorism, and the idea that you can make a war against it is so stupoid as the "war on drugs" idea. The utilization of food has a politic weapon, thethe blind air bombardment to civilian structurs and the suporting of violent armed groups of fanatic bastards caounts as terrorism in every correct "dictionary", and therefore USA is the bigest terrorist groups known to men, and tehre is more, deeeply this war is all due to power/money interrests and in defense to this interesses USA are prepared to change the defenition of terrorism as they want, so they can aply it to every political/social movement they want, and not only to al-Qaeda, Ao Contrair! they are willing to call theyr own terrorists (north allience) "freedom fighters" Maby those freedom fighters will become american enemys and therefore terrorists some day, the Gov is manipulating the hanger and sorrow of american/west people for the 11/9 atrocitys so they can profit in particular distant wars and still be herous for theyr people, never believe this 5 basic lies, because if you do so you will be eated alive by imperialism, greed and war, in short words if you do so capitalism will once again win and the world will once again see more fascist states rise.........

boadicea88
16th October 2002, 01:01
Quote: from the anarchist on 2:13 pm on Oct. 15, 2002
a prety bloody/stupid/gay/stalinist/motherfucker tactic

Well you're absolutely right in everything you said, except this. Terrorism is not a "Stalinist" tactic, it was around centuries before Stalin, and Stalin did not use it anyway. If I recall correctly, Stalin was a faithful follower of Lenin, whose words "the purpose of terrorism is to terrorise" have often been twisted by right-wingers and anti-Stalin/anti-Stalinist supporters to appear that he said it in an approving way. Well he did not, he was in fact disapproving of terrorism, condemning it as having no use other than instilling terror in innocent people.


Good post, the rest of it, though.

new democracy
16th October 2002, 01:11
his words are true, but his anti americanism is crazy!!!

j
16th October 2002, 01:42
Stalin was not a faithful follower of Lenin.

j

boadicea88
16th October 2002, 05:36
Oh, really, J. What was he then?

Michael De Panama
16th October 2002, 06:43
He was a fascist, very much inspired by Lenin, just like Benito Mussolini, who actually built his political structure on Leninist principles such as the one party dictatorship and the controlled market. Of course, Mussolini took this one step further to concentrate all economic and political power within himself, creating yet another class gap. It was only until after Mussolini seized power that he changed the name of the Party from the Italian Socialist Party to the Fascist Party.

The only fundamental difference between Stalin and Mussolini was that Stalin never admitted that his regime was fascist. Regardless, Stalin was a totalitarian, and totalitarianism lives and breathes on the use of terroristic intimidation tactics to keep the population under the thumb of the ruling class. To say that a totalitarian regime did not use terrorism to maintain authority is proposing a practical impossibility. There's a reason why an estimate of between 5 to 30 million people were killed by the man of steel.

Please, comrades, don't start using the term "terrorism" as loosely as the rightwingers are.

(Edited by Michael De Panama at 12:51 am on Oct. 16, 2002)

ArgueEverything
16th October 2002, 07:26
If Stalin was a faithful follower of Lenin, why did kill all of Lenin's politburo?

Capitalist Imperial
16th October 2002, 14:53
that post is such bullshit!

Frosty
16th October 2002, 15:02
Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 3:53 pm on Oct. 16, 2002
that post is such bullshit!
Yours too.
Myself, i think anarchist's post was very good. Maybe it was too long for you?

Politrickian
16th October 2002, 15:44
It may be a bit off topic...

A great quote from the father of a friend of mine:

"Imperialism is not the anwser to Terrorism. Imperialism is the cause of Terrorism."

honest intellectual
16th October 2002, 22:10
Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 2:53 pm on Oct. 16, 2002
that post is such bullshit!

An excellent and eloquent rebuttal, rather remeniscent of a choir aof particularly mellifluous and well-spoken cherubim


There is no such thing as a 'war on terrorism'. One can't declare war on an abstraction (such as terrorism), only on people.

Communist Chris
17th October 2002, 23:32
I think Bush wants the oil man. It is just soo obious he wants the fuckin oil! I think that we you want to rebell against american imperalism you just get bombed. I think that the United States Government has no right to patrol the liberty of other nations.

Cassius Clay
18th October 2002, 10:03
It's such a shame that a good post written by a so called 'Leftist' feels the need to quote George W Bush himself for a description of Stalin.

Oh well.

Tkinter1
18th October 2002, 14:11
No war on terrorism?

War on terrorism is war on factions that exist around the globe with the INTENT to harm civilians. The war is on those factions, not abstraction.

Anonymous
18th October 2002, 19:34
Boadicea: Stalin was only a Bonapartis opurtunist that only had two thinks in mind 1-kill 2-drink


Tkinter1: "No war on terrorism? War on terrorism is war on factions that exist around the globe with the INTENT to harm civilians. The war is on those factions, not abstraction."
Ok you followed the typical west definition for war on terror, war on terror was a crusade started by bush to get all the oil in afghanistam, and the propuses of war on terror are the very same of the war on drugs, wich is to control and enforce USA/west force in 3 world countrys, war on terror is just a way to attack midle east gov. and countrys considered terrorists to USA and attack them, them rob them and give that country to another terrorist group (like the replacement of the taliban by the north allience) if you once again to see the stupidity on such war you are falling in the stupid basic lies of the weast, and so i sugest you to open your eyes

Politrickian: Great quote!

CI: thank you for your feedback, it once again proved the superiority of the leftists posts here.

Tkinter1
18th October 2002, 21:37
"Ok you followed the typical west definition for war on terror"

I guess i do follow that bullshit definitioin of war on terror being war on people who want to kill civilians. What would you have the US do anyway? Sit around and let terrorists attack them?

