Big Brother is Watching- No surprises anymore

[welsh]

Trincold- I am not sure why you thought what you might say would be offensive.

CCR- boy are you reworking history to fit your argument. I might see John Brown's Raid on Harper's Ferry as a terrorist act leading up to the Civil War, but even that was just one small factor on the way to that conflict.

LBJ- did get a Great Society past and did quite a bit for improved civil rights during his administration, even if he was botching the war in Vietnam. Besides, the Tet Offensive was more a political defeat for the US (demoralizing the US public with the thought that the war was much worse than it was) than a military defeat (the Tet Offensive also decimated South Vietnamese Communist forces). It was the war that kills LBJ (and I know you are going to go off on state intervention, but the recession that follows LBJ had more to do with the war and trade/balance of payments deficits and oil shocks than government policies).

Compare that to Bush- no sign of victory yet. Generally pulling out after only a few years. Has he done that much to make the US a better, safer country? Roll backs on civil liberties? High levels of anti-americanism abroad? Huge debts? Trade Deficits? Corruption? Lack of Transparency? Fraud in the Elections? And just about every single policy initiative has been subject to criticism.

Was Nixon a worse president? At least Nixon had a decent foreign policy team. You don't even get that with Bush. Ironically both Bush and Nixon were reelected- which says something that Americans.

 

[Ashmo]

"Support our troops" is bullshit.

You. Cannot. Support. Your. Troops.

Or at least you're not doing it by being a yes-sayer, attacking any form of criticism or any of the other ways Americans apparently "support" their troops (since attacking any such action is instantly countered with a reminder on having to support your troops).

Soldiers are not heros and they are not villains. They are people doing their jobs. There's nothing heroic or atrotious about it.

Individuals may perform heroic deeds, but simply being a soldier and getting thrown at some country doesn't create any heroism. There is no such a thing as instant heroism -- you need to do something heroic to become a hero, and doing what you're supposed to do is doubtful to qualify for that.

[/rant]

 

[Thrincold]

"Support our troops" is bullshit.

You. Cannot. Support. Your. Troops.

Or at least you're not doing it by being a yes-sayer, attacking any form of criticism or any of the other ways Americans apparently "support" their troops (since attacking any such action is instantly countered with a reminder on having to support your troops).

Soldiers are not heros and they are not villains. They are people doing their jobs. There's nothing heroic or atrotious about it.

Individuals may perform heroic deeds, but simply being a soldier and getting thrown at some country doesn't create any heroism. There is no such a thing as instant heroism -- you need to do something heroic to become a hero, and doing what you're supposed to do is doubtful to qualify for that.

[/rant]

I say support them, as in don't treat them like the vets of Vietnam were by this fucked up country. I am a soldier, I have been for 8 years. I say remember that people in the armed forces are not the war, we are people doing just what you said, a job. I never said crap about heroics, true heroism is leaving a family behind to go and possibly die in a country full of people who don't want you there any more than you or your family wants you there.

Heroism is largly crap anyways. Look at that bitch Jessica Lynch. They made a shitty worthless soldier who couldn't take care of her weapon and who's personal failings contributed to her and other peoples' capture a "hero". Nevermind the guy behind her in those news conferances who took out 4 attackers with 4 bullets, conserving ammo and making his shots count.

If that is heroism in this county for this war, you can keep it.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

any act in opposition to the current government is an act of terrorisim weather from a source domestic or foreign.

So, if a journalist writes an article that is critical of the government, that makes him a terrorist? Bullshit. Terrorism is the use of violence to strike the enemy with terror. A terrorist act is when a fanatic blows himself up at the metro station, or when a soldier climbs on top of a building and indiscriminately snipes people below, or when an army jet breaks the sound barrier above an enemy town with the purpose of scaring its populace. When someone throws a crate of tea into the sea or tells a government minister to go fuck himself, that isn't terrorism.

 

[Thrincold]

So, if a journalist writes an article that is critical of the government, that makes him a terrorist? Bullshit. Terrorism is the use of violence to strike the enemy with terror. A terrorist act is when a fanatic blows himself up at the metro station, or when a soldier climbs on top of a building and indiscriminately snipes people below, or when an army jet breaks the sound barrier above an enemy town with the purpose of scaring its populace. When someone throws a crate of tea into the sea or tells a government minister to go fuck himself, that isn't terrorism.

Actually terrorism is any violent action against a non-military target in order to kill an demoralize the opposition. Most of what you stated counts in that definition. Though just scaring people doesn't count.

Here's a quick question, who were worse the people who flew the planes into the towers or the sheep that sat in the planes and took it? Nevermind I'll start another thread for that, don't want to derail this one.

 

[Ashmo]

Actually terrorism is any violent action against a non-military target in order to kill an demoralize the opposition. Most of what you stated counts in that definition. Though just scaring people doesn't count.

terrorism
n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence)
against civilians in order to attain goals that are
political or religious or ideological in nature; this is
done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear

Not far from what you said, but more precise.

