| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
NextShop:  Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order  Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale  Red Vein Kratom  Buy Bali Kratom Powder  Premium Bali Kratom Powder |
| |||||||
 headphone Stranger Registered: 07/24/01 Posts: 19 Last seen: 23 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
The Media Cover-Up of US Death Squads in the Vietnam War Continues
There have been many questions raised in the mass media concerning the details of former Nebraska Governor and Senator Bob Kerrey's US Navy Seal unit massacre of civilians at Thanh Phong during the US-Vietnam war. Unfortunately, however, the US mainstream media cannot focus on the most important and significant questions because they cut too deeply into the myths these media perpetuate about the nature of US power--its benign or even noble nature, its democratic values, and its concern for the weak and powerless peoples of the world. This is not to mention the fact that such questions would offend Bob Kerrey's senatorial colleagues, the US military, and the vast majority of US war veterans who all (rightfully) fear disgrace. In order to tell the truth about the still undeclared U.S.-Vietnam War, the mass media would be forced to finally admit that, propaganda aside, all the official excuses given for the US invasion of Vietnam were lies, that the history of the war was essentially a history of war crimes committed by everyone from US presidents and cabinet officials down to the pilots, cavalry and infantry in the field. And that high amongst these war crimes was the institution and execution of the CIA's Operation Phoenix program, which intentionally and successfully targeted tens of thousands of civilians throughout southern Vietnam in a dirty campaign of terror and mass assassination. (According to the late William Colby, who ran the program for the CIA, 20,587 Vietnamese "activists" were killed between 1967-1971. More credible estimates put the number at over 40,000 civilians killed.) But neither the mass media nor the US government can speak openly or truthfully about these war crimes without a quite rational fear of undermining the continuing use of the same types of criminal strategies and tactics in the current US military interventions in Iraq, Colombia and elsewhere. For readers who are unaware of the Phoenix program (largely thanks to mass media silence), it was conceived and organized by the US Central Intelligence Agency as a means of decimating and thus destroying the civilian administration and infrastructure supporting the indigenous Viet Cong resistance to the US invasion of southern Vietnam. To accomplish this decimation, any civilian populations in areas outside direct US control (or direct control of its South Vietnamese puppet army) were unilaterally considered to be residing in "Free-Fire Zones," in which any and all war crimes were permitted by US policy. Then death squads made up of special forces units (like the Navy Seals) were sent into villages and hamlets throughout the countryside. Their first goal was to assassinate all civilian administrators (such as village mayors) on the assumption that they were supporters of the indigenous Vietnamese resistance to the US invasion forces. But beyond this their goals included assassination of any military age males, the families of administrators--including the elderly, women, children and infants, and anyone else thought to support the Viet Cong, all in order to sow terror amongst the remaining population. The Phoenix program death squads proved to be very effective in achieving their goals. The political and social infrastructure of South Vietnamese resistance was destroyed wherever US death squads operated. Which is why the US military (and allied military intelligence agencies like the CIA) continues to encourage, organize, fund and employ death squads in other countries around the world whenever conditions allow them to be effective in projecting the interests of US power. Countries where US-organized, armed and/or funded death squads have operated since the 1960s include Indonesia (where at least 500,000 and possibly as many as 2,000,000 were killed alone), East Timor, Argentina, Chile, Brazil, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Colombia, Bolivia, Angola and Mozambique. This is only a partial list, and it should be emphasized that while the total number of men, women and children killed by these US-backed death squads will never be known, it most certainly numbers in the millions over the last forty years. Of course, this is not to mention the cowardly mass murders of many more millions of civilians over this same time by US Air Force and Navy bombings and bombardments. But that is another, equally distasteful story. The invasion and genocidal war in Vietnam is only one of the reasons why we feel such contempt for the US government and those who support its killing machine. The other reasons include every country invaded or bombed, every death squad organized and funded, and every society and economy "destabilized" or destroyed by the US military in its quest to secure the world for corporate plunder and profit. This is why we spit on the American flag. As long as it represents a national government which wages dirty and unprincipled war on poorer nations throughout the world, it displays neither honor nor valor nor humanity. It should be no wonder that so many people burn the American flag around the world. It ranks with the Nazi and Soviet flags as one of the most powerful symbols of death and destruction in history. Jason McQuinn Chuck Munson Tom Wheeler Alternative Press Review - http://www.altpr.org
| |||||||
|
Ellis Dee Archangel    Registered: 06/29/01 Posts: 13,104 Loc: Fire in the sky Last seen: 5 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
In the Vietnam conflict there was no way to know who civilians were. It's unfortunate that civilians die, but that's part of every war. I wasen't in Vietnam or in a hot combat zone, and I'm not going to judge the actions of soldiers in a hot CZ.
