Home | Community | Message Board


Myco Supply
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Amazon Shop for: pH Test Strips

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]
InvisibleInnvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Male

Registered: 02/09/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
To be Pacifist or not to Be?
    #418150 - 10/08/01 01:52 PM (15 years, 2 months ago)

The Following was posted by "ToTheSummit" in OTD.  Unfortunatly subjects in that forum tend to fly off to right field.  I really liked this post and not one person has been able to beat the logic.  I figured it was better to be put into the Political forum for semi-intellectual debate :wink:I hope i don't step on the MOD's toes by moving this to Political :smile:

Here are some simple steps to help you deal with people who are opposed to fighting a war against terrorist activities:

1)- Loacte an anti-war protester

2)- Approach them and ask them why they are opposed to fighting this war against terrorism.

3)- Begin listening to their reply about how you should not respond to violence with more violence

4)- While they are in mid-sentence, punch them in the face hard enough to knock them to the ground.

5)- Stand over them with your arms folded and a smirk on your face while they try to scramble to their feet.

6)- As they move towards you to hit you back, remind them that it is silly to respond to violence with more violence.

7)- As they begin to agree, hit them again, even harder this time.

8)- Repeat steps 5, 6 and 7 as many times as necessary until they learn that sooner or later you have to fight back!


Do you actually think that a pacifist will understand what is trying to be taught by the previous example?

Relax, Relax, Relax.....it's just a little pin prick  *  there'll be no more AARRGGHHH!!!! but you may feel a little sick.....

Edited by Innvertigo on 10/08/01 12:57 PM.



--------------------

America....FUCK YEAH!!!

Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleCaptain Jack
i [heart] you

Registered: 01/24/00
Posts: 4,113
Re: To be Pacifist or not to Be? [Re: Innvertigo]
    #418412 - 10/08/01 05:47 PM (15 years, 2 months ago)

Some of us wouldn't need to be reminded not to fight back.

You're stereotyping us all as hypocritical.

http://www.captainjackmusic.com


--------------------
-
Captain Jack has been hailed as a brilliant scholar, discredited as a brilliant fraud, and mistaken for a much taller man on several occasions.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinemm.
addict
 User Gallery

Registered: 06/16/99
Posts: 534
Loc: England
Last seen: 1 month, 1 hour
Re: To be Pacifist or not to Be? [Re: Innvertigo]
    #418443 - 10/08/01 06:11 PM (15 years, 2 months ago)

It kind of misses the point because neither the Taleban or the US are pacifists. Obviously if one gets attacked, one needs to defend oneself. But pacifism is about looking at the causes of the violence and acting to resolve them, so then there is no fighting atall. If either party fails to do that, then conflict will continue.



--------------------
MAPS.org: supporting psychedelic and medical marijuana research since 1986


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
Re: To be Pacifist or not to Be? [Re: Captain Jack]
    #418532 - 10/08/01 07:16 PM (15 years, 2 months ago)

Captain Jack writes:

"You're stereotyping us all as hypocritical."

Not at all. By definition, a Pacifist is one who eschews ALL violence, even retaliatory violence used strictly in self defense.

In the example given above, a Pacifist would allow himself to be knocked down repeatedly, until he could either flee or was knocked unconscious. The Pacifist is not being hypocritical, since he is practicing his moral code consistently.

To a Pacifist, there is NEVER a situation in which the use of violence is morally correct, violence is NEVER allowed. A Pacifist would rather give his own life than betray his deeply held principles. He might reason with his opponent, he might try to flee, but he would NEVER retaliate, regardless of the circumstances. A Pacifist mother would allow her child to be tortured and murdered rather than punch the murderer in the nose.

Unrealistic? Others may think so, but to a Pacifist, reality is less important than what he believes is proper moral behavior. If his survival can only be purchased at the cost of betraying his moral code, he will refuse to pay. He values his beliefs more highly than he values his own existence.

It must be noted that there are many people who claim to be Pacifists, but actually are not. They may properly described as "peace-lovers", or "peaceful", or "Doves", or whatever, but if they admit that in some circumstances -- ANY circumstance -- the use of violence is justifiable, then they are NOT Pacifists.

An analogy would be a self-proclaimed Atheist praying that she be saved from the cancer that is killing her. If she prays, she isn't an Atheist, regardless of how loudly or how often she proclaims herself to be.

pinky






--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleInnvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Male

Registered: 02/09/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
Re: To be Pacifist or not to Be? [Re: mm.]
    #418558 - 10/08/01 07:33 PM (15 years, 2 months ago)

refer to the previous post...Pinksharkmark hit the nail on the head. I never said either side was pacifists, the post refers to those that are proclaimed pacifists within our border....ya know the people who have nothing better to do?...er i mean peace demonstrators....at least a majority of them are proclaimed "give peace a chance" pacifists

****But pacifism is about looking at the causes of the violence and acting to resolve them****

No it is not..pacifism is the act of not doing anything no matter what.

****If either party fails to do that, then conflict will continue.****

It doesn't matter what "WE" do, they will still try to kill us ie:the WTC...short memory

Relax, Relax, Relax.....it's just a little pin prick * there'll be no more AARRGGHHH!!!! but you may feel a little sick.....


--------------------

America....FUCK YEAH!!!

Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinemm.
addict
 User Gallery

Registered: 06/16/99
Posts: 534
Loc: England
Last seen: 1 month, 1 hour
Re: To be Pacifist or not to Be? [Re: Innvertigo]
    #418567 - 10/08/01 07:40 PM (15 years, 2 months ago)

In reply to:

No it is not..pacifism is the act of not doing anything no matter what.




No its about not resorting to violence no matter what

In reply to:

It doesn't matter what "WE" do, they will still try to kill us ie:the WTC...short memory




So why is "WE" resorting to violence that kills inocent people then?


Edited by mm. on 10/08/01 06:44 PM.



--------------------
MAPS.org: supporting psychedelic and medical marijuana research since 1986


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineMrKurtz
enthusiast
Registered: 08/04/01
Posts: 303
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
Re: To be Pacifist or not to Be? [Re: mm.]
    #418576 - 10/08/01 07:44 PM (15 years, 2 months ago)

Well, I think the point of these strikes are to avoid killing any civilians and only destroy military targets. But, of course, the US has a history of bombing innocent people by accident, so i bet alot of Afghan citizens were killed already.



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleInnvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Male

Registered: 02/09/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
Re: To be Pacifist or not to Be? [Re: MrKurtz]
    #418601 - 10/08/01 08:08 PM (15 years, 2 months ago)

and they're known for killing only innocent people.....

Relax, Relax, Relax.....it's just a little pin prick * there'll be no more AARRGGHHH!!!! but you may feel a little sick.....


--------------------

America....FUCK YEAH!!!

Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleCaptain Jack
i [heart] you

Registered: 01/24/00
Posts: 4,113
Re: To be Pacifist or not to Be? [Re: Phred]
    #418707 - 10/08/01 09:35 PM (15 years, 2 months ago)

pinkshark, my complaint is that the original post makes it sound as if every pacifist will get up and hit you back. That would make them hypocrites. Read it.

http://www.captainjackmusic.com


--------------------
-
Captain Jack has been hailed as a brilliant scholar, discredited as a brilliant fraud, and mistaken for a much taller man on several occasions.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineToTheSummit
peregrinus
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/23/99
Posts: 9,065
Loc: Las Vegas
Last seen: 1 day, 15 hours
Re: To be Pacifist or not to Be? [Re: Innvertigo]
    #418712 - 10/08/01 09:38 PM (15 years, 2 months ago)

My point in posting this originally is to illustrate a point that is lost on many who oppose fighting this war. How many times do you let someone punch you before you fight back?

The WTC is NOT the first time we have lost lives to terrorist activities! And its not like we can just run away and avoid being "punched" by these terrorists! (we are all stuck here on this planet together). These people are extremists who despise what the USA (and other free societies) stands for and even if we stayed completely out of their affairs they would still despise us and want to do us harm. Remember, we are not talking about good moslem folk who care about others and want to live in peace. These are extremist zealots who have bastardized a religion to suit their violent needs.

And now we face the fact that we are stuck here with them. So we have two choices: cower from them and not retaliate (which we have been doing for too long) while they continue to take shots at us and kill our people and destroy our property; or we can fight back and send the message that this terrorist activity WILL NOT BE TOLERATED ANY LONGER!

For those opposed to fighting this war I just want know what you expect us to do? I think you are fools if you believe we can use mediation and diplomacy as an effective tactic against murdering zealots. And how far are you willing to let the body count in our country climb before you think we ought to fight back?! I'm not trying to be a smartass here either, I honestly want to know what you think we should do rather than fight? I just don't think you can ever reason with these type of people.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two wrongs don't make a right...but three lefts do!


--------------------
You invented the wheel....You push the motherfucker!!


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinemm.
addict
 User Gallery

Registered: 06/16/99
Posts: 534
Loc: England
Last seen: 1 month, 1 hour
Re: To be Pacifist or not to Be? [Re: ToTheSummit]
    #418734 - 10/08/01 09:57 PM (15 years, 2 months ago)

If you react with violences, you will invite more terrorist attcks etc... Unless you look at the causes of this tragedy, the cycle of violenece will not be broken. The WTC was a minor incident compared to US actions in the past.

Take a look at this written by an American, Larry Mosqueda, Ph.D. from The Evergreen State College:

Like all Americans, on Tuesday, 9-11, I was shocked and horrified to watch the WTC Twin Towers attacked by hijacked planes and collapse, resulting in the deaths of perhaps up to 10,000 innocent people.

I had not been that shocked and horrified since January 16, 1991, when then President Bush attacked Baghdad, and the rest of Iraq and began killing 200,000 people during that 'war' (slaughter). This includes the infamous 'highway of death' in the last days of the slaughter when U.S. pilots literally shot in the back retreating Iraqi civilians and soldiers. I continue to be horrified by the sanctions on Iraq, which have resulted in the death of over 1,000,000 Iraqis, including over 500,000 children, about whom former Secretary of State Madeline Allbright has stated that their deaths 'are worth the cost'.

Over the course of my life I have been shocked and horrified by a variety of U.S. governmental actions, such as the U.S. sponsored coup against democracy in Guatemala in 1954 which resulted in the deaths of over 120,000 Guatemalan peasants by U.S. installed dictatorships over the course of four decades.

Last Tuesday's events reminded me of the horror I felt when the U.S. overthrew the governments of the Dominican Republic in 1965 and helped to murder 3,000 people. And it reminded me of the shock I felt in 1973, when the U.S. sponsored a coup in Chile against the democratic government of Salvador Allende and helped to murder another 30,000 people, including U.S. citizens.

