OSAMA BIN LADEN DID NOT DO IT!!!

[Guest imported_Tesseract]

No Smart, i dont think that the US wants the palaistinians dead, the Jews want palaistinians dead, and the opossite.

You are a person i respect, i supose that you know the know the story with the palaistinians and the Jews.

And i ask you this, why stick 'like a crew' with a nation that suffered so much and acts in exactly the same way as the germans did to them?

Palaistinians dont have a land - The US supports israel

Kurds dont have a land - the US supports Turkey

As far as the two choises thing you wrote,

There were times when the US gave support to extreme rightwing dictators just because 'the other side' was socialist, before the whole Europe was socialist.

I cant and i dont blame the US for all the bad in the world, its just unfair to do so.I respect the US for a great deal of things in all areas of interest.

But i dont understand why you try to defend things that i'm sure you dont appprove as an individual.Loving your country is a great thing but, being cynical on how things work, when American, is ignorant.

Just because it seems that the joke will never be on you it doesnt mean that you can laugh all the way.

[META]

Tesseract- also some good points, and if being "cynical" is what you call trying to change things, i plead guity to the charges. i do however, resent that ignorant comment.

[Guest imported_Tesseract]

I didnt call you a cynical,

I'm just saying that when you live in a country that has such an impact on the whole Globe.

You can be gratefull and you can be a smartass,

Attitude when in a safe spot means a lot.

[META]

Tess, i agree.

 

what do you mean by being "loved" outside my country?

by who?

 

as i said earlier, i hope that people in other countries, like afghanistan, do not confuse my actions, with those of my government. therefore, i hope they do not associate US citizens, like me, as "the great evil" - precisely the way that the majority of islamic countrys view our government.

[Guest imported_Tesseract]

I deleted 'loved' cause it wasnt the right word (my english suck)

But i mean that your attitude is important as an individual in order to show some respect to things you havent been through.

[META]

yeah tess i understand, thanks for explaining.

you beez good peoples.

[eros]

Originally posted by Smart

 

I never said love it or leave it, I said...

 

oops, sorry. I guess I read that wrong... no hard feelings.

[eros]

Originally posted by Smart

the UN claims the US kills babies? show me.

 

it was in a Time magazine article that came out shortly after the bombing

[Guest HESHIANDET]

smart is schooling your "its cool to leftist" asses......bring it

[META]

demo is schooling your "its patriotic to be complacent right-wing conformist" asses

 

its been brought

[Smart]

the 'score' from my seats

 

Originally posted by eros

it was in a Time magazine article that came out shortly after the bombing

 

ok... well, I'm not going to the library, I'll search their site and/or maybe I'll see it when I'm in the dentist next year some time...

 

 

Originally posted by demo

demo is schooling your "its patriotic to be complacent right-wing conformist" asses

 

see, the thing is, speaking for the Crew, none of us are right wing conformists, except maybe Beardo, and none of us would fall into the category of complacent... when I say us, I mean all of us, we're arguing politics on the internet... the truly complacent don't have an isp...

 

I'd also like to step aside and point out that I've taken all comers in this fray, the argument has expanded exponentially and is on the brink of becoming an argument nobody can win. This started with Demo making TOTALLY ignorant and insensitive statements, I guess the word is uncooth, or... gauche...

 

anyway, my real bitch was about simple manners and knowing how to comport yourself in public. Basically telling Demo to shut his mouth because he's not that smart. If he was; he would have given a moments fore-thought into how to phrase his 'oh so intelligent' remark. He would write words that carried intellectual weight instead of just tossing out an inflammatory remark...

 

that said, he's tried to get into the political side of this but all I catch is a bunch of huffanpuff... I have to believe Eors' "the UN says the US kills babies" is neither here nor there until I find or see evidence, but Tesseract, yeah, Tess is the one who has been bringing it.

