War, baby,,,WAR!!

[jonnyflash]

This topic is about the war, so let's hear what all these performer folks have to say.I'll start!

This is from a NY writer and is pretty much how I feel.
"On the other hand, maybe 'Little Bush' is right. Maybe we should have the right to go and bomb any nation - or inhabitants thereof - that we find unsavory. Maybe we should be able to unload multiple tons of military hardware whenever the mood takes us. For that matter why don't we extend that privilege to all other nations as well? Everyone is free to solve grievances through the detonation of explosives!

Cambodia is free to level the Upper East Side to avenge Henry Kissinger’s secret carpet bombings. Britain can fire away at Boston to get at the source of all that IRA funding. Haiti can strafe Florida in hopes that they hit one of the murderous CIA-sponsored Ton Ton Macoutes the U.S. refuses to hand over to their courts for trial. Central America - lord knows their list of grievances is long enough - is free to blow Washington to bits, anytime it wants. Bombs away!

Except unfortunately we've tried that model already ... for much of the last several hundred years. And after the catastrophe of World War II was over, the fanfare was that we were going to try a new way to solve disputes. A multilateral forum, in which no one nation would dominate or be dominated. That was the idea behind the first so-called New World Order.

If America really wants to prove itself in the eyes of the world, then maybe it should start adhering to the principles that it helped to forge after World War II. Maybe we should start respecting international institutions, or silly little things like the GENEVA CONVENTION. If we want global support for actions against terrorism, then maybe we should stop blocking the U.N.'s efforts to actually come up with a definition for the word.

And if we don't like the way Iran, Iraq, or North Korea happen to be behaving on a given day, then we're just going to have to learn to use appropriate, multilateral methods of resolution and deterrence, for god's sake, rather than bombing sovereign nations into oblivion.

Or we could ignore the signs and just continue to clap away.

Clap, clap, clap."


[img]tongue.gif[/img]

[River]

From the 60-s:

Fighting for peace is like fucking for chastity.

River

[jonnyflash]

A Hip-Hop Casualty
Jennifer Bauduy, December 6, 2001

When author Susan Sontag and television talk show host Bill Maher disagreed with President Bush's assessment of the September 11th attackers as "cowards," they were chastised. Two columnists were fired from their papers for criticizing the president, and several newspapers pulled a political comic strip that noted Washington had trained Osama bin Laden. So when radio personality David "Davey D" Cook was fired after leading a heated anti-war debate on his program, San Francisco listeners were outraged. Was Cook the latest casualty of growing intolerance to independent views?

In early October, media conglomerate Clear Channel Communications fired Cook from its California affiliate KMEL, ostensibly due to budget cuts. The company -- which caused a furor for distributing a list to stations of songs it suggested not be played after September 11 -- dismissed Cook soon after he aired an interview with Democratic Congresswoman Barbara Lee. Lee was the only member of Congress to oppose authorizing Bush with sweeping war powers against terrorists.

[le pire]

Don't blame me I voted for Gore... Ok it was an absentee ballot and wasn't counted.

Some democracy. Makes me want to leave... Oh wait a minute, I did!

é t i e n n e

[jonnyflash]

-excerpts fom essay by Micheal Albert & Stephen R. Shalom

What is Terrorism?

Dictionary definitions indicate it is creating terror, employing fear for political purposes. More aptly, terrorism is attacking and terrifying civilian populations in order to force the civilians' governments to comply with demands. So Hitler's bombing of London was terror bombing, unlike his attacks on British military bases. The issue isn't what weapon is used, but who is the target and what is the motive. For terrorism the target is innocent civilians. The motive is political, impacting their government's behavior. Attacks on the public for private gain are not terrorism, but crime. Attacks on a military for political purposes are not terrorism, but acts of war.

Are Bin Laden and his network terrorists?

Bin Laden has issued public statements calling for the killing of U. S. civilians, among others. Evidence presented at trials compellingly ties the bin Laden network to terrorist attacks (the World Trade Center bombing in 1993 and the U. S. embassies in Africa in 1998). So even apart from Sept. 11, there is no doubt that bin Laden and Al Qaeda are terrorists.

Is the U.S. government terrorist?

When the U.S. government targets civilians with the intention of pressuring their governments, yes, it is engaging in terrorism. Regrettably, this is not uncommon in our history. Most recently, imposing a food and drug embargo on a country - Iraq - with the intention of making conditions so difficult for the population that they will rebel against their government, is terrorism (with food and medicine as the weapons, not bombs). Bombing civilian centers and the society's public infrastructure in Kosovo and Serbia, again with the intent of coercing political outcomes, was terrorism. And now, attacking Afghanistan (one of the world's poorest countries) and hugely aggravating starvation dangers for its population with the possible loss of tens of thousands, or more lives, is terrorism. We are attacking civilians with the aim of attaining political goals unrelated to them - in this case hounding bin Laden and toppling the Taliban.