Last Tuesday's events reminded me of the shock and horror I felt in 1965 when the U.S. sponsored a coup in Indonesia that resulted in the murder of over 800,000 people, and the subsequent slaughter in 1975 of over 250,000 innocent people in East Timor by the Indonesian regime with the direct complicity of President Ford and Secretary of State Henry Kissenger.

I was reminded of the shock and horror I felt during the U.S. sponsored terrorist contra war (the World Court declared the U.S. government a war criminal in 1984 for the mining of the harbors) against Nicaragua in the 1980s which resulted in the deaths of over 30,000 innocent people (or as the U.S. government used to call them before the term 'collateral damage' was invented--'soft targets').

I was reminded of being horrified by the U. S. war against the people of El Salvador in the 1980s, which resulted in the brutal deaths of over 80,000 people, or 'soft targets'.

I was reminded of the shock and horror I felt during the U.S. sponsored terror war against the peoples of southern Africa (especially Angola) that began in the 1970's and continues to this day and has resulted in the deaths and mutilations of over 1,000,000. I was reminded of the shock and horror I felt as the U.S. invaded Panama over the Christmas season of 1989 and killed over 8,000 in an attempt to capture George H. Bush's CIA partner, now turned enemy, Manual Noriega.

I was reminded of the horror I felt when I learned about how the Shah of Iran was installed in a U.S. sponsored brutal coup that resulted in the deaths of over 70,000 Iranians from 1952-1979. And the continuing shock as I learned that the Ayatollah Khomani, who overthrew the Shah in 1979, and who was the U.S. public enemy for decade of the 1980s, was also on the CIA payroll, while he was in exile in Paris in the 1970s.

I was reminded of the shock and horror that I felt as I learned about how the U.S. has 'manufactured consent' since 1948 for its support of Israel, to the exclusion of virtually any rights for the Palestinians in their native lands resulting in ever worsening day-to-day conditions for the people of Palestine. I was shocked as I learned about the hundreds of towns and villages that were literally wiped off the face of the earth in the early days of Israeli colonization. I was horrified in 1982 as the villagers of Sabra and Shatila were massacred byIsraeli allies with direct Israeli complicity and direction. The untold thousands who died on that day match the scene of horror that we saw last Tuesday. But those scenes were not repeated over and over again on the national media to inflame the American public.

The events and images of last Tuesday have been appropriately compared to the horrific events and images of Lebanon in the 1980s with resulted in the deaths of tens of thousand of people, with no reference to the fact that the country that inflicted the terror on Lebanon was Israel, with U.S. backing. I still continue to be shocked at how mainstream commentators refer to 'Israeli settlers' in the 'occupied territories' with no sense of irony as they report on who are the aggressors in the region.

Of course, the largest and most shocking war crime of the second half of the 20th century was the U.S. assault on Indochina from 1954-1975, especially Vietnam, where over 4,000,000 people were bombed, napalmed, crushed, shot and individually 'hands on' murdered in the 'Phoenix Program' (this is where Oliver North got his start). Many U.S. Vietnam veterans were also victimized by this war and had the best of intentions, but the policy makers themselves knew the criminality of their actions and policies as revealed in their own words in 'The Pentagon Papers,' released by Daniel Ellsberg of the RAND Corporation.

In 1974 Ellsberg noted that our Presidents from Truman to Nixon continually lied to the U.S. public about the purpose and conduct of the war. He has stated that, 'It is a tribute to the American people that our leaders perceived that they had to lie to us, it is not a tribute to us that we were so easily misled.'

I was continually shocked and horrified as the U.S. attacked and bombed with impunity the nation of Libya in the 1980s, including killing the infant daughter of Khadafi. I was shocked as the U.S. bombed and invaded Grenada in 1983. I was horrified by U.S. military and CIA actions in Somalia, Haiti, Afghanistan, Sudan, Brazil, Argentina, and Yugoslavia. The deaths in these actions ran into the hundreds of thousands.

The above list is by no means complete or comprehensive. It is merely a list that is easily accessible and not unknown, especially to the economic and intellectual elites. It has just been conveniently eliminated from the public discourse and public consciousness. And for the most part, the analysis that the U.S. actions have resulted in the deaths of primarily civilians (over 90%) is not unknown to these elites and policy makers. A conservative number for those who have been killed by U.S. terror and military action since World War II is 8,000,000 people. Repeat--8,000,000 people. This does not include the wounded, the imprisoned, the displaced, the refugees, etc. Martin Luther King, Jr. stated in 1967, during the Vietnam War, 'My government is the world's leading purveyor of violence.' Shocking and horrifying.

Nothing that I have written is meant to disparage or disrespect those who were victims and those who suffered death or the loss of a loved one during this week's events. It is not meant to 'justify' any action by those who bombed the Twin Towers or the Pentagon. It is meant to put it in a context. If we believe that the actions were those of 'madmen', they are 'madmen' who are able to keep a secret for 2 years or more among over 100 people, as they trained to execute a complex plan. While not the acts of madmen, they are apparently the acts of 'fanatics' who, depending on who they really are, can find real grievances, but whose actions are illegitimate.