In 'Nam there were tens of thousands of VC soldiers that didn't wear uniforms. You call these people 'activists' and that's not true! People bearing arms on one side of a conflict are no longer civilians, uniformed or not. That's how it is. If one of those un-uniformed VC soldiers (activists) shot at me I would draw on him and fire until one of us was dead! And that was basicaly our military's policy in 'Nam, to not get you or your buddies dead if you can avoid it. You may not like war and neither do I, but it goes on. You shoot at your enemy and he shoots at you until you or him are dead! Mistakes are made and good men on your own side are killed by friendly fire! Mistakes are made and civilians die! You kill the enemy! The enemy kills you! People die! You either win, retreat, or are wiped out! That's how battles are! That's the horror of war and no one can change it! I think for the most part our soldiers in Vietnam got screwed over. And some people want to drag them back through the horrors of war, they want to screw them over all over again. And that's a shame. God bless America's veterans and all those that fight and sacrifice their lives to preserve our freedom. Edited by Rail_Gun on 08/06/01 06:15 AM. -------------------- "If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do."-King Solomon And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
| |||||||
 Beery newbie  Registered: 07/31/01 Posts: 49 Loc: Massachusetts, U |
| ||||||
|
As long as there are rules of behaviour in wartime, soldiers should be held accountable for breaking those rules.
Freedom is only freedom if it doesn't infringe on anyone else's right to self determination. The Vietnam war was not about freedom. It was about American expansionism and empire building. -------------------------------------------------------------- We suggest that you resist all advertisements, and be wary of any corporation's promotions. -------------------------------------------------------------- Edited by Beery on 08/06/01 06:32 AM. -------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- We suggest that you resist all advertisements, and be wary of any corporation's promotions. --------------------------------------------------------------
| |||||||
|
Ellis Dee Archangel Registered: 06/29/01 Posts: 13,104 Loc: Fire in the sky Last seen: 5 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
In reply to: I agree with that wholeheartedly. I would love to see all the VC soldiers that assinated American reporters and civilians in 'Nam and everywhere else face justice. I would like to see the VC soldiers that disembowled American prisoners face justice. I would like to see the VC's that marched American P.O.W.'s to concentration camps face justice. I would like to see the VC's that tortured and murdered American P.O.W.'s on a daily basis face justice. Unfortunatly, all the VC war criminals will never be faced with a reckoning for their atrocities, at least not in this life. People forget that for the most part the U.S. played by the rules in Vietnam. The U.S. military was there legitamatly at the request of the South Vietnamese goverment to stop an invasion by communist butchers. And while the U.S. was there that's what they did. The U.S. didn't run concentration camps and torture our P.O.W.'s. We were humane and except for a few isolated incidents did the right thing. -------------------- "If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do."-King Solomon And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
| |||||||
|
Beery newbie Registered: 07/31/01 Posts: 49 Loc: Massachusetts, U |
| ||||||
|
"Unfortunatly, all the VC war criminals will never be faced with a reckoning for their atrocities, at least not in this life."