 

I have more to say, I just wanted to tie up some loose ends... I want everyone to feel welcome to participate in this debate but we need to narrow this down a bit, let's stick with an historical view of US foreign policy in the Middle East and the Orient, that seems pertty fuckin broad... of course you can cite US foreign policy in any place but let's hear how you think the historical actions relate to current events...

 

ok, find your desks before the tardy bell rings...

[Guest HESHIANDET]

Originally posted by demo

demo is schooling your "its patriotic to be complacent right-wing conformist" asses

 

its been brought

say that to me after sitting through one of my grandfather's(rip) stories from WWII, or one of my father's stories from Vietnam. All politics and "wrong doings" of the US govt.,big brother,WTO, or who the fuck ever aside. I think anyone who bad mouths this country or our government to the degree of saying that the underlaying principle of our freedom (capitalism and democracy) is fataly wrong needs a BIG lesson in humility. I've heard the stories first hand, i've seen the pain in peoples eyes, and i understand why they did what they did. Be happy hundreds of thousands o bigger men than yourselves had made grave sacrifices so your whiney asses can march around and spout untrue propaganda. for the record, ive loved this country since i was old enough to understand how to. 9/11 only made my love for this country stronger, and made me realize alot of my personal shortcomings as a human being. im not on some bandwagon so don't even bother.......

[META]

Foriegn Policy?

 

Well since this whole thread was about bin Laden, one of the policies that hes pissed about is the United States presence in what he believes to be a holy country.

 

Other policy began to take shape shortly after the CIA had funded bin Laden and his compatriots to fight the "communists" in the USSR. However tragic, the events of September 11th serve an extremely convenient pretext for accomplishing a task which the U.S. had outlined long before 9/11.

Between 1991 and 1995 (Clinton Administration) US policy towards Central Asia changed, strategically supporting states that would "swiftly bring about economic and political liberalization," thereby making it easier for the US to invest there. US oil companies now wanted a greater say in US policy making. United States has a laudable quality of using any event, including national crisis, to it’s own benefit.

As early as the beginning of the 20th Century, oil magnates insisted the oil business was an extension of global politics and demanded the right to influence foreign policy. Today, Ahmed Rashid, author of "Taliban" (2000) writes: "There is a battle for the vast oil and gas riches of landlocked Central Asia- the last untapped reserves of energy in the world today. Equally important has been the intense competition between the regional states and Western oil companies as to who would build the lucrative pipelines and which are needed to transport the energy to markets in Europe and Asia." Rashid calls this rivalry "The New Great Game," - a throwback to the nineteenth century Great Game between Russia and Britain over control and domination in Central Asia and Afghanistan. To demonstrate the importance of these oil reserves to our government, Oil and Gas Journal pointed out (the day before the terrorist attacks of 9/11, oddly enough) that by the year 2050 Central Asia will account for more than 80% of our oil.

 

Since late 1995, our government has backed the U.S. company Unocal in building a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan across Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. Unocal’s rival in this Great Game would be an Argentinean company known as Bridas, which had begun negotiations with the Taliban and the Northern Alliance in 1994 to build the same pipeline. To prevent Turkmenistan from becoming dependant on Iran, Turkmen president Niyazov signed an agreement with Unocal to build a pipeline across Afghanistan on October 21, 1995. Looking on at the signing, our friend Henry Kissinger (former U.S. secretary of State, then a consultant for Unocal) called the deal "the triumph of hope over experience." This is where the first battle of the Great Game begun. The Taliban would learn to play their cards so Bridas and Unocal would continue to up their bids.

