lord_casek Posted June 13, 2007 Share Posted June 13, 2007 menino: i can suggest some more fucked up research. read about halliburton/dyncorp and their child sex slavery ring. chicago tribune. also check into the UN sex slave/pedophilia ring. you will be shocked. and no, their mothers were probably killed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted June 13, 2007 Share Posted June 13, 2007 http://www.bugmenot.com/view/www.chicagotribune.com http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0512270176dec27,1,2117782.story?page=1&coll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted June 13, 2007 Share Posted June 13, 2007 i think there is an article topic on google news about the executive branche's restated claims against trafficking to their allies around the world. do as we say but not as we do eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted June 13, 2007 Share Posted June 13, 2007 that's today's news topics Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted June 13, 2007 Share Posted June 13, 2007 i'm going to quote my boy noam chomsky, and i got this quote from his book imperial ambitions. "We conclude exactly what Kissinger was kind enough to say: such doctrines are unilateral. They are not intended as norms of international law; they are doctrines that grant the United States the right to use force and violence and to harbor terrorists, but not anyone else. For the powerful, crimes are those that others commit." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted June 13, 2007 Share Posted June 13, 2007 chomsky is on that shit. he emailed a girl of mine back at school and now she gets to put as a referrence in her essay "noam chomsky, personal correspondence." i find that awesome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Pubes Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 crooked, i've had a few correspondences with chomskillsz over the years. if you email him a serious question, or ask him to provide sources for shit he's used in writings or speeches, i guarantee he'll write you back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MayorMeanBeans Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 menino: i can suggest some more fucked up research. read about halliburton/dyncorp and their child sex slavery ring. chicago tribune. also check into the UN sex slave/pedophilia ring. you will be shocked. and no, their mothers were probably killed. yeah i know all about the un sex slave thing in the congo (is that the one youre talking about. you oculd also be talking about the pakistani soldiers that became involved with smuggling i believe in sierra leone in 2002 (?)... in terms of the article, the only children that the report notes are those of khalid muhammed, who were arrested with their mother, and released 4 months later. do you have access to the actual report? this article says "according to eye witnesses". considering that adult detention facilities are usually solitary confinement, im wondering who exactly these witnesses are. Were they family members at the crime scene? children whos parents are arrested are "forcibly disappeared" by dss.... okay that point is insensitive. okay i just checked the affidavit out, and i quote: "The Pakistani guards told my son that the boys were kept in a separate area upstairs, and were denied food and water by other guards. They were also mentally tortured by having ants or other creatures put on their legs to scare them and get them to say where their father was hiding." So the Pakistanis did it, not necessarily CIA. I know that the distinction isn't so clear, but please, I'd prefer that we stick to what we know rather than what we think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MayorMeanBeans Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 Consider the following. My son told me that Pakistani guards told him that some others were torturing the child. thats three degrees of separation. Eyewitness? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 menino: it goes further than the congo. as for the dyncorp thing, it is also much more far reaching and wide. i can dig up reports later on. the cynthia mckinney confrontation of rumsfeld is priceless. check out what the italian national news was saying about the snuff film market. russians and a hollywood producer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MayorMeanBeans Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 casek where else has it gone down? the congo is the one where it provoked intl outrage, but im not surprised that its gone down elsewhere. I think its a fairly established idea that barracked troops lead to an increase in sex economies. Combine that with warzones/horrific situations, there becomes a whole other level of horror. The whole Balkan mess led to the E. European traffic. the un was there, i wonder what role they played... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 menino: did some quick searches http://www.guardian.co.uk/Kosovo/Story/0,2763,1211248,00.html http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=14217305&method=full&siteid=89488&headline=nato-sex-slaves-name_page.