Unfortunatly, all the US war criminals will never be faced with a reckoning for their atrocities, at least not in this life. "People forget that for the most part the U.S. played by the rules in Vietnam" People forget that for the most part the U.S. decided what 'the rules' were in Vietnam. -------------------------------------------------------------- We suggest that you resist all advertisements, and be wary of any corporation's promotions. -------------------------------------------------------------- Edited by Beery on 08/06/01 06:54 AM. -------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- We suggest that you resist all advertisements, and be wary of any corporation's promotions. --------------------------------------------------------------
| |||||||
|
Ellis Dee Archangel Registered: 06/29/01 Posts: 13,104 Loc: Fire in the sky Last seen: 5 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
In reply to: Sometimes peoples freedom colide and are incompatable. The only way someone could be 100% free is if they are on their own island with no one else there. When people live together interests differ. During the American Revolutionary War France aided our forefathers at their request. Vietnam was the same. The South Vietnam goverment begged the U.S. to help them maintain a democracy. And we did. At the time of the Vietnam conflict there was a theory called the 'domino effect'. When one small country is couquored by communism the next country is the next to be conquored, and so forth. That's what the U.S. was opposing. The spread of totalitarianism. It was not about expansionism or empire building. It was about stoping dangerous communists from conquoring the world. And if it wasen't for the strong U.S. commitment to freedom and democracy the world would now be almost totaly controled by bloody communists and totalitarianist regimes. -------------------- "If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do."-King Solomon And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
| |||||||
|
Beery newbie Registered: 07/31/01 Posts: 49 Loc: Massachusetts, U |
| ||||||
|
"Sometimes peoples freedom colide and are incompatable. The only way someone could be 100% free is if they are on their own island with no one else there. When people live together interests differ. "
Unfortunately, in the real world, that island would be promptly 'liberated' by the US and the islander would be 'induced' to make NIKE running shoes for $0.06 per day. "During the American Revolutionary War France aided our forefathers at their request. Vietnam was the same. The South Vietnam goverment begged the U.S. to help them maintain a democracy. And we did. Maintain a 'democracy'??? What democracy? It was a military dictatorship until 1967, and after that the 'democratically elected' military leader only got 30% of the vote, AND there were widespread accusations of vote fraud. This was hardly a democracy. Of course the South Vietnamese government begged the US for help. The South Vietnamese government at that time (early to mid 1960s) was a vastly corrupt dictatorship that the common people were rebelling against (and winning). "At the time of the Vietnam conflict there was a theory called the 'domino effect'. When one small country is couquored by communism the next country is the next to be conquored, and so forth. That's what the U.S. was opposing. The spread of totalitarianism. It was not about expansionism or empire building. 'Domino effect' is a phrase which acts as a justification for empire building. The facts are clear - the Vietnamese people wanted their government out of power. The US, instead of helping the people create a more democratic state, chose to exert all its strength to keep the corrupt regime in power and to oppress the will of the Vietnamese people. The result was that the Communists, who chose to enter the war on the side of the people, got to influence how the country was run. "It was about stoping dangerous communists from conquoring the world. And if it wasen't for the strong U.S. commitment to freedom and democracy the world would now be almost totaly controled by bloody communists and totalitarianist regimes." The US has no true commitment to 'freedom' and 'democracy'. It has a commitment to US financial interests. How can you say the US is committed to freedom and democracy when it's quite plain to see that in almost every foreign military incursion, the US has installed or supported dictatorships, sometimes removing freely elected democratic governments to do so (for example Chile under Allende or Haiti under Jean-Bertrand Aristide). -------------------------------------------------------------- We suggest that you resist all advertisements, and be wary of any corporation's promotions. -------------------------------------------------------------- Edited by Beery on 08/06/01 07:56 AM. -------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- We suggest that you resist all advertisements, and be wary of any corporation's promotions. --------------------------------------------------------------
| |||||||
|
headphone Stranger Registered: 07/24/01 Posts: 19 Last seen: 23 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
In reply to: Or so the propaganda goes. Actually, communism was quite popular among the Vietnamese people. In reply to: So bombing the fuck out of other countries, repressing popular struggles, dropping thousands of thousands of landmines and weirdo chemicals on the country, installing dictatorial puppet regimes to ensure U.S. economic interests, committing genocide, having the CIA subvert and crush dissidence, and than distorting the truth via the mass media to cover their asses is a sound path toward "freedom and democracy"? So we bomb people for their own good? Please demonstrate to the forum how this is true. Show me one country that is better off, more free, and more democractic since WWII after an American invasion or our so-called "humanitarian interventions." Do you know the definition of "newspeak"?
| |||||||
|
Ellis Dee Archangel Registered: 06/29/01 Posts: 13,104 Loc: Fire in the sky Last seen: 5 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
The Soviets provided the North Vietnamese with their arms. The Soviets were behind the Viet Cong invasion of South Vietnam. It has since been learned since the fall of the Soviet Union that the Soviets actualy had Soviet military personal shooting surface to air missles at American airmen. This was really a conflict between the Soviet Union and the U.S. using the Viet Cong and the South Vietnamese as pawns. It wasen't about the Vietnamese people.