 

It was in early 1995 that major U.S. oil companies, including Unocal, formed a private Foreign Oil Companies group in Washington. This group met with National Security Council energy expert Sheila Heslin and her boss Samuel Berger who had set up an inter-agency government committee on formulating policy towards the Caspian, which included several government departments and the CIA. The capture of Kabul in September of 1996 by the Taliban left Western journalists with the question: was the U.S. supporting the Taliban either directly or indirectly with Unocal? The answer: yes. Chris Taggert, a Unocal executive, told wire agencies that the pipeline project would be easier to implement now that the Taliban has captured Kabul- a statement which was later retracted because of it’s implication that Unocal favored Taliban victory. However, two weeks earlier, Unocal had admitted it would grant "bonuses" to Taliban warlords, once they agreed to form a joint council to supervise the pipeline project. Unocal had "donated" US$900,000 to the Center of Afghanistan Studies at the University of Omaha, Nebraska, opened a school in Kandahar to begin training some 400 Afghans as electricians, carpenters, and pipe-fitters, convincing the anti-Taliban alliance as well as Iran and Russia that the U.S. and Unocal were funding the Taliban. Unocal’s President John Imle said in 1999 "We have estimated that we spent approximately US$15-20 million, including humanitarian aid, and job-skill training." It is clear this was training for pipe-laying.

 

Meanwhile in America, feminist groups began protesting U.S. support of the radical Islamic militants known as the Taliban through Unocal, for apparent reasons. Moreover, Unocal had failed to meet it’s December 1997 deadline to begin the pipeline, as the Taliban said they did not know which oil company’s offer to accept: Bridas or the U.S. Unocal. As Unocal Vice-President Marty Miller expressed "It’s uncertain when this project will start. It depends on a government we can work with. That may be the end of this year, next year, or three years from now..." The statement "depends on a government we can work with" itself satisfies the question of why we are in Afghanistan today. The U.S. lost face by supporting a government which isn’t recognized as legitimate. Unocal had been boycotted by anti-Taliban activists in America. The Taliban was not cooperating. These are all motives for the current war waged by our government.

 

While the powers that be may insist this war is about 9/11, there will be no mention of a Berlin, Germany Track 2 diplomatic meeting in July 2001 at which the US State Department’s people revealed to their allies and others the war plans in case the US was to go after the Taliban (The Guardian, September 22, 2001). The war that the Bush II. administration have begun to wage is to establish a government in Afghanistan with which to do business. Don’t take my word for it. One Afghan-American, Dr. Zalamay Khalilzad, is rather important to the current administration. Khalilzad was appointed to the National Security Council in May, as "Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Gulf, Southwest Asia and Other Regional Issues." Khalilzad served under George Bush I. in 1991-92 as Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Planning, worked at the Department of State as an advisor on the Iran-Iraq war and on the Soviet War in Afghanistan, and was Director of Strategy, Doctrine and Force Structure Program of the RAND Corporation’s Project Air Force. Perhaps most importantly or at least most relevantly, Khalilzad was a member of a recent team with Frank Carlucci and Robert Hunter for the Bush-Cheney transition. This team wrote the important Executive Briefing "A Global Agenda for the U.S. President" in January 2001. This agenda outlined sustaining and renovating U.S. military and diplomatic power in Asia and the Middle East as a prime concern, reading: "increase U.S. investment in Iran [and] to end U.S. opposition to an energy pipeline through Iran from Central Asia." In Khalilzad’s January briefing, Afghanistan played a minor role, but by May the National Security Counsel had increased the importance of Afghanistan in U.S. global policy. The Afghanistan Foundation, an organization to which Khalilzad belongs published "U.S. Policy in Afghanistan: Challenges and Solutions" also known as the "white paper." In the white paper, Khalilzad argued that "Since the end of the cold war, the U.S. has consistently underestimated its interests in Afghanistan..." and posed "the frightening possibility that Afghanistan is becoming another rogue state". The white paper also stressed "Afghanistan itself occupies a vital geo-strategic position, near such critical but unstable regions as the Persian Gulf and the Indo-Pakistan border. Indeed, the importance of Afghanistan may be growing in the coming years, as Central Asia’s oil and gas reserves which are estimated to rival those of the North Sea, begin to play a major role in the energy market." By Winter 2000, for his article in the Washington Quarterly (based on the white paper) Khalilzad argued for immediate action. "Acting now is essential, The Taliban has consolidated its influence in Afghanistan over the last five years. Soon the movement will be too strong to turn away from rogue behavior." The point is not to accuse Khalilzad of singly-handedly forging that policy, simply that the reaction to 9/11 is not a significant factor in the current war

[Smart]

Originally posted by demo

Well since this whole thread was about bin Laden, one of the policies that hes pissed about is the United States presence in what he believes to be a holy country.