What is the legal way of dealing with terrorism?

In our world, the only alternative to vigilantism is that guilt should be determined by amassing of evidence that is then assessed in accordance with international law by the United Nations Security Council or other appropriate international agencies.

Punishment should be determined by the UN as well, and likewise the means of implementation. The UN may arrive at determinations that one or another party likes or not, as with any court, and may also be subject to political pressures that call into question its results or not, as with any court. But that the UN is the place for determinations about international conflict is obvious, at least according to solemn treaties signed by the nations of the world.

Thus, to pursue a legal approach means assembling evidence of culpability and presenting it to the UN or the World Court. It means those agencies undertaking to apprehend and prosecute culprits. It does not involve victims overseeing retaliation without even demonstrating guilt, much less having legal sanction, much less in a manner that increases the sum total of terrorism people are suffering and the conditions that breed potential future terrorism

. If all terrorists were pursued through legal channels, what would the international response have been to the September 11 attacks?

Presumably, if provided proof of culpability, UN agencies would seek to arrest guilty parties. They would first seek to negotiate extradition. If a host government failed to comply, as a last resort they could presumably send in a force to extract guilty parties. But these actions would be taken in accord with international law, by forces led by international agencies and courts, in a manner respecting civilian safety, and consistent with further legitimating rather than bypassing respect for law and justice.



. If all terrorists were pursued through legal channels, what would the international response have been to the embargo of Iraq, the bombing of Kosovo and Serbia, and the bombing of Afghanistan?

These acts, among many others, violate international law in many respects, not least because they harm civilians. Presumably, then, were international legal channels strengthened and respected, aggrieved parties could bring these and other cases to legal attention, leading to diverse prosecutions, many of which would be aimed at officials from the U.S.


What are the reasons to oppose U.S. bombing of Afghanistan?

Guilt hasn't yet been proven.

Bombing violates International Law.

Bombing will be unlikely to eliminate those responsible for the September 11 attacks.

Huge numbers of innocent people will die.

Bombing will reduce the security of U.S. citizens.

But doesn't the U.S. have the right of self-defense?

If under attack, any country has the right to repel the attack, according to international law. But the right of self-defense is not unlimited. The standard precedent is the Caroline case, which held that action in self-defense should be confined to cases in which the "necessity of that self-defense is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation." Thus, self defense would permit the United States to shoot down attacking enemy planes, but not to wage a war half way around the globe a month after a terrorist attack, a war that U.S. officials say might go on for years. Instead, this is the sort of situation that should be turned over to the United Nations for action.

But let's suppose someone doesn't like the above formulation. What norm would we want instead? If a country's civilian population is attacked, then that country has the right to determine the perpetrator to its own satisfaction, issue an ultimatum, determine on its own the adequacy of the response to the ultimatum, and attack the perpetrator's host country, causing great civilian harm. Would we really want this to be a universal norm? This would mean that Cubans could attack Washington on grounds that Miami harbors support for terrorists who have attacked Cuban civilians. Likewise, Iraqis, Serbs, and now Afghans, not to mention Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, Colombians, Guatemalans, and so on, could all target Washington on grounds that the U.S. government has attacked or abetted attacks on their civilian populations ‑ and, for that matter, ironically, Washington can attack itself, on the grounds that it abetted the creation and arming of bin Laden's terror network which in turn attacked the U.S.

[le pire]

What do you mean by "innocent?"

I went to church one sunday in Liverpoole not long after Sept 11 and the priest said "50,000 people worked in the World Trade Center. Everyday, 50,000 people working in the pursuit of money."

He implied that they deserved it somehow and thus were not "innocent victims."

Arguments could be made about the Afghan population in the same way. For example, you know the REALLY FAMOUS photo of the Afghan whom with the piercing blue/green eyes? The photographer went looking for her in light of recent events and found out that she's currently hiding in the mountains somewhere with her two children because she worked for the Taliban! Does she deserve to be bombed..?

War is messy business.

It's far too easy to blanket different acts of the US government under one label. I think the actions on Iraq are totally unrelated to Serbia -- Solobodon was a maniacal dictator in the tradition of Hitler bent on ethnic cleansing. His motives are racial, religious and socio-political. Besides, the multinational sanctions and "terrorism" as you call it, worked and the people did overthrow his regime. Unfortunately, it's not so cut and dry as that. The Balkans are a historical hot bed of violence and unrest (WWI came out of there). The albanians (the "innocent" ones) are a HUGE problem in Italy, where the immigrate to and do lots of heroin and commit more violent crimes than any other segment of the population.


Iraq, it's all about $$$ and oil. The embargo is even called "food for oil." This sickens me. It's like the USA is saying "Ok our obese asses get to drive around in 8 miles per gallon SUV's or your entire population starves."