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3686173.stm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stereotype V.0002 Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/interviews/95-geekgirl.html "And what they are telling us they have in mind is taking the whole thing over and using it as a technique of domination and control.....For men, they said every red blooded American male is supposed to be watching the super bowl. Now it's just passive and you watch the super bowl and drink beer with your buddies" -Stormin Norman Chomsky Seriously, you have to give the man credit for holding on to Marxism for so long and in spite of common sense. Goddamn mind control superbowl!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WORDISM45 Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/interviews/95-geekgirl.html "And what they are telling us they have in mind is taking the whole thing over and using it as a technique of domination and control.....For men, they said every red blooded American male is supposed to be watching the super bowl. Now it's just passive and you watch the super bowl and drink beer with your buddies" -Stormin Norman Chomsky Seriously, you have to give the man credit for holding on to Marxism for so long and in spite of common sense. Goddamn mind control superbowl!!!!!!! you've got nothing on Chomsky son and hes not even a Marxist. The fact is if you were to argue the point with him he'd destroy you. Chomsky very rarely if ever states an opinion that he hasn't thought out well and he's capable of thinking things out a lot better than you or i. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stereotype V.0002 Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 So when he was on cspan in 2004 before the elections and said Bin Laden was secretly in US custody, and they were going to announce it strategically before the elections so Bush gets reelected...because finding someone in the mountains in Afghanistan “really isn’t too hard”... that was well thought out? And the whole super bowl mind control thing? I’m not sure if Chomsky ever publicly says he is a Marxist or not because I am not into the boy band groupie deal. But he constantly talks about who are “real” Marxists and who has their values backwards, he even mentions that in the bottom of the paragraph I quoted from. Not to mention during the killing fields in Cambodia, he wrote it all off as “anti-communist hysteria” and denied Pol Pot was massacring people. But, I don’t really want to get into a tiff with one of the cult members so everyone should feel free to disregard everything I say as lies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WORDISM45 Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 So when he was on cspan in 2004 before the elections and said Bin Laden was secretly in US custody, and they were going to announce it strategically before the elections so Bush gets reelected…because finding someone in the mountains in Afghanistan “really isn’t too hard”… that was well thought out? And the whole super bowl mind control thing? I’m not sure if Chomsky ever publicly says he is a Marxist or not because I am not into the whole boy band style groupie deal. But he constantly talks about who are “real” Marxists and who has their values backwards, he even mentions that in the bottom of the paragraph I quoted from. Not to mention during the killing fields in Cambodia, he wrote it all off as “anti-communist hysteria” and denied Pol Pot was massacring people. But, I don’t really want to get into a tiff with one of the cult members so everyone should feel free to disregard everything I say as lies. i never really understood why people hated you but now i do, your style of argument is to put words in peoples mouths and accuse them of shit out of nowhere. firstly he wasn't talking about whether marxists were 'real' or not at all, he was talking about capitalists and said they were marxists with their values reversed. secondly he didn't call the superbowl 'mind control' he said people were conditioned to want to watch it (giving it as an example of a spectacle not just specifically the superbowl) and it has the effect of deflecting attention from more important issues. if you'd care to provide some evidence of the other stuff you said i'd be really interested to check it out! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stereotype V.0002 Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 Yum, I am sorry you hate me, I still love you and all of Jesus' children. secondly he didn't call the superbowl 'mind control' he said people were conditioned to want to watch it Someone conditioning you to want something, and without the conditioning its something you presumably wouldn’t want to do, isn’t control? He continually espouses Marxist views, and condemns examples of communist governments like Mao or Stalin as not being true Marxists or Bolsheviks. As for sources, if you get cspan they replay that show once in a while, I’ve seen it on twice since 2004. The pro khmer rouge comments are widely documented, heres a wikipedia entry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Noam_Chomsky#Cambodia "Chomsky at a seminar and felt he "seemed to believe that tales of holocaust in Cambodia were [...] propaganda". " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stereotype V.0002 Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 Thats it