 

well, it isn't his country, so you're saying that he's mad because we're at his neighbors house... o.....k.....

 

However tragic, the events of September 11th serve an extremely convenient pretext for accomplishing a task which the U.S. had outlined long before 9/11.

 

so... you're saying we've just been waiting for something like this to happen so we can bomb the Afghans?

 

United States has a laudable quality of using any event, including national crisis, to it’s own benefit.

 

I would suggest that since the dawn of time, Man has attempted to turn possible defeats into glorious victories, why is the US wrong for following an instinct that seems so natural for people the world over?

 

As early as the beginning of the 20th Century, oil magnates insisted the oil business was an extension of global politics and demanded the right to influence foreign policy.

 

Conditions at the beginning of the century led to the Great Depression, so rt of a moot point compared to politics since the end of WWII. Whatever, I'm sure that OPEC is completely apolitical...

 

There is a battle for the vast oil and gas riches of landlocked Central Asia- the last untapped reserves of energy in the world today.... Oil and Gas Journal pointed out (the day before the terrorist attacks of 9/11, oddly enough) that by the year 2050 Central Asia will account for more than 80% of our oil.

 

the first part of this staement is just wrong, Canada has enough oil in untapped reserves to power the world for 300 years, congress is currently arguing with the Pres. to STOP the exploitation of our own huge reserves in Alaska... the second part of the story is factual sleight of hand, you fell for it... the OaGJ report was based on the 'current conditions' MEANING, the conditions that existed the day before the attack, there is no doubt that this is not our only course of action.

 

 

 

 

LOOK, this sucks, the more I read of this the more I realize that you didn't write it, you fuckin bite your arguments? WEAK, you can sit out if you're gonna play that game...

[Smart]

Just to finish up though...

 

Originally posted by demo

Since late 1995, our government has backed the U.S. company Unocal in building a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan across Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. Unocal’s rival in this Great Game would be an Argentinean company known as Bridas, which had begun negotiations with the Taliban and the Northern Alliance in 1994 to build the same pipeline. To prevent Turkmenistan from becoming dependant on Iran, Turkmen president Niyazov signed an agreement with Unocal to build a pipeline across Afghanistan on October 21, 1995. Looking on at the signing, our friend Henry Kissinger (former U.S. secretary of State, then a consultant for Unocal) called the deal "the triumph of hope over experience." This is where the first battle of the Great Game begun. The Taliban would learn to play their cards so Bridas and Unocal would continue to up their bids.

 

so the Talibs played us against the middle, how is that our fault?

 

It was in early 1995 that major U.S. oil companies, including Unocal, formed a private Foreign Oil Companies group in Washington. This group met with National Security Council energy expert Sheila Heslin and her boss Samuel Berger who had set up an inter-agency government committee on formulating policy towards the Caspian, which included several government departments and the CIA. The capture of Kabul in September of 1996 by the Taliban left Western journalists with the question: was the U.S. supporting the Taliban either directly or indirectly with Unocal? The answer: yes. Chris Taggert, a Unocal executive, told wire agencies that the pipeline project would be easier to implement now that the Taliban has captured Kabul- a statement which was later retracted because of it’s implication that Unocal favored Taliban victory. However, two weeks earlier, Unocal had admitted it would grant "bonuses" to Taliban warlords, once they agreed to form a joint council to supervise the pipeline project. Unocal had "donated" US$900,000 to the Center of Afghanistan Studies at the University of Omaha, Nebraska, opened a school in Kandahar to begin training some 400 Afghans as electricians, carpenters, and pipe-fitters, convincing the anti-Taliban alliance as well as Iran and Russia that the U.S. and Unocal were funding the Taliban. Unocal’s President John Imle said in 1999 "We have estimated that we spent approximately US$15-20 million, including humanitarian aid, and job-skill training." It is clear this was training for pipe-laying.