All the talk about 'American imperialism' is a load of bunk. The Soviets were the real imperialists. And the Americans were trying hard and giving their lives to stop the spread of communism. Funny how for all the talk of 'American imperialism' that none of these countries that America got involved with ever bacame American Territories. Beery, how old are you? Were you even alive during the Vietnam Conflict? I know how it was. I have relatives that served in Vietnam and almost died there. There really was a 'red scare'. And we were afraid of the domino effect and how pretty soon all the south east asian countries would be conquored by communism. We had to do somthing to stop the Soviets. No offence but you don't know what you're talking about. -------------------- "If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do."-King Solomon And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
| |||||||
|
Beery newbie Registered: 07/31/01 Posts: 49 Loc: Massachusetts, U |
| ||||||
|
"The Soviets provided the North Vietnamese with their arms. The Soviets were behind the Viet Cong invasion of South Vietnam. It has since been learned since the fall of the Soviet Union that the Soviets actualy had Soviet military personal shooting surface to air missles at American airmen. This was really a conflict between the Soviet Union and the U.S. using the Viet Cong and the South Vietnamese as pawns. It wasen't about the Vietnamese people."
The US was as much to blame as the Soviets. Both countries had their propaganda machines in place in Vietnam before the fighting began. You can't accuse the Soviets as if they were somehow there before the US got involved. The question should not be 'what did the Soviets want'. The important question was 'what did the Vietnamese people want'. The fact is, the Vietnamese people wanted a people's government to replace the French imperialist and American-backed governments that were in power. The Soviet/Chinese had an easier time convincing the people of Vietnam because America had allied itself with the French. "All the talk about 'American imperialism' is a load of bunk. The Soviets were the real imperialists. And the Americans were trying hard and giving their lives to stop the spread of communism." Oh yeah, right. Tell me, why do Americans have military bases all over the world? Seems slightly imperialist to me. Why does America bomb Serbia and Iraq contrary to the rule of international law? America at the dawn of the 21st century is the last big imperialist power and the greatest threat to democracy in the world. If America is not imperialist it should defend its own borders, not those of other countries. America treats the other countries of the world as if they are sattelite states. That's imperialism. "Funny how for all the talk of 'American imperialism' that none of these countries that America got involved with ever bacame American Territories. " Tell that to Hawaii, tell it to Mexico (Texas was a part of Mexico), tell it to the American Indian inhabitants of almost any state you care to mention. The fact is, America now prefers to install puppet dictatorships, just like the Russians did. Vietnam never became a Russian (or Chinese) territory, nor did North Korea. Annexing territory is a very outdated form of imperialism - it's too costly - look what happened when the Russians invaded Afghanistan. The only way to successfully annex a territory without a popular rebellion is to massacre the people, as the US did in Sioux territory and in many other areas. Modern Imperialism tends to run along the same lines as British Egypt before WW2. Far easier and more effective to let the people think they have home rule. Don't get me wrong, the Russians (and to a lesser extent the Chinese) are guilty of this too. All imperialism should stop. Countries should be free to determine their fate democratically. "Beery, how old are you? Were you even alive during the Vietnam Conflict? I know how it was. I have relatives that served in Vietnam and almost died there. There really was a 'red scare'. And we were afraid of the domino effect and how pretty soon all the south east asian countries would be conquored by communism. We had to do somthing to stop the Soviets. No offence but you don't know what you're talking about." Yes, I was alive then (I'm 39, how old are you?). My great grandfather, my grandfather and my great uncle fought in WW1, one of my uncles fought at El Alamein in WW2, and another uncle was killed peacekeeping with the UN forces in Cyprus in the 1950s. My father was in British Military Intelligence, stationed in Berlin in the 1950s. My family knows the costs of imperialism. The fact is, you were taught to fear the domino effect. But the fear did not match the reality. The Soviets were a major force for evil, it's true, but the US has done a great deal of evil deeds too in the last 40 years. Most of today's US-led incursions into foreign territory tend to be anti-democratic. -------------------------------------------------------------- We suggest that you resist all advertisements, and be wary of any corporation's promotions. -------------------------------------------------------------- Edited by Beery on 08/08/01 09:59 AM. -------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- We suggest that you resist all advertisements, and be wary of any corporation's promotions. --------------------------------------------------------------
| |||||||
|
Ellis Dee Archangel Registered: 06/29/01 Posts: 13,104 Loc: Fire in the sky Last seen: 5 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
In reply to: There's a lot more to things than that. Did you ever hear of Sam Houston? He was partly responsible for founding the Republic of Texas. Texas was a soverign country before it was incorporated into the mainland United States. One of my ancestors, General James Blair Steedman, fought with Sam Houston helping to found Texas. You don't really believe that the US shouldn't have won the west, can you? We brought civilazation to a rugged country inhabited by uncivalized heathens. The US has civalized this country. And assisted in helping to civalize other countries. That's a good thing. -------------------- "If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do."-King Solomon And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
| |||||||
|
Beery newbie Registered: 07/31/01 Posts: 49 Loc: Massachusetts, U |
| ||||||
|
Hmmm. Now I can't tell if you're being serious or if you're being ironic. If it's the latter, I commend you on your subtlety. If the former, I think you need to look a bit deeper into American history (and perhaps approach it from a more objective standpoint).