Here's a quick question, who were worse the people who flew the planes into the towers or the sheep that sat in the planes and took it? Nevermind I'll start another thread for that, don't want to derail this one.

Uhm. Define "worse".

More cowardly? The passangers.

More violent? The hijackers.

Heroism is a virtue, but cowardice is the norm. You can't blame someone for being scared shitless -- not everbody is born a heroe (or turned into someone capable of being one later on).

Technically the hijackers are more heroic than the passangers as they were willing to sacrify their lives for a greater good (through a terrorist act).
Whether they were good or evil or acting immoral depends entirely on your bias.

Idealism is cute and all, but sadly reality is a big let down when it comes to that. Better get used to it or you might get a depression when you learn to accept it by lesson.

 

[Thrincold]

Sorry I was paraphrasing the definition from memory. Like I said I'll take my views on the attacks themselves to another thread when I have time to organize my thoughts into a coherent and intelligent manner.

Thanks for the interest however.

 

[4too]

Myth Of The Confederacy

Myth Of The Confederacy




John Uskglass wrote:

... Bleeding Kansas, the Pottawatomie massacre, even Fort Sumter. ...

welsh:

... CCR- boy are you reworking history to fit your argument. I might see John Brown's Raid on Harper's Ferry as a terrorist act leading up to the Civil War, but even that was just one small factor on the way to that conflict. ...

Reworking American History is not only a tradition. It is institutionalized in most high school text books. Reworking the history of the American Civil War has helped establish the "Myth Of The Confederacy" and perpetuating one of the most effective terror campaigns in world history, the reestablishment of white supremacy in the South and the sanctioning of racial segregation in the remaining states.

Profile in historical revisionism.

Woodrow Wilson had to write an official denial that he WAS NOT a Klansman, but he never denied the use of quotes from his American history to be used in the propaganda spark that ignited the second coming of a PUBLIC Klu Klux Klan, "'Birth Of A Nation"'.
This vision of revision fits the behavior pattern of a President who officially established segregation and the purging of blacks from the civil service, openly suppressed leftist labor unions, and invaded Mexico at the drop of a sombrero. Would YOU buy a "League Of Nations" [new or used] from the (white) man that crab walked the U.S. into the thankless interventions in Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, and France?

To many Americans the ""War of Northern Aggression"" and "'Carpet Bagger, Scalawag, Reconstruction"" are codified in such media classics as "'Birth Of A Nation"' and ""Gone With the Wind"". The heady romanticism and pulp fiction bodice ripping passes close enough for history to fill our intellectual voids. It justifies the soft focus on racism, and nurtures the seedier, DARK side of the ""culture wars"".
There are Americans that would rather worship the myth of the "'Stars And Bars"", then grasp the real, present and future, dangers to the ""Stars and Stripes"".

Many foster this fantasy of ''states rights''. This warm and fuzzy legend of saintly - white - men.

It is NOT in the NATIONAL INTEREST that Americans know more about their history than our political leaders wish us to recall.
Why? Perhaps our leaders have rode to power on steeds of deception, cloaked in white sheets of denial, blinding us with their burning crosses of ideological misdirection. Perhaps our leaders are terrified to change [in mid 'term'] from the situational ethics of party politics to the 'relative' truths of international statesmanship.

Consider that the U.S. could have pursued the "war on terror" with out the moral baggage of media hype, cherry picked intelligence, historical distortion, and character assassination of critics . The ability to ''be'' truthful, and not partisan political, may have realized the option, and the necessity for 'more boots on the ground'.

Perhaps the bombing of Iraqi civilians would have started in 2004 and not 2003. Perhaps the Haliburton Reconstruction could have waited a year, and co-opted some Russian and European corporations with a piece of ""the Peace"".
But the present generation of leadership does not know any better way. The focus of the nations could have been on the pursuit of state, and non state terrorists, but it's still tripping over ""The ME Generation"" of U.S, politicians and their latest 'spin' on the truth to obscure the latest cover up.


Can one say the end justifies the means, when there is NO end in sight?

Isn't it time to quit investing moral capital in high stakes crap shooters?

Give the poker players a chance? Not this day. 'Real politics' must conform to the scripting, and roulette spinning for popularity poll percentages. Real Life is now Reality TV.



The 'win at any cost' moral tone of the U.S. election campaigns appears to show more of the character of our leadership, then they may care for us to dwell upon. Some third party 'pitch men' will bitch slap and brow beat us until we all ""lub Big Bubba".
And, in all this chanting of "'haters"" and ""liberators"", the corporate media will feed us circuses, and our [white] bread shall be of WONDER, our history will be tailored to fit a velvet glove on the steel fist.





4too