 

see my previous post about how US business has tended to work, even the Afghanis thought the Taliban were a blessing. They THOUGHT the Talibs would restore order to a country split by 20 years of civil war...

 

Meanwhile in America, feminist groups began protesting U.S. support of the radical Islamic militants known as the Taliban through Unocal, for apparent reasons. Moreover, Unocal had failed to meet it’s December 1997 deadline to begin the pipeline, as the Taliban said they did not know which oil company’s offer to accept: Bridas or the U.S. Unocal. As Unocal Vice-President Marty Miller expressed "It’s uncertain when this project will start. It depends on a government we can work with. That may be the end of this year, next year, or three years from now..." The statement "depends on a government we can work with" itself satisfies the question of why we are in Afghanistan today. The U.S. lost face by supporting a government which isn’t recognized as legitimate. Unocal had been boycotted by anti-Taliban activists in America. The Taliban was not cooperating. These are all motives for the current war waged by our government.

 

nobody 'lost face' we did what seemed right and then it went wrong, so, as the Afgans are so fond of saying, after the war with the USSR, we left, the word they use alot is 'disappeared'... we disagreed with the policies so we left them alone, until the climate became one where a non-resident of that country was free to openly plan and launch an attack on our country.

 

While the powers that be may insist this war is about 9/11, there will be no mention of a Berlin, Germany Track 2 diplomatic meeting in July 2001 at which the US State Department’s people revealed to their allies and others the war plans in case the US was to go after the Taliban (The Guardian, September 22, 2001). The war that the Bush II. administration have begun to wage is to establish a government in Afghanistan with which to do business. Don’t take my word for it. One Afghan-American, Dr. Zalamay Khalilzad, is rather important to the current administration. Khalilzad was appointed to the National Security Council in May, as "Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Gulf, Southwest Asia and Other Regional Issues." Khalilzad served under George Bush I. in 1991-92 as Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Planning, worked at the Department of State as an advisor on the Iran-Iraq war and on the Soviet War in Afghanistan, and was Director of Strategy, Doctrine and Force Structure Program of the RAND Corporation’s Project Air Force. Perhaps most importantly or at least most relevantly, Khalilzad was a member of a recent team with Frank Carlucci and Robert Hunter for the Bush-Cheney transition. This team wrote the important Executive Briefing "A Global Agenda for the U.S. President" in January 2001. This agenda outlined sustaining and renovating U.S. military and diplomatic power in Asia and the Middle East as a prime concern, reading: "increase U.S. investment in Iran [and] to end U.S. opposition to an energy pipeline through Iran from Central Asia." In Khalilzad’s January briefing, Afghanistan played a minor role, but by May the National Security Counsel had increased the importance of Afghanistan in U.S. global policy. The Afghanistan Foundation, an organization to which Khalilzad belongs published "U.S. Policy in Afghanistan: Challenges and Solutions" also known as the "white paper." In the white paper, Khalilzad argued that "Since the end of the cold war, the U.S. has consistently underestimated its interests in Afghanistan..." and posed "the frightening possibility that Afghanistan is becoming another rogue state". The white paper also stressed "Afghanistan itself occupies a vital geo-strategic position, near such critical but unstable regions as the Persian Gulf and the Indo-Pakistan border. Indeed, the importance of Afghanistan may be growing in the coming years, as Central Asia’s oil and gas reserves which are estimated to rival those of the North Sea, begin to play a major role in the energy market." By Winter 2000, for his article in the Washington Quarterly (based on the white paper) Khalilzad argued for immediate action. "Acting now is essential, The Taliban has consolidated its influence in Afghanistan over the last five years. Soon the movement will be too strong to turn away from rogue behavior." The point is not to accuse Khalilzad of singly-handedly forging that policy, simply that the reaction to 9/11 is not a significant factor in the current war

 

We've seen this coming since 1995 so I'm not surprised that it's come up a few times...