-------------------------------------------------------------- We suggest that you resist all advertisements, and be wary of any corporation's promotions. -------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- We suggest that you resist all advertisements, and be wary of any corporation's promotions. --------------------------------------------------------------
| |||||||
|
Phyl old hand Registered: 01/17/00 Posts: 597 Loc: United Kingdom Last seen: 15 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
|
We brought civilazation to a rugged country inhabited by uncivalized heathens. The US has civalized this country. And assisted in helping to civalize other countries. That's a good thing.
Why?
| |||||||
|
Agent Cooper veteran  Registered: 08/03/00 Posts: 210 Loc: right behind you |
| ||||||
In reply to: I dare you, I double-dare you, to read A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn. If your John Wayne worldview is still intact, then you have more problems than just a warped sense of history. 
http://www.abolishthebank.org
| |||||||
|
Beery newbie Registered: 07/31/01 Posts: 49 Loc: Massachusetts, U |
| ||||||
|
"Texas was a soverign country before it was incorporated into the mainland United States. One of my ancestors, General James Blair Steedman, fought with Sam Houston helping to found Texas. You don't really believe that the US shouldn't have won the west, can you? We brought civilazation to a rugged country inhabited by uncivalized heathens. The US has civalized this country. And assisted in helping to civalize other countries."
Let's hope that in their adoption of US civilization, other English speaking countries don't relax their appreciation for grammar and spelling in order to accommodate our apparent lack thereof ;) -------------------------------------------------------------- We suggest that you resist all advertisements, and be wary of any corporation's promotions. -------------------------------------------------------------- Edited by Beery on 08/10/01 08:30 PM. -------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- We suggest that you resist all advertisements, and be wary of any corporation's promotions. --------------------------------------------------------------
| |||||||
|
Ellis Dee Archangel Registered: 06/29/01 Posts: 13,104 Loc: Fire in the sky Last seen: 5 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
In reply to: That book is published by 'Common Courage Press' and is widely distributed by Loompanics Enterprises Limited. Loompanics promotes itself as 'the lunatic fringe of the libertarian movement'. I don't really think that book would be the most credible source of reliable information. They probably would make a few good points about the Trail of tears and the Phillipine invasion in the late 1800's though. -------------------- "If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do."-King Solomon And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
| |||||||
|
Ellis Dee Archangel Registered: 06/29/01 Posts: 13,104 Loc: Fire in the sky Last seen: 5 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
I also think that the origional article posted by headphone is somewhat lacking in credibility since it was published by Alternative Press Review. It's an alternative media all right. An alternative to the truth.
-------------------- "If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do."-King Solomon And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
| |||||||
|
Beery newbie Registered: 07/31/01 Posts: 49 Loc: Massachusetts, U |
| ||||||
|
"That book is published by 'Common Courage Press' and is widely distributed by Loompanics Enterprises Limited. Loompanics promotes itself as 'the lunatic fringe of the libertarian movement'."