If you disagree about the removal of the Taliban you obviously haven't read the long list of human rights violations that they carried out on their own people.

Why would the US want to control third world countries lol their third world. We do however try to modernize them.

Im not going to lie to you and tell you everything the US has done has been just, but the broad picture of the war on terrorism is a comendable one. Unless you have a problem with ending the VIOLENT enemies of the US and of the world.


"countrys considered terrorists to USA and attack them, them rob them and give that country to another terrorist group (like the replacement of the taliban by the north allience)"

LOL. Rob them of their beloved Taliban. read up on the taliban chief... I honestly can't belive you said that and believe its true!

(Edited by Tkinter1 at 9:39 pm on Oct. 18, 2002)

Anonymous
19th October 2002, 12:33
"If you disagree about the removal of the Taliban you obviously haven't read the long list of human rights violations that they carried out on their own people. "

I have a far çargest list of human rights violations comited by USA wanna hear it?

"Why would the US want to control third world countries lol their third world. *We do however try to modernize them."

If modernize is building sweatshops then USA is doing a fine job

"I guess i do follow that bullshit definitioin of war on terror being war on people who want to kill civilians. *What would you have the US do anyway? Sit around and let terrorists attack them?"

no instead they attacked afghanistan and yet comited more crimes, and after the war they get all the oil! now theres a good plan! my friend in order to attack the taliban yous must join the afghan people, now US air bombardments are only causing trouble, like they are going to do with Iraq again by attack the people and then say "We saved the world once again!" pathetic! oh and by the way Usa trained the mujhaidin tho fight the soviets, later they foprmed the taliban, now they are forming the north allience that will soon creat another fanatic gov.


"Im not going to lie to you and tell you everything the US has done has been just, but the broad picture of the war on terrorism is a comendable one. *Unless you have a problem with ending the VIOLENT enemies of the US and of the world."

What USDA is doing is arming another fanatic movement (north allience) and tahts terrorism to me, if you want to make a war on terrorist countrys america would be the first to be attacked! here i will repeat once again ARMING TERRORIST GROUPS LIKE THE NORTH ALLIENCE IS TERRORISM IN ALMOST ALL DEFENITIONS (usa defenition not inclued of course) THEREFORE USA IS THE BIGEST TERRORIST HERE!

"LOL. *Rob them of their beloved Taliban. *read up on the taliban chief... *I honestly can't belive you said that and believe its true! "

if you notice afghnaistam doenst belong to the taliban, it belongs to the afghanistam people, and now it will belong to usa and yes i believe its true.

guerrillaradio
19th October 2002, 14:17
Terrorism is a symptom not a cause in itself. You cannot defeat an abstract, it will exist as long as there are genuine grievances. If the US really were interested in 'defeating' terrorism then they would address the issues behind it, rather than killing 'terrorists'.

queen of diamonds
19th October 2002, 14:27
I think most people are using the word terrorism too narrowly, not too loosely. Techinically, terrorism is any act designed to arouse feelings of terror, not any act committed by Arabs, which is the version I'm hearing more and more often.

The Taliban was hardly an ideal government, but I think the fact the the US is willing to instate an equally ruthless government belies their claims that they want to help the people of Afghanistan.

Well, the world's gone to hell anyway. A few nukes flying around here and there will just make it official.

Capitalist Imperial
19th October 2002, 17:08
Quote: from guerrillaradio on 2:17 pm on Oct. 19, 2002
Terrorism is a symptom not a cause in itself. You cannot defeat an abstract, it will exist as long as there are genuine grievances. If the US really were interested in 'defeating' terrorism then they would address the issues behind it, rather than killing 'terrorists'.


"If the US really were interested in 'defeating' terrorism then they would address the issues behind it, rather than killing 'terrorists'."


What guerredillo means is that the USA should just concede to the terrorists and give them what they want, like "stop supporting Israel" and "get out of Saudi Arabia".

However, we will not act on the terrorist's terms, as gueradillo suggests.

The US will dictate the pace of this war.

US sovereignty will not be compromised.

We will maintain our presence, investments, and assets in the middle east without question.

honest intellectual
19th October 2002, 19:04
Quote: from Tkinter1 on 9:37 pm on Oct. 18, 2002

I guess i do follow that bullshit definitioin of war on terror being war on people who want to kill civilians. You support the 'war on terror' because you don't want civilians to be murdered? A malenky bit hypocritical, n'est pas?

guerrillaradio
19th October 2002, 20:25
Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 5:08 pm on Oct. 19, 2002
What guerredillo means is that the USA should just concede to the terrorists and give them what they want, like "stop supporting Israel" and "get out of Saudi Arabia".

Not necessarily. I meant they should examine how their actions provoke terrorist acts. Of course, self-reflection never was a quality attributed to imperialist nations.


However, we will not act on the terrorist's terms, as gueradillo suggests.

The US will dictate the pace of this war.

US sovereignty will not be compromised.

We will maintain our presence, investments, and assets in the middle east without question.

That's no justification, it's just propaganda. Spelling out your intentions does not give them moral validity. In fact, if anything, it makes them less so.

BTW - my name's guerrillaradio.

Anonymous
20th October 2002, 12:01
guerrillaradio: you shouldnt reply to CI, he alredy proved his cappie greddy imperialism, notice what he said- "The US will dictate the pace of this war." and "US sovereignty will not be compromised" and to finish but not less important "We will maintain our presence, investments, and assets in the middle east without question." wich you can translate by "we will keep our dirty armys here, the oil will be ours, arabs are all fanatics, if any terrorist group attack us we will attack the entire region, killing inocent civilians, the sons/brothers etc of the slaughter civilians will join terrorist groups and this bloody cycle of violence and greed shall never stop..." CI replys only prove what capitalism is, greed, death, and stupidity...