for me! VIVA LA CHOMSKY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Pubes Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 So when he was on cspan in 2004 before the elections and said Bin Laden was secretly in US custody, and they were going to announce it strategically before the elections so Bush gets reelected...because finding someone in the mountains in Afghanistan “really isn’t too hard”... that was well thought out? And the whole super bowl mind control thing? I’m not sure if Chomsky ever publicly says he is a Marxist or not because I am not into the boy band groupie deal. But he constantly talks about who are “real” Marxists and who has their values backwards, he even mentions that in the bottom of the paragraph I quoted from. Not to mention during the killing fields in Cambodia, he wrote it all off as “anti-communist hysteria” and denied Pol Pot was massacring people. But, I don’t really want to get into a tiff with one of the cult members so everyone should feel free to disregard everything I say as lies. awesome!!! you should copy/paste this directly to chomsky dude, and ask him why he's such a pol pot denying, anti communist hysteria writin' off, mind control spewin' marxist windbag...you're obviously all over chomsky, go get 'em tiger! let us know how it goes, okay?!? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WORDISM45 Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 Yum, I am sorry you hate me, I still love you and all of Jesus' children. Someone conditioning you to want something, and without the conditioning its something you presumably wouldn’t want to do, isn’t control? He continually espouses Marxist views, and condemns examples of communist governments like Mao or Stalin as not being true Marxists or Bolsheviks. As for sources, if you get cspan they replay that show once in a while, I’ve seen it on twice since 2004. The pro khmer rouge comments are widely documented, heres a wikipedia entry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Noam_Chomsky#Cambodia "Chomsky at a seminar and felt he "seemed to believe that tales of holocaust in Cambodia were [...] propaganda". " alright by your definition all advertising is mind control, you're such a conspiracy nut stereotype :lol: yeah they aren't true marxists what's your point? i'm not a marxist and i'm saying that too. what is cspan anyway i don;t live in america? soem cable channel? that quote is from some right wing observer at a lecture he gave who cares if he says what he "seemed to do" it has no bearing on what he really did without direct quotes from chomsky which are not supplied. i jsut read the article and chomsky's response. you love twistign words mate! he isn't "pro khmer rouge" he simply compares the khmer rouge with the states and says you can;t condemn one and not the other, and says the khmer rouge massacres where focused on and exagerated by the press while similar massacres that were gonig on at the time were downplayed or ignored for political purposes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WORDISM45 Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 ps i dont hate you i pity the fool just said i understand why others do Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stereotype V.0002 Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 awesome!!! you should copy/paste this directly to chomsky dude, and ask him why he's such a pol pot denying, anti communist hysteria writin' off, mind control spewin' marxist windbag...you're obviously all over chomsky, go get 'em tiger! let us know how it goes, okay?!? Larry, did you sarcastically recap everything I said because you realize superbowl-mind control and playing down the killing fields is a little nutty, and you can’t offer a reasonable rebuttal? Yeah awesome dude!!!!!! go get em!! !?!!!?1111!!!! !!!!!!11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stereotype V.0002 Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 Yum, the point of advertising is to offer a product as something you want. That would be different than slowly conditioning your mind to ignore how the evil imperialists are raping the world. cspan is a cable channel in the states that plays conferences and speeches and whatnot. You can argue the definition of words and then say I am twisting things around all day, but your response to Chomsky’s comments about the killing fields seems a little confusing. Since you don’t like my paraphrasing I will quote you ”that quote is from some right wing observer at a lecture” You seem to be saying here that the quote is a lie, and he must be a Chomsky hater? So you don’t think Chomsky really said any of that stuff and never denied Pol Pot’s massacres? “he isn't "pro khmer rouge" he simply compares the khmer rouge with the states and says you can;t condemn one and not the other, and says the khmer rouge massacres where focused on and exagerated by the press while similar massacres that were gonig on at the time were downplayed or ignored for political purposes” And now, you say he was simply comparing Pol Pot to the USA (who were equally bad?) and the press really just focused undue attention on the mere 2 million people getting killed instead of focusing on other massacres. Did you not write that above and I’m twisting your words