Perhaps, but to assume that a 'lunatic fringe' publisher publishes only 'lunatic fringe' books is like assuming that commercially driven publishers (i.e. all of them) only sell books on capitalism. It just isn't so. "I don't really think that book would be the most credible source of reliable information." I would be careful in making such an assumption. Time Magazine is regarded as about as 'middle of the road' as you can get, but it often mis-states facts. To judge the reliability of a book by its publisher's stated political leanings is folly. "I also think that the origional article posted by headphone is somewhat lacking in credibility since it was published by Alternative Press Review. It's an alternative media all right. An alternative to the truth." Or an alternative to the 'conventional wisdom', which is often wrong. I notice again that you rely on politics to determine credibility. A very dangerous and unwise method. Surely a book (or an article) should be measured against fact. Just as a book should not be judged by its cover, we should not judge a book based on our appraisal of its publisher. -------------------------------------------------------------- We suggest that you resist all advertisements, and be wary of any corporation's promotions. -------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- We suggest that you resist all advertisements, and be wary of any corporation's promotions. --------------------------------------------------------------
| |||||||
|
Beery newbie Registered: 07/31/01 Posts: 49 Loc: Massachusetts, U |
| ||||||
|
To further illustrate my point, I'll include this little snippet from 'Anarchy for Anybody' (http://www.radio4all.org/anarchy/index.html):
Most people don't really question what they get from the media; it's taken to be a good source of reliable, and above all, objective information. And that really demonstrates the damage that's been done to people's minds. We seem to be living in an age where thought itself is not only discouraged, but actively opposed. Be afraid; that's okay, because fear paralyzes -- but don't think, because that'll just get you in trouble. What really got me thinking about our "government by hysteria" is the use of sound bites and slogans as ways of stopping thought. Slogans really are the death of thought, because the issues that plague our society (because they fail to get addressed) simply can't be summed up in two words. Complex problems can only be solved through dialogue, which is a long, arduous process of conversational give and take. Instead, what we have is a polarized society, and a deeply ideological one, held together by fear. This is characterized by the two-word slogans -- perhaps the folks who come up with these found that a two-word slogan is small enough that the village idiot (e.g., what they think most of us are) can comprehend it, remember it, repeat it as necessary. What makes these so nasty is the way that they stop thought and reflection in their tracks. So long as Americans can be prevented (or, more aptly, prevent themselves and each other) from discussing and thinking, the status quo can continue to be preserved. These words are ultimately , designed to short-circuit thought, inquiry, self-expression, dialogue -- all the things that make democracy work, and all of which are sadly lacking in our totalitarian, consumerist world. Several slogans seem particularly evident, and working on different levels. ZERO TOLERANCE At the administrative level, you have zero tolerance (ZT). This has become the slogan of the hour as administrators, whether in schools or the workplace, seek to establish their authority in a dictatorial manner -- ZT becomes the justification for anything the administrator does. It becomes chanted, like a mantra -- "we have a zero tolerance policy in effect, here" -- as if this has any meaning. America itself seems to have a ZT policy toward freethinkers. What ZT does is it frees up administration to do whatever the hell they want, and offers blanket protection for them. ZT is a big stone wall that you can't surmount, it's a mental dead end, which makes you realize why adminstrators like it so much -- it makes their job easier, because it allows them to act without thought or reflection, relying instead on fear and knee-jerk ideology. It's like a magic bullet, this ZT, which is fitting, since I believe the Army first coined the term! CONVENTIONAL WISDOM This is taken to be common knowledge, the province of the inclusive "us" versus the subversive "them" -- CW is used by pundits and politicos to characterize "right-think" (invoking Orwell, from 1984). Ideas that are considered acceptable to the status quo. This one isn't typically used by everyday people, because it's a bit wonkish, but it does get used in the Massive Media, so I include it here. It still serves the same purpose -- shoehorning complex thoughts into extraordinarily narrow confines. CW is as meaningless as the other slogans, but it creates the illusion that something thoughtful and meaningful has been said. CONSPIRACY THEORY On a political level, there's the mighty conspiracy theory (CT). This has come to be used to describe anybody and anything that doesn't gel with the corporate press and/or government's view of things. It becomes a handy pigeonhole for unpleasant thoughts, a way of dismissing them without having to reflect on them. A CT is intrinsically without merit, and pins suspicion and doubt on the speaker of it. CT creates the illusion that the person who says that is calm, ordered, reasonable, sensible -- and the person(s) they accuse of CT are, of course, hysterical, insane, paranoid, etc. What's so interesting about CT is that the uninformed are able to feel informed by invoking it -- and what's useful about CT is that anything can be considered CT. If you ask too many questions about something, then people will say you're paranoid, or that you believe in CT. End of discussion, end of story. Thought successfully derailed. That's not saying there aren't true CTs out there; there are plenty, and you typically know them when you see them, because they follow a very definite pattern (all-powerful, hidden group of bad guys out to get you, untouchable, they are behind everything). True CTs are disempowering and paralyze their proponents with fear (or impel them to reckless, pointless acts of violence). However, use of CT has