Osama Bin Laden at this point has been accused by the media and the government of being the mastermind of Tuesday's bombings. Given the government's track record on lying to the America people, that should not be accepted as fact at this time. If indeed Bin Laden is the mastermind of this action, he is responsible for the deaths of perhaps 10,000 people-a shocking and horrible crime. Ed Herman in his book The Real Terror Network: Terrorism in Fact and Propaganda does not justify any terrorism but points out that states often engage in 'wholesale' terror, while those whom governments define as 'terrorist' engage is 'retail' terrorism. While qualitatively the results are the same for the individual victims of terrorism, there is a clear quantitative difference. And as Herman and others point out, the seeds, the roots, of much of the 'retail' terror are in fact found in the 'wholesale' terror of states. Again this is not to justify, in any way, the actions of last Tuesday, but to put them in a context and suggest an explanation.

Perhaps most shocking and horrific, if indeed Bin Laden is the mastermind of Tuesday's actions; he has clearly had significant training in logistics, armaments, and military training, etc. by competent and expert military personnel. And indeed he has. During the 1980s, he was recruited, trained and funded by the CIA in Afghanistan to fight against the Russians. As long as he visited his terror on Russians and his enemies in Afghanistan, he was 'our man' in that country.

The same is true of Saddam Hussein of Iraq, who was a CIA asset in Iraq during the 1980s. Hussein could gas his own people, repress the population, and invade his neighbor (Iran) as long as he did it with U.S. approval. The same was true of Manuel Noriega of Panama, who was a contemporary and CIA partner of George H. Bush in the 1980s. Noriega's main crime for Bush, the father, was not that he dealt drugs (he did, but the U.S. and Bush knew this before 1989), but that Noriega was no longer going to cooperate in the ongoing U.S. terrorist contra war against Nicaragua. This information is not unknown or really controversial among elite policy makers. To repeat, this not to justify any of the actions of last Tuesday, but to put it in its horrifying context.

As shocking as the events of last Tuesday were, they are likely to generate even more horrific actions by the U.S. government that will add significantly to the 8,000,000 figure stated above. This response may well be qualitatively and quantitatively worst than the events of Tuesday. The New York Times headline of 9/14/01 states that, 'Bush And Top Aides Proclaim Policy Of Ending States That Back Terror' as if that was a rationale, measured, or even sane option. States that have been identified for possible elimination are 'a number of Asian and African countries, like Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, and even Pakistan.' This is beyond shocking and horrific-it is just as potentially suicidal, homicidal, and more insane than the hijackers themselves.

Also, qualitatively, these actions will be even worse than the original bombers if one accepts the mainstream premise that those involved are 'madmen', 'religious fanatics', or a 'terrorist group.' If so, they are acting as either individuals or as a small group. The U.S. actions may continue the homicidal policies of a few thousand elites for the past 50 years, involving both political parties. The retail terror is that of desperate and sometime fanatical small groups and individuals who often have legitimate grievances, but engage in individual criminal and illegitimate activities; the wholesale terror is that of 'rational' educated men where the pain, suffering, and deaths of millions of people are contemplated, planned, and too often, executed, for the purpose of furthering a nebulous concept called the 'national interest'. Space does not allow a full explanation of the elites Orwellian concept of the 'national interest', but it can be summarized as the protection and expansion of hegemony and an imperial empire.

The American public is being prepared for war while being fed a continuous stream of shocking and horrific repeated images of Tuesday's events and heartfelt stories from the survivors and the loved ones of those who lost family members. These stories are real and should not be diminished. In fact, those who lost family members can be considered a representative sample of humanity of the 8,000,000 who have been lost previously. If we multiply by 800-1000 times the amount of pain, angst, and anger being currently felt by the American public, we might begin to understand how much of the rest of the world feels as they are continually victimized.

Some particularly poignant images are the heart wrenching public stories that we are seeing and hearing of family members with pictures and flyers searching for their loved ones. These images are virtually the same as those of the 'Mothers of the Disappeared' who searched for their (primarily) adult children in places such as Argentina, where over 11,000 were 'disappeared' in 1976-1982, again with U.S. approval. Just as the mothers of Argentina deserved our respect and compassion, so do the relatives of those who are searching for their relatives now. However we should not allow ourselves to be manipulated by the media and U.S. government into turning real grief and anger into a national policy of wholesale terror and genocide against innocent civilians in Asia and Africa. What we are seeing in military terms is called 'softening the target.' The target here is the American public and we are being ideologically and emotionally prepared for the slaughter that may commence soon.

None of the previously identified Asian and African countries are democracies, which means that the people of these countries have virtually no impact on developing the policies of their governments, even if we assume that these governments are complicit in Tuesday's actions. When one examines the recent history of these countries, one will find that the American government had direct and indirect influences on creating the conditions for the existence of some of these governments. This is especially true of the Taliban government of Afghanistan itself.

The New York Metropolitan Area has about 21,000,000 people or about 8 % of the U.S. population. Almost everyone in America knows someone who has been killed, injured or traumatized by the events of Tuesday. I know that I do. Many people are calling for 'revenge' or 'vengeance' and comments such as 'kill them all' have been circulated on the TV, radio, and email. A few more potentially benign comments have called for 'justice.' This is only potentially benign since that term may be defined by people such as Bush and Colin Powell. Powell is an unrepentant participant in the Vietnam War, the terrorist contra war against Nicaragua, and the Gulf war, at each level becoming more responsible for the planning and execution of the policies.