again? And which other massacres should have had more focus than 2 million being killed? Your standpoint basically seems to be any example I can give of Chomsky outright playing down the killing fields is from a “right wing” source, and therefore probably a lie. So here are some quotes, straight from the horse’s mouth. They may possibly be part of the right wing smear campaign. I’m going to waste some bandwidth now. http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19770625.htm ”Well suited for these aims are tales of Communist atrocities” ”Tales” which suggests they are fictional ”It is in this context that we must view the recent spate of newspaper reports, editorials and books on Cambodia, a part of the world not ordinarily of great concern to the press. However, an exception is made when useful lessons may be drawn and public opinion mobilized in directions advantageous to the established order. Such didacticism often plays fast and loose with the truth.” Since the papers don’t focus on Cambodia when 2 million people AREN’T being killed, it means they are “playing fast and loose with the truth.” Yeah. ”The response to the three books under review nicely illustrates this selection process. Hildebrand and Porter present a carefully documented study of the destructive American impact on Cambodia and the success of the Cambodian revolutionaries in overcoming it, giving a very favorable picture of their programs and policies, based on a wide range of sources. Published last year, and well received by the journal of the Asia Society (Asia, March-April 1977), it has not been reviewed in the Times, New York Review or any mass-media publication, nor used as the basis for editorial comment, with one exception. The Wall Street Journal acknowledged its existence in an editorial entitled "Cambodia Good Guys" (November 22, 1976), which dismissed contemptuously the very idea that the Khmer Rouge could play a constructive role, as well as the notion that the United States had a major hand in the destruction, death and turmoil of wartime and postwar Cambodia.” Now, if you can read, you can tell he looks favorably on a book that depicts the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot in a good light, as “revolutionaries.” He feels that the Khmer Rouge were a positive force inside Cambodia. And he scoffs at the notion that someone would disagree that Pol Pot’s people aren’t “good guys”, and he thinks anyone who says Pol Pot isn't playing a "constructive role" in Cambodia is an anti commie right wing nut. Look up, thats what he actually wrote. Also here and throughout the article he tries to play up the role of the US, like we were the real cause of the communist genocide. This might have something to do with people like him who worked for cutting the funds to Lon Nol, which directly resulted in Pol Pot coming to power. ”But the mass media are not grateful for the Hildebrand-Porter message, and have shielded the general public from such perceptions of Cambodia.” He’s pissed the media “shielded” the public from the Khmer Rouge being portrayed as heros. Yup, hes not pro khmer rouge at all. ”These reports also emphasize both the extraordinary brutality on both sides during the civil war (provoked by the American attack) and repeated discoveries that massacre reports were false.” Another example, no massacres and its all really the US bombing. ”Refugees are frightened and defenseless, at the mercy of alien forces. They naturally tend to report what they believe their interlocuters wish to hear.” So all reports of Khmer Rouge massacres from Cambodians are probably false. Dem dere gooks caynt be trusted! ”Cambodian revolutionaries” He never refers to the Khmer Rouge by their name, he calls them “revolutionaries.” Never mind they were killing people wholesale. That’s not a positive view of them? ”He also gives a rather positive account of Khmer Rouge programs of social and economic development, while deploring much brutal practice in working for egalitarian goals and national independence.” Well, another positive account of the Khmer Rouge Chomsky just happens to agree with, what a fucking surprise. How brash of me to call him pro-Khmer Rouge. ”In the New York Times Magazine, May 1, 1977, Robert Moss (editor of a dubious offshoot of Britain's Economist called "Foreign Report" which specializes in sensational rumors from the world's intelligence agencies) A Christian Science Monitor editorial states: "Reports put the loss of life as high as 2 million people out of 7.8 million total." Again, there is no source, but we will suggest a possibility directly. The New York Times analysis of "two years after the Communist victory" goes still further. The "slaughter" by the Khmer Rouge is a Moss-New York Times creation.” He repeatedly flat out denies that mass murders are going on. He denies that the brave communist forces would be involved. It really must be the US, somehow, despite what Cambodians and everything and everyone else tells him. Every reputable news source, which says otherwise, are lying and part of an anti-communist conspiracy. This is a long, boring article, I can do this all day. If you can read you should be able to see his point. But I’m sure these are fake quotes, or he didn’t mean what he said cause he was having a stroke, or I’m twisting his words, blah blah blah blah. This is why I really don’t want to get into it with cult members and true believers. Let’s forget I posted anything – here is my new post: Whoa dude, I emailed Chomsky and he emailed me back!!!!! Like a real person would!!!! I got such a boner right now dude!!!!! Im gonna get his face tattooed on my ass!!!! Fuckin sick brah!!!! Imperialism!!! Hegemony!! Big words make up for a total lack of facts!