broadened to encompass a much larger range of thoughts and ideas -- anything that isn't from an official source, anything that asks questions, can be branded a CT. The user of CT can return to regularly schedule programming without pesky thought and reflection. POLITICALLY CORRECT (PC) Which brings me to the granddaddy, or should I say, "grandperson" of thought-derailers, the mighty PC. This one was drafted and coined by right-wing think tankers to characterize the so-called "tenured radicals" of academe, and to give everyday people another magic bullet in their arsenal of thoughtlessness to sling at ideas they didn't like. It's been explored so much that I needn't elaborate much on it, here. PC applies to any left-leaning idea that, again, doesn't gel with the agendas of the dominant elites in our society. It provides a way to dismiss the ideas out of hand, without discussion, a way of saying nothing while seeming to say something. It pads the ego of speaker of it while really advertising their ignorance. "Oh, you're just being PC..." what the hell does that mean, anyway? It means nothing. That's the dirty reality of it all, but it does serve to stop conversation in its tracks. THE WAR ON THOUGHT What I think these slogans (and probably others) do is wage war on thought and discourse, on reflection, on understanding, and, ultimately, on democracy. They create an atmosphere where the ignorant and uninformed can dismiss "wrongthink" (a brilliant term Orwell coined in 1984) and continue to live ignorant, uninformed lives. Best of all, these slogans can be used again and again, because there really is no answer to them, because they pin blame and suspicion on others -- so anything you say has already been used against you in the court of popular opinion. I believe these slogans are used because, in a society like ours, you have to keep people from talking to one another, because if people begin asking questions, there's no end to trouble. So, instead, keep people quiet and fearful and alone, and pin fear and suspicion on people who dare to make inquiries. This isn't how a free society operates; but we don't have a free society, although this kind of politically correct, conspiracy theory drivel goes against the conventional wisdom, of course, and I know you have zero tolerance for that. -------------------------------------------------------------- We suggest that you resist all advertisements, and be wary of any corporation's promotions. -------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- We suggest that you resist all advertisements, and be wary of any corporation's promotions. --------------------------------------------------------------
| |||||||
|
Ellis Dee Archangel Registered: 06/29/01 Posts: 13,104 Loc: Fire in the sky Last seen: 5 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
Beery, you're quite right. You shouldn't judge a book by it's cover. Even a history book. BTW, it really is the winner that rights the history book. The history boo you're promoting I think writes history from the losers perspective. Of course the losers are going to be ticked off and infuriated, and maybe justifyably so. But I'm decended from the winners and I prefer the point of view of my heritage and culture. That's just how I am.
-------------------- "If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do."-King Solomon And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
| |||||||
|
Agent Cooper veteran Registered: 08/03/00 Posts: 210 Loc: right behind you |
| ||||||
|
Now let me get this straight railgun...(pardon me if I start to ramble - just got back from a night at the pubs)
In a recent post you quote the Bible in reference to the teaching of Jesus Christ, essentially praising a man who was hunted down and killed by the authorities of his time for his radical, unorthodox, and subversive teachings. And then in this thread you essentially spit upon the experience and history of those (native americans, blacks, women, unconventional religious groups, labor activists, etc. as recorded in Zinn's book) who underwent similar persecution, violence, oppression, etc. [albeit they were not proclaiming to be some sort of savior like Jesus - but that is irrelevent; what is relevent is both groups were a threat to the status quo and were taken down by force] because of they were perceived to be a threat to the established order; you consider their experiences less valid and unworthy of consideration as compared to "the winners" of American history. For someone who loosely quotes the Bible even during discussions about income tax returns of all things, surely you'd be knowledgable about the history of Christianity. Jesus during his time was popular among the people, but not so popular among the powerful religious and governmental authorities. He was promptly executed, and his life and death was hardly noted (if at all) in the historical records of "the winners" (the Jewish and Roman orders). Christianity was frowned upon in the early days, and the teachings and history of Jesus were recorded and preserved by a handful of faithful followers despite much repression. Jesus and his posthumous followers were "the losers" in their time. If it wasnt for the "losers" who preserved the history and teachings of Jesus Christ, the modern world would not have ever heard of such man. Nor would you be able to quote him in your income-tax debates. Limiting your world knowledge to just the perspective of those who conquered the most and who held the most power and opulence is quite sad; such a pity because you seem like a relatively intelligent human being. Why not expand your horizons and try to grasp the truth of what really happened in the past? Why just accept one version of the story? Maybe because the truth is difficult to swallow. Terror campaigns during the Vietnam War (Operation Phoenix is widely documented; why not research it before you dismiss it?) are not pleasant at all. In reply to: Good observation. This is the exact point that Zinn makes in his book. Who cares if Loomponicios, or whatever, distributes A People's History? Maybe they know it is a popular book. Are they the sole distributers of the book? Of course not - check out all of your favorite corporate outlets: Amazon. com, Barnes & Noble, etc. The sources of Zinn's book are well-documented. It's all there. Check the primary sources if you have questions.