 

this argument isn't strong, it's obviously spun... who wrote it and what did he have to gain?

[META]

Originally posted by HESHIANDET

say that to me after sitting through one of my grandfather's(rip) stories from WWII, or one of my father's stories from Vietnam. All politics and "wrong doings" of the US govt.,big brother,WTO, or who the fuck ever aside. I think anyone who bad mouths this country or our government to the degree of saying that the underlaying principle of our freedom (capitalism and democracy) is fataly wrong needs a BIG lesson in humility. I've heard the stories first hand, i've seen the pain in peoples eyes, and i understand why they did what they did. Be happy hundreds of thousands o bigger men than yourselves had made grave sacrifices so your whiney asses can march around and spout untrue propaganda. for the record, ive loved this country since i was old enough to understand how to. 9/11 only made my love for this country stronger, and made me realize alot of my personal shortcomings as a human being. im not on some bandwagon so don't even bother.......

 

I have heard first hand these same war stories, and i dont see the glory. i sincerely empathize with the hundreds thousands of people that died in wars- nobody has the right to say otherwise of me. i do believe that in there can be a lesser of two evils. for instance, in ww2 hitler had to be stopped. but for the most part, i stand firm that war is completly immoral, unjustifiable, and serves the interests of the elite, rather than the hundreds of thousands of citizens that pay the price. if you want to teach me a lesson, its not in humility. the lesson i need is why you think wars like vietnam accomplished anything. vietnam is a perfect example of my statement of serving the interests of the elite.

 

history lesson:vietnam

america was afraid of communism. ho chi minh loved the united states, and he also loved his people. if communism was ever right for a country, he felt it was right for was right for his people. when the time came for ho chi minh to take power, america interveened. america hated communism, the same reason behind the cold war. we sought to employ "free trade markets" in vietnam. for anyone that doesnt know, "free trade" is pretty word for capitalism. (the word "free" is catchier, less capitalist) to set up free markets in vietnam would be a triumph for the corporate elite, who was willing to sacrifice it's citizens in the process.well after years upon years fighting a war so illegit even congress wouldnt declare it, the united states gave up. hundreds of thousands of lives wasted, billions of dollars spent, countless atrocities commited, and our government only postponed the inevitable, vietnam as it stands today is communist.

 

now, HESHIANDET, i would like to thank you for saying so beautifully the problem with this country: that our two freedoms are capitalism and democracy. I couldnt have summarized the problem better myself! You see the system is based on one contradiction, and that contradiction is capitalism (the interests of power and wealth) and democracy (the interests of the people.) capitalism and democracy are polar opposites, rendering american democracy fundamentally UNdemocratic.

 

and no, thank you, i will not simply set aside the atrocities committed in the name of my government. that would be to hide the truth, a job that our corporate media is already doing a great job with.I think anyone who DOESNT find fault in this country's blatent hipocracy and contraction is fataly wrong needs a BIG lesson in JUSTICE.

 

Furthermore, I simply DO NOT follow the logic in this statement:

Originally posted by HESHIANDET

9/11 only made my love for this country stronger

 

The reasons why you love this country (capitalism) are precisely the reasons why 9/11 occured. For you to love capitalism and then say you feel pain for those who died in the pentagon or wtc (or your vet father) would be yet another contradiction, for our government and the capitalistic interests it serves have created an atmosphere of global terror.

 

i will not let more innocent people die for capitalism, in this country or abroad. you cannot count on my silence.

[META]

smart--- if you got beef with my arguments, you have the right to that opinion, but dont go accusing me of forgery. all of my commentary is 100% original. furthermore, anyone can tear apart someone's arguments, but your retorts are totally weak and im not swayed at all. i consider myself to be a open minded person, and im willing to admit when im wrong, but your assumptions havent proved anything except that your sources, and your "people in the know" have done a great job on you.