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qawee Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/interviews/95-geekgirl.html "And what they are telling us they have in mind is taking the whole thing over and using it as a technique of domination and control.....For men, they said every red blooded American male is supposed to be watching the super bowl. Now it's just passive and you watch the super bowl and drink beer with your buddies" -Stormin Norman Chomsky Seriously, you have to give the man credit for holding on to Marxism for so long and in spite of common sense. Goddamn mind control superbowl!!!!!!! whoa whoa whoa. chomsky is definitely not a marxist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Pubes Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 heh heh heh, it's funny that you're putting so much effort into taking things chomsky has said out of context so you can keep up your pissed off front against whatever you're so pissy about here at this extremely important political forum. the fact that you get so riled up around here about practically everything anyone says that is against your ideology is entertainment +. i love it, seriously, but i'll pass on arguing with you, since, as we can all see, you're completely infallible and rigid...and it doesn't make for much fun when somebody insists on being an asshole nearly every post they make. oh look at that, i don't have a 500 word rebuttal for you to bitch and groan about...oh no i lose! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Pubes Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 *woopsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 Stereotype, if you wanna take your perceptions of chomsky's work to task, email him. im sure he will email you back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 crooked, i've had a few correspondences with chomskillsz over the years. if you email him a serious question, or ask him to provide sources for shit he's used in writings or speeches, i guarantee he'll write you back. Yeah, I may have to email him about some thoughts on reductionary theory and natural language. It would be great to start a correspondence with him before I start my senior project. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stereotype V.0002 Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 heh heh heh, it's funny that you're putting so much effort into taking things chomsky has said out of context so you can keep up your pissed off front against whatever you're so pissy about here at this extremely important political forum. the fact that you get so riled up around here about practically everything anyone says that is against your ideology is entertainment +. i love it, seriously, but i'll pass on arguing with you, since, as we can all see, you're completely infallible and rigid...and it doesn't make for much fun when somebody insists on being an asshole nearly every post they make. oh look at that, i don't have a 500 word rebuttal for you to bitch and groan about...oh no i lose! Lare Pube, you are right this website is entertainment, spending 5 minutes writing a response backed up with facts that pisses on what the college youngsters believe so strongly is funny for me. You aren’t going to stick up for uncle chomps here (other than vaguely saying I took his words out of context) and instead saying I don’t know what I’m talking about because you realize how retarded and crazy some/most of the things he says are. Like suggesting Pol Pot and his buddies were a great bunch of “revolutionaries”, and that they never killed anyone. If you are as indifferent as you suggest I’m curious as to why you respond everytime explaining in great detail how much you don’t care, and will probably respond to this. Read the article I posted if you think I’m taking everything out of context and you are really concerned I would take the name of the lord Chompskasaurus in vain. He sounds exactly like Bill O’Reilly talking about Iraq. There is a media conspiracy, centered around the New York Times, to keep the good news about the Khmer Rouge/Iraqi police out of the US! And instead, they focus on this supposed genocide/civil war, that isn’t even really happening!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stereotype V.0002 Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 Stereotype, if you wanna take your perceptions of chomsky's work to task, email him. im sure he will email you back. He has issued a response here http://blog.zmag.org/node/2890 where he sort of tries to worm out of denying the killing fields, without apologizing and admitting he was wrong. I doubt he would respond to any email remotely critical of him, but it’s ok because I don’t really care about what he says. His followers are much more interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.