Those affected, all of us, must do everything in our power to prevent a wider war and even greater atrocity, do everything possible to stop the genocide if it starts, and hold those responsible for their potential war crimes during and after the war. If there is a great war in 2001 and it is not catastrophic (a real possibility), the crimes of that war will be revisited upon the U.S. over the next generation. That is not some kind of religious prophecy or threat, it is merely a straightforward political analysis. If indeed it is Bin Laden, the world must not deal only with him as an individual criminal, but eliminate the conditions that create the injustices and war crimes that will inevitably lead to more of these types of attacks in the future. The phrase 'No Justice, No Peace' is more than a slogan used in a march, it is an observable historical fact. It is time to end the horror.

In a few short pages it is impossible to delineate all of the events described over the past week or to give a comprehensive accounting of U.S. foreign policy. Below are a few resources for up to date news and some background reading, by Noam Chomsky, the noted analyst. The titles of the books explain their relevance for this topic.




Edited by mm. on 10/08/01 09:11 PM.



--------------------
MAPS.org: supporting psychedelic and medical marijuana research since 1986


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineToTheSummit
peregrinus
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/23/99
Posts: 9,065
Loc: Las Vegas
Last seen: 1 day, 15 hours
Re: To be Pacifist or not to Be? [Re: mm.]
    #418870 - 10/08/01 11:57 PM (15 years, 2 months ago)

This piece by Larry Mosqeda is a joke. He is obviously nothing more than a pacifist who harbors a deep hatred for the Government of the US. He wants to take every wartime death in the last 50 years and attribute it to the US government either directly or by complicity. As if the US just went out killing people for the hell of it. Lets not forget, it takes "two to tango". In all military action there are at least two factions, usually more, involved. And although he tries to cover his ass a number of times by saying things like "It is not meant to justify action by those who bombed the Twin Towers and the Pentagon" he clearly tries to put forth the image that the US government is even worse than these terrorists. Frankly I find it appaling!

He even goes so far as to make personal attacks on US leaders, examples:
1)-"when then President Bush attacked Baghdad, and the rest of Iraq and began killing 200,000 people during that 'war' (slaughter)."
2)-"with the direct complicity of President Ford and Secretary of State Henry Kissenger"
3)-"where over 4,000,000 people were bombed, napalmed, crushed, shot and individually 'hands on' murdered in the 'Phoenix Program' (this is where Oliver North got his start)"
4)-"Presidents from Truman to Nixon continually lied to the U.S. public about the purpose and conduct of the war"
5)-"'Bush And Top Aides Proclaim Policy Of Ending States That Back Terror' as if that was a rationale, measured, or even sane option"
5)-"Powell is an unrepentant participant in the Vietnam War, the terrorist contra war against Nicaragua, and the Gulf war, at each level becoming more responsible for the planning and execution of the policies.

Personally I don't care where Mr. Mosqueda comes from or what degree he has, he has absolutely no credibility in my book. He just has a big fat chip on his shoulder for the US government and I could give a shit about his opinion.

However, the best irony in his entire piece is found in the second to last paragraph..."If indeed it is Bin Laden, the world must not deal only with him as an individual criminal, but eliminate the conditions that create the injustices and war crimes that will inevitably lead to more of these types of attacks in the future. The phrase 'No Justice, No Peace' is more than a slogan used in a march, it is an observable historical fact. It is time to end the horror."
Pardon me, Mr Mosqueda, but that is exactly what is going on!!!

And again I ask the question to those who don't want to fight this war....what would you have us do now? And when do you finally justify fighting back? Neither of these questions are addressed by this article...


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two wrongs don't make a right...but three lefts do!


--------------------
You invented the wheel....You push the motherfucker!!


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
In short, then... [Re: mm.]
    #418888 - 10/09/01 12:09 AM (15 years, 2 months ago)

You are saying that it is not correct for the government of the US to protect its citizens. If Mexico gets a bug up its collective ass and invades the US tomorrow, the government would be acting immorally by repelling the invasion.

May I point out that the ONLY legitimate function of government is the protection of its citizens? That's why we have a government in the first place.

Oh, I forgot. You are an anarchist. You believe that ALL governments are immoral.

As for Larry Mosqueda... there is so much exaggeration, package-dealing, and outright lies in that diatribe that it is hard to know where to begin.

Let me cherry-pick just a few:

"I continue to be horrified by the sanctions on Iraq, which have resulted in the death of over 1,000,000 Iraqis, including over 500,000 children"

Firstly, the embargo is not an American embargo, it is a UN embargo. Secondly, if any country wants to ignore the embargo and deal with Iraq, they are free to do so. Thirdly, it is Hussein himself who is thwarting the efforts of humanitarian groups who try to help. It is to his political benefit to have the embargo continue. Fourthly, those who decry the embargo are the same ones who made it impossible for the coalition to finish the job by continuing to Baghdad and killing Hussein. "You must not cross the borders of Iraq! An invasion is wrong! Kuwait has been liberated, that's enough! Pursuing it further is imperialism, pure and simple, since your stated goal of liberating Kuwait has been accomplished!"

Am I the only one who actually remembers this? It was only a decade ago, for pete's sake!

"Last Tuesday's events reminded me of the horror I felt when the U.S. overthrew the governments of the Dominican Republic in 1965 and helped to murder 3,000 people."

This is absolute BULLSHIT. I live in the Dominican Republic. The US did not overthrow a democratic government, it prevented a military coup designed to install a dictatorship, and I can assure you that the Dominican people were pretty bloody sick of dictators. Ever hear of Trujillo? He killed a fuck of a lot more than 3,000 people. The Dominican people were extremely grateful to the US, and remain so to this day. We have one of the most stable, peaceful, longest-lasting democracies in Latin America, thanks to the USA.