[seeking]

"a wise man once said dont argue with fools,

cause people from a distance cant tell who's who"

 

 

do either of you think your going to 'win'? is it that important to prove your intellectual superiority? the problem with an argument like this, is that there can NEVER be a winner, because the whole thing is based upon personal perspective, not facts. even when the facts are discussed, they go both ways enough to support any possible argument someone could make. going round and round like this just makes everyone involved look foolish.

 

 

 

 

seeking/calling the kettle black

[seeking]

while i have no intention of even getting into this argument in the slightest, i must point out the fact that no one is speaking for the "crew" or any of the other 'moderators' with their words. their views are their views alone. also, no one has claimed that they were at all, but i still felt the need to express that.

 

thats all.

[META]

sadly you are right, anti-war protesters never did much to change anything. this fact only supports my argument that american democracy is undemocratic. but im gonna stay angry, keep on the fighting the system.

 

seeking made a good point a few posts back "going round and round like this just makes everyone involved look foolish"

no one is going to "win" this argument, so we might as well retire the thread, unless you have objections, cause i could keep going.

 

one love

 

 

demo:king:

[Guest BROWNer]

this thread is a good microcosmic example of how 'the more things change, the more they stay the same'....and why the human race will never know total peace.

the other thing i find amusing here, is how some of you resort to slinging mud when you dislike another's comments....'you kids are among the dumbest' as an example.....stuff like that really doesn't help the discussion. none of you have every piece to the jigsaw puzzle.....

remember that opinions are not fact.

[Guest HESHIANDET]

blah...fuck this

[Smart]

Seeking, and the rest of you, seem to keep missing the point that I keep making. It isn't about 'winning' for me. It isn't about politics for me. It's about ingnorant statements and a foolish attempt to bolster support for the previous statement through long-winded essays. As opposed to simply admitting that he was an asshole who stuck his foot in his mouth and perhaps clarifying his words... so, as far as I'm concerned, there never was a battle, Demo lost, he was out of line. As I said at the top of this page, I was actually getting more out of discussion this with Tesseract and I was pretty much waiting for Demo to realize that he was a kook and apologize. Instead, Demo jumped up to tell us why we are wrong for being capitalists(?) or something... anyway, I'm just shredding his weak stuff until Tess comes around :)

[Smart]

Originally posted by seeking innocence

while i have no intention of even getting into this argument in the slightest, i must point out the fact that no one is speaking for the "crew" or any of the other 'moderators' with their words. their views are their views alone. also, no one has claimed that they were at all, but i still felt the need to express that.

 

thats all.

 

yeah, this is a good point, I'm only speaking for me, these are not the views of 12ozProphet.com, just my own musings...

 

also, when I spoke about the crew, I was pointing out that, in my view, none of us are "complacent right-wing conformists" so... maybe seeking knows something I don't but...

[dBUSH]

"...now, HESHIANDET, i would like to thank you for saying so beautifully the problem with this country: that our two freedoms are capitalism and democracy. I couldnt have summarized the problem better myself! You see the system is based on one contradiction, and that contradiction is capitalism (the interests of power and wealth) and democracy (the interests of the people.) capitalism and democracy are polar opposites, rendering american democracy fundamentally UNdemocratic."

 

Hahaha- I knew I shoulda left this one alone. Demo- you are bringing up all kinds of "problems" you have with how things are done but so far the only solution you offer is "reformation?" What kind of silly shit is that? I keep a very open mind despite being one man in the world and I will entertain almost any argument that can be resolved, but you are simply not going any further than bitching. I can't even begin to imagine what you propose we do to fix what you don't like, so please, enlighten a nation.