http://www.abolishthebank.org
| |||||||
|
Agent Cooper veteran Registered: 08/03/00 Posts: 210 Loc: right behind you |
| ||||||
|
Also imporant to note - Operation Phoenix is just the tip of the iceberg my friend.
http://www.abolishthebank.org
| |||||||
|
Beery newbie Registered: 07/31/01 Posts: 49 Loc: Massachusetts, U |
| ||||||
|
"I prefer the point of view of my heritage and culture. That's just how I am."
Until recently I used to feel much the same way. In the end I found out that it was just jingoism. It's important to see history as it is, not how we would like it to be. While imperialism did have some value (it built railway systems and in some cases ended religious violence and state repression in some aboriginal cultures), it also perpetrated much harm in 'bringing civilization to the heathen', which often meant killing as many of them as humanly possible. This was just as true for US imperialism as it was in the European empires. Not many people realise that the concentration camp was not a Nazi invention, nor was it created by the British in the Boer War (as has often been said). It was actually pioneered during the Indian Wars by the US government. If we ignore history, we're doomed to repeat it. That well-worn phrase is especially true when historians don't even teach about the less palatable parts of our history. We see the truth of it in today's news stories. Howard Zinn has written a balanced history of the US (he is perhaps the first to do so). Because of that, he is called a 'radical wacko' and his book is viewed in some circles as left wing propaganda. That says a lot about the state of American political thought and its regard for truth. I hope you will pick up his book and try to read it. I think it will give you a different perspective on history and perhaps help you to see current events from a more objective standpoint. -------------------------------------------------------------- We suggest that you resist all advertisements, and be wary of any corporation's promotions. -------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- We suggest that you resist all advertisements, and be wary of any corporation's promotions. --------------------------------------------------------------
| |||||||
| |||||||
Edit 
Reply 
| Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale Red Vein Kratom Buy Bali Kratom Powder Premium Bali Kratom Powder |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
 |
 |
Death squads in Iraq? (  1 2 all ) |
 Aldous |
2,589 | 23 | 01/16/05 09:57 AM by d33p |
|
|
Gippers death squads |  Xlea321 |
1,628 | 16 | 06/16/04 07:45 PM by afoaf |
|
|
do i need a gas mask......false gods...death squads |  kaiowas |
811 | 9 | 07/27/04 08:00 PM by BleaK |
|
|
US was warned Democracy in Iraq may be "Impossible" ( 1 2 3 4 all ) |
 Edame |
6,689 | 79 | 08/19/03 08:29 AM by GernBlanston |
|
|
Are you anti-war and pro-democracy? ( 1 2 3 all ) |
 Evolving |
5,158 | 48 | 03/26/03 10:19 PM by JonnyOnTheSpot |
|
|
Democracy Is Not Freedom ( 1 2 all ) |
 Ancalagon |
3,110 | 27 | 02/09/05 08:31 PM by RandalFlagg |
|
 |
Iraq: It's Beginning to Smell a Lot Like Vietnam | Zahid |
805 | 2 | 10/23/03 09:31 AM by Xlea321 |
|
|
When did WAR go wrong? Korea vs Vietnam | BrAiN |
522 | 3 | 08/15/05 12:12 AM by BCBudJohn |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa 3,026 topic views. 3 members, 6 guests and 2 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||