Most of the rest of this bubblehead's gibberish is variations on a few central themes:

1) The government of some country with which the US had friendly relations murdered its own people or invaded some other nation, therefore the US murdered these people.

2) The US did not intervene in time to prevent a particular government from murdering people, therefore the US murdered those people.

3) Some people that the US helped in the past to achieve their freedom from invaders (Afghani mujahadeen resisting the Soviet occupation) are now murdering and oppressing their people, therefore the US murdered those people.

Anyone else notice a common thread here?

Viet Nam was a clusterfuck. It should never have occurred. The US government eventually realized that its position was wrong, and withdrew, allowing the communists to murder thousands more as they consolidated power, and allowing Pol Pot to murder millions of his own people in neighbouring Cambodia.

I would also like to point out that many of these so-called "democratic" or "democratically-elected" governments that the US assisted in overthrowing were in fact NEVER democratically elected. The "elections" were either rigged or stolen, or, in many cases, there was but a single totalitarian party for which to vote. Need I remind anyone that voter turnout in the Soviet Union was practically universal?

I LIVE in Latin America. I can assure you that the "democratic elections" in most Latin American countries bear little relation to what the rest of the world has in mind when using the term. That is precisely why the Constitution of the Dominican Republic requires that American and other foreign scrutineers supervise the voting and verify the results of each national election, REGARDLESS of which political party is in power at the time. My country learned its lesson. Not every Latin American country has.

Besides, tyranny is tyranny, whether imposed by coup or elected by majority vote. The fact that the populace of a country was bamboozled into electing a gang of thugs who then wreak mayhem on their country and refuse to relinquish power does not mean that such a government has automatic legitimacy for the rest of time. Such a "government" is, in fact, an outlaw regime, with no legitimacy, and may be ousted without compunction, either through internal revolution or with the assistance of other nations.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that everything Larry Mosqueda said is true, and that the US is the most evil country that has ever existed on earth.

That still does not change the fact that the US government has the right to defend the lives of its citizens. The US was attacked by foreign nationals, its citizens were killed, and there is every reason to believe that the attacks will continue if those initiating the attacks are not neutralized. An act of war has taken place. No thinking man can dispute this. The US therefore has the RIGHT to defend itself. Not only the RIGHT, but the OBLIGATION. Nothing more need be said.

As for Noam Chomsky...

The man is a brilliant linguist, period. However, he hasn't the foggiest idea of the nature of government. His political theories are, to put it charitably, those of a loon.

pinky





Edited by pinksharkmark on 10/08/01 11:20 PM.



--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineToTheSummit
peregrinus
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/23/99
Posts: 9,065
Loc: Las Vegas
Last seen: 1 day, 15 hours
Re: In short, then... [Re: Phred]
    #418902 - 10/09/01 12:20 AM (15 years, 2 months ago)

good points there pinky...that article was just plain stupid!


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two wrongs don't make a right...but three lefts do!


--------------------
You invented the wheel....You push the motherfucker!!


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinegluke bastid
Stinky Bum
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/21/00
Posts: 3,322
Loc: Charm City
Last seen: 28 days, 2 hours
Re: To be Pacifist or not to Be? [Re: Innvertigo]
    #418915 - 10/09/01 12:32 AM (15 years, 2 months ago)

I understand everyone's desire to hit back, but it is important to consider that waging war on Afghanistan is not going to accomplish anything we want to.
1) Afghanistan did not attack us.
2) Bin Laden did attack us and this war is giving him exactly what he wants. Look at the sudden unification of many (not all) Islamic peoples in the East in support of Afghanistan. We are, in effect, directly helping Bin Laden in his most productive effort to recruit people to his cause. The number of angry fundamentalists now willing to release small pox in the united states thereby killing all of us has probably tripled. Remember, it only takes one.
3) Terrorism, the threat that we all want to fight a war against, is not a nationalist ideal. Afghanistan, while it is a nation that harbors Bin Laden, is not the seat of terrorism. Even if we destroyed every one who lived in the entire country, whether guilty or innocent of crimes against us, there would still be terrorists all over the world ready to attack us. There are terrorists in the US, in case all had forgotten. Declaring war on Afghanistan makes only slightly more sense than if we had declared war on Oklahoma after the Oklahoma City bombings.

Innvertigo: Your contention that "pacifism is the act of not doing anything no matter what" is not only a double negative, it is absolutely ridiculous. You can "do things" without blowing shit up. Gandhi managed to liberate India from England without taking any military action, thereby preventing the deaths of thousands of people. I believe in justifiable war and am thereby not a pacifist, but I am also open-minded enough to understand the validity of the pacifist argument.

ToTheSummit: You seem to be forgetting why these extremists hate us. It is not because "our society is free," it is because we made theirs un-free, and the concept of us staying out of their affairs completely is quite opposite from the truth. Hope you don't take this as a personal attack.
Unfortunately I don't have an answer for what an alternative to war would be, I just that think that war is an alternative that is going to get us nothing in this situation.

"All energies flow according to the whims of the great magnet."
-Hunter S. Thompson


--------------------
:hst:
Society in every form is a blessing,
but government at its best is but a necessary evil
 
- Thomas Paine


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
Points for you to ponder: [Re: gluke bastid]
    #419017 - 10/09/01 01:56 AM (15 years, 2 months ago)

gluke bastid writes:

"Afghanistan did not attack us."