[seeking]

Originally posted by Smart

Seeking, and the rest of you, seem to keep missing the point that I keep making. It isn't about 'winning' for me. It isn't about politics for me. It's about ingnorant statements and a foolish attempt to bolster support for the previous statement through long-winded essays. As opposed to simply admitting that he was an asshole who stuck his foot in his mouth and perhaps clarifying his words... so, as far as I'm concerned, there never was a battle, Demo lost, he was out of line. As I said at the top of this page, I was actually getting more out of discussion this with Tesseract and I was pretty much waiting for Demo to realize that he was a kook and apologize. Instead, Demo jumped up to tell us why we are wrong for being capitalists(?) or something... anyway, I'm just shredding his weak stuff until Tess comes around :)

 

first you claim that he's just plagarising someone elses words, then you say he's just being ignorant. it cant very well be both. i dont think backing up your argument with facts (even if they are sometimes wrong) could ever be considered 'ignorant.' especially when the only other retorts seem to be centered around personal attacks or backless commennts, as opposed to countering his 'long-winded essays' with counter arguments of the same calibre.

as far as him putting his foot in his mouth, when he was questioned about his first comment, he did clarify. but that wasnt good enough, so he was further jumped upon. in repsonse to that, he further clarified his stance. he wasnt trying to tell anyone why they were wrong, he was defending himself against acusations (falsly) being made about him. he was doing it in an incredibly calm and intelligent manner, if you ask me. if you were waiting for him to apologize, i could very easily say he should be waiting for the same thing. and to refer to him as a 'kook' is even more ignorant. you dont have to agree with what he was saying, but stealing quotes or not, his arguments warranted a much more intelligent rebuttle than they were given.

as far as you shreding him? i would havve to whole heartedly disagree. i think you were being stuborn, ignorant and close minded. i think you were trying to shove your beliefs down his throat instead of just allowing him to believe whatever he would like, or if an argument must ensue, you could have treated him with the same respect he treated everyone else.

you said you were being 'moderatorly' yet i completely disagree. you were being dictator like, and when you had no argument to even begin to counter his, you resorted to name calling, classic american rhetoric and general nonsense.

 

all of that, and im not even discussing the facts of the matter, just the way in which the whole disgracefull thing was conducted.

 

insults cant win an argument, simply exacerbate the fact that you have nothing to say.

[23578]

Alas, people feel strongly about their views, and some express them differently. I feel that demo might have made an insensitive remark, but he does craft a good argument. You do as well Smart, you have made me think a bit more about certain things I have taken for granted and are a good at defending your opinion. I don't think this thread (peoples' personal bitching aside) is destructive, expanding like this only helps us define our thoughts more clearly. I have no information that I would like to disseminate here myself, but something I often think about is the power of the individual to change our country. We that purport personal responsibility have to right what we think is wrong and this country gives us this opportunity, for that I am grateful (as hell). That said, it is also an unfortunate truth that through corporations much has been done to limit the effectiveness of anything not in line with their intrests. In part due to protection given around the dawn of the 20th century by our goverment, you know, that one Cracked Ass is always going on about. To assert that this is not the truth is ignorant and irresponsible. I'm not sure if this is whats happening here: I have trouble, I am told, finding the proper way of conducting myself in public, but I'm pretty sure some allusions have been made in the act of argument. I'm going to not dilute this point further by continuing to spout about anarchy and what not, just think about it.

[Guest BROWNer]

...meanwhile a mall in jerusalem is bombed..

[23578]

Yeh, saw that too, fucking hell.

[Smart]

see, I'm not shoving MY opinion down this kids throat, I carry my share of moral reprehension concerning the actions of US corporations abroad, can anyone say BOPOL? I remember when that was on the evening news. 2 years later Revolting Cocks released the song '38', still one of my favorite songs... I'm not defending my views here, I think the main function of my arguments was to expose a hawk in doves clothing. For all the anti-war protester he makes himself out to be, he started his argument based on the idea that we DESERVED this. That somehowthe idea that our loss is any less than anybody elses...

 

as far as clarification... "ok minus the people on the planes too. my bad"... this is clarification?

 

asn concerning his factual argument, I questioned certain facts and still haven't seen clarification there... I rebuked others I disbelieved... perhaps tonight I'll take an hour or so to compose some sort of essay but... really... I don't think I was dictatorial, perhaps I was, but eh...