People LIVING in Afghanistan attacked the USA. When the USA asked, repeatedly, that the rulers of Afghanistan turn those people over, they refused. Not only did they refuse to turn over those people, but they also refused to let US forces step one inch into Afghanistan to capture the terrorists themselves and remove them from Afghanistan. Further, they threatened fearsome vengeance on any neighboring countries who allowed USA forces to set foot on their own soil.

"We are, in effect, directly helping Bin Laden in his most productive effort to recruit people to his cause."

This is the equivalent of saying to your schoolyard buddy, "Don't hit back! Even if you beat him up, his big brother will come and kick your ass tomorrow" when giving advice to a friend getting the shit kicked out of him by the local bully. End result? The bully kicks the shit out of your buddy for the rest of his days.

"Even if we destroyed every one who lived in the entire country, whether guilty or innocent of crimes against us, there would still be terrorists all over the world ready to attack us."

Firstly, there is no intention whatsoever of killing everyone who lives in the country. Secondly, what makes you think that anti-terrorist actions will be restricted to Afghanistan?

"Declaring war on Afghanistan makes only slightly more sense than if we had declared war on Oklahoma after the Oklahoma City bombings."

Oh, come on! If Bin Laden was living within the borders of the USA, this could be handled with police rather than with military. Unfortunately, police have no jurisdiction in Afghanistan.

"You seem to be forgetting why these extremists hate us..."

When it comes to self-defense, the motive of the agressor is irrelevant. If I am attacked by some loony wielding a knife, it makes not a whit of difference WHY he is attacking me. Maybe he thinks I am committing adultery with his wife. Maybe he wants my money. Maybe he gets a sexual thrill out of killing. Maybe the voices in his head are telling him to do it. Who cares? He has initiated the use of force. He has made it abundantly clear that his preferred method of interacting with other humans is by murder rather than by reason. So be it. Who lives by the sword shall die by it.

"...It is not because "our society is free," it is because we made theirs un-free..."

Bullshit. The USA did not make their societies "un-free". They did that all on their own. Hell, the USA did PLENTY to assist Afghanistan in becoming free... to assist them to oust the Soviet occupation. Where do you think the Taliban would be today if the Soviets were still there?

"Unfortunately I don't have an answer for what an alternative to war would be..."

Nor does anyone else. Why is that? Because there is none. It is an ugly alternative, true. No one wants it. But doing nothing will accomplish nothing. Fanatics are immune to reasoned discourse, appeals to conscience, or even appeals to follow the teachings of their own religion.

A dead murderer is a harmless murderer. If his death incites another murderer to take his place, so be it. Kill him, too.

But appeasement of agressors has NEVER worked, and will never work. Appeasement encourages further predation. Read the history of Europe in the late 1930s. Read the history of the Spanish conquest of the New World.

pinky









--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleInnvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Male

Registered: 02/09/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
Re: To be Pacifist or not to Be? [Re: gluke bastid]
    #419233 - 10/09/01 08:07 AM (15 years, 2 months ago)

****Your contention that "pacifism is the act of not doing anything no matter what" is not only a double negative, it is absolutely ridiculous.****

Your right, being a pacifist is rediculous........pacifist refuse to do anything.

****You can "do things" without blowing shit up****

With terrorists?....Violence is the only thing they know

****Gandhi managed to liberate India from England without taking any military action, thereby preventing the deaths of thousands of people****

Gandhi would of been over-thrown and had all his people slaugtered (in today's terms) by these cowardly pricks. Resorting to Gandhi is a tad idealistic........what if we didn't puch Hitler back?

****I believe in justifiable war and am thereby not a pacifist, but I am also open-minded enough to understand the validity of the pacifist argument****

Open mindedness has nothing to do with it. I refuse to be "open minded" to cowards when not one struggle the United states has been in has ever been won by being a coward...er pacifist.

****Unfortunately I don't have an answer for what an alternative to war would be****

I'm not surprised...noone like yourself ever does have the answers

Relax, Relax, Relax.....it's just a little pin prick * there'll be no more AARRGGHHH!!!! but you may feel a little sick.....


--------------------

America....FUCK YEAH!!!

Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinegluke bastid
Stinky Bum
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/21/00
Posts: 3,322
Loc: Charm City
Last seen: 28 days, 2 hours
Re: Points for you to ponder: [Re: Phred]
    #419511 - 10/09/01 01:56 PM (15 years, 2 months ago)

I see a problem with your schoolyard bully metaphor. Namely, we can't hit the schoolyard bully back. He's in hiding, not standing right in front of us. Bombing the taliban is like beating up the bully's parents because he lives in their house. I don't think it accomplishes anything.

This is my point. I don't think Afghanistan is an innocent nation. I also don't think they are as weak as everyone thinks they are. We are not going to force them into submission within a month or two. They opposed the Soviet Union for ten years.

"What makes you think anti-terrorist actions will be restricted to Afghanistan?"
Are we going to blow up buildings in every country around the world all of a sudden? Even if we blew up every terrorist facility in the world, we are not going to "beat" terrorism. You can't beat terrorism because it is an idea, not an institution. Terrorism has been beating us, and by us I mean every Nation in the world, for decades.The scary truth of the matter is that terrorism works really, really well for the terrorist.

"The US did not make their societies 'un-free,' they did that all on their own."
So Palestine decided to branch its most important land off to make it into Israel?


I agree wholeheartedly that concession to Hitler was one of the things that allowed him to rise to so much power. I also believe that if France or Britain had gone into Germany as soon as Hitler began acquiring territory that wasn't his, they would have won and laid the third reich to rest, and that this victory would have been final.
I think the situation in Afghanistan is different. What we are fighting there is an ideology that is based mainly on hatred for America. Destroying the Taleban will not destroy this hatred, it will only make it more widespread.

The injustice of my argument is that, by not bombing, we would be taking no effective measure to ensure attacks on us would never happen again. The injustice of your argument is that its consequences ensure attacks on us WILL happen again.
The way I see it, both arguments are pretty shitty. Want you to know that I value this discussion and am respectfully considering all your points.


"All energies flow according to the whims of the great magnet."
-Hunter S. Thompson


--------------------
:hst:
Society in every form is a blessing,
but government at its best is but a necessary evil
 
- Thomas Paine


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinealienmindscape
member

Registered: 08/28/01
Posts: 184
Last seen: 13 years, 7 months
pacifism [Re: gluke bastid]
    #419523 - 10/09/01 02:05 PM (15 years, 2 months ago)

The real thing is to go after the perpetrators of the "suicide bombins" while also reevaluating our activities in the Middle East (consider lifting sanctions in Iraq that are resulting in the deaths of 5,000 children a month?). George H.W. Bush (the senior) once said, "For ever great president there is a great war." You can see the shrub might have learned this little pile of shit lesson.

Bush wants a war, and a big one. But that's not what most of us want. We want justice and peace. We're being tricked into supporting a war that Bush told us we will have little access to knowing about (he said we will see some of it on our TVs, but much we will not be allowed to know about). And there are other reasons for this war, such as getting a stronger hold on the natural resources (oil & gas) in the MIddle East.

Sure, the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks must be brought to justice, but we are being tricked into backing an war that is not needed, and we are being tricked into giving up our civil liberties. The reactionary right is getting everything they ever dreamed of politically under the rubric of fighting terrorists.

Let's just bring the actual perpetrators to justice and not buy into the whole program of going totalitarian here. It isn't necesary.

"That which does not kill me makes me grow stranger"


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinegluke bastid
Stinky Bum
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/21/00
Posts: 3,322
Loc: Charm City
Last seen: 28 days, 2 hours
Re: To be Pacifist or not to Be? [Re: Innvertigo]
    #419531 - 10/09/01 02:12 PM (15 years, 2 months ago)


I never said being a pacifist is ridiculous, even though I believe that uncompromising pacifism is. I said your contention is ridiculous, and it still is.

Violence is the only thing terrorists know? Pretty over-simplified. Ever stop to think that they probably say the same thing about us? It is generalizations like these, Invertigo, that breed heartless people like terrorists and I urge to try not to make them.

Gandhi would have been slayed by which cowardly pricks? The Taliban? For what reason? I also don't think referring to gandhi is idealistic because he succeded in what he was trying to do. Ideal=concept. Gandhi's liberation of India=historical fact. And how the hell did you make the leap from Gandhi to Hitler? If you want to know what I think about Hitler and how he has nothing to do with Bin Laden look at the post before this one.


-I refuse to be "open minded" to cowards when not one struggle the United states has been in has ever been won by being a coward...er pacifist.

Mute point. When has the US every dabbled in Pacifism? Never. Furthermore, your statement implies that there isn't any feasible situation in which you would consider not going to war with someone. By your rationale, we should declare war on every nation in the world that we have had disagreements with, from China to France to Mexico. And who are the ones who "only understand violence?" I know this is not what you meant but it is what you said.


"noone like yourself ever does have the answers"
Like myself? What does that mean? I already told you that I am not a pacifist so I wonder what it is you mean. Please let me know if you figure it out.







"All energies flow according to the whims of the great magnet."
-Hunter S. Thompson


--------------------
:hst:
Society in every form is a blessing,
but government at its best is but a necessary evil
 
- Thomas Paine


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]

Amazon Shop for: pH Test Strips

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* I Don't Understand Pacifists...
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Madtowntripper 2,355 68 02/05/08 08:28 PM
by gluke bastid
* What do you think of pacifism as a political and personal belief?
RandalFlagg
659 15 11/02/05 12:12 PM
by looner2
* Taliban, Nuclear? MokshaMan 1,364 19 12/11/01 07:24 AM
by Omega137
* Taliban Prisoners...Is death too good?
( 1 2 3 all )
Innvertigo 3,290 42 02/08/02 08:59 AM
by Innvertigo
* Taliban launch biggest attack since war
( 1 2 3 all )
Alex213 3,111 50 05/25/06 07:42 AM
by Alex213
* Bush administration rewarded the Taliban for 'controlling' the opium crop! LSDempire 1,186 14 08/29/05 11:54 PM
by Redstorm
* South Korea Pays Taliban Kidnappers Ransom
( 1 2 all )
DiploidM 2,311 29 09/05/07 07:51 AM
by kidaihuan
* Johnny "Taliban"... Lets introduce some facts...
( 1 2 all )
Mklangelo 3,359 32 03/07/02 02:18 AM
by saturnalone

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Prisoner#1, Enlil
4,049 topic views. 5 members, 0 guests and 0 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
SoulSpeciosa Kratom
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2016 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.044 seconds spending 0.004 seconds on 16 queries.