What particularly bothers me about the current situation is how unilateral the USA is being (not that it's a surprise). There seems to be an attitude of "well we were attacked so now we can do whatever we want and we don't have to answer to anybody." Sympathy from allies is quickly turning to disgust and anger. All too often this kind of mentality carries over into other relations and negotiations.

Will this ever end? Sadly, no.


é t i e n n e

[Danny Hustle]

[quote]Originally posted by le pire:
<strong>What do you mean by "innocent?"

I went to church one sunday in Liverpoole not long after Sept 11 and the priest said "50,000 people worked in the World Trade Center. Everyday, 50,000 people working in the pursuit of money."
He implied that they deserved it somehow and thus were not "innocent victims."

</strong><hr></blockquote>

This is pretty funny seeing that the richest conglomorate on the face of the planet is a church.

[ 02-07-2002: Message edited by: Danny Hustle ]</p>

[Triona]

[quote]Originally posted by Danny Hustle:
<strong>

This is pretty funny seeing that the richest conglomorate on the face of the planet is a church.

</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yeah, but it isn't his church... [img]biggrin.gif[/img]

[le pire]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Danny Hustle:

This is pretty funny seeing that the richest conglomorate on the face of the planet is a church.

That fish is 10 days old and I ain't buyin' it. McDonald's pulls in more than any church, and the point could be made that they are more widespread.

é t i e n n e

[ 02-07-2002: Message edited by: le pire ]

[ 02-07-2002: Message edited by: le pire ]</p>

[jonnyflash]

I'm with the Hustler on this one,
The pope has all kinds of gold and gems and crap, and his syndicate
er.. I mean organisation..owns more property than any other organization or individual on the planet.So many folks go to church like I used to, and so many pay their 10 to 20% tithe each Sunday.
The priest passes the basket instead of the hat!
We're being upstaged here!
Is that a cross under his robe or is he just happy to see me?

[le pire]

The church WAS a powerful organization, but unlike McDonald's, the don't have spy satellites that they use to determine population trends and where to build their next "installation." Ray Croc used to fly around in a Cesna to scope out where he wanted to start suburban sprawl.

Go ahead and rant against the church for being hypocritical, manipulative, pedeofiling old men etc etc etc, but as far as being an economic power? I don't think so. The catholic church in the USA? Certainly not. Besides, the USA is a protestant country so I think you're looking in the wrong direction. Try Pat Robertson and all his media conglomerates, and who's that TV guy who runs "Liberty" University? Scariest place on earth. I visited the campus once.

Yeah the pope has a palace... So what? So does the queen of England and how much power does she have? (zero) Nobody goes to church anymore in Europe and nobody cares what the pope says. Okay maybe the Italians care.


é t i e n n e

[Danny Hustle]

le pire,

What I state isn't a guess it is a well known fact. You can reference it not in one place but in 1000 places and you will see the same answer.

The Catholic church is THE richest organization on the face of the planet.

Microsoft doesn't make pocket change compared to church money.

It's a fact, not a guess. It is also irefutable. The church itself admits to it.

As for the people who died in the world trade center, they were not in there chasing money they were earning money to provide food, shelter, and clothing, for their families.

I knew three people personally that died that day. Two of them worked with me everyday. None of them was a rich capitailist money chaser. They were people working for a living to support their families just like you, and just like me.

Best,

Dan-
[quote]Originally posted by le pire:
<strong>quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Danny Hustle:

This is pretty funny seeing that the richest conglomorate on the face of the planet is a church.

That fish is 10 days old and I ain't buyin' it. McDonald's pulls in more than any church, and the point could be made that they are more widespread.

é t i e n n e

[ 02-07-2002: Message edited by: le pire ]

[ 02-07-2002: Message edited by: le pire ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

[Danny Hustle]

Johnny,
We had better be careful, if we agree again I think the ground may open up and swallow us both! [img]smile.gif[/img]

[quote]Originally posted by jonnyflash:
<strong>I'm with the Hustler on this one,
</strong><hr></blockquote>

[ 02-08-2002: Message edited by: Danny Hustle ]</p>

[le pire]

Dan,


I NEVER said I agreed with that stupid priest from Liverpoole.
This is something you non-catholics don't seem to understand: we don't blindly follow the mumblings of a senile polish guy in italy just because he's got the title of Pope. He's just there to give the organization some structure and tell us things like: statues are OK, we like the virgin mary, birth control is bad. We also can make up our own minds when it comes to the priest and his sermons, too.

Second, when people say the catholic church is richer than multinational corporations I say this:

Bullshit. You're just beating a VERY dead horse and saying "well euuhhh, everybody knows it's true." The catholic church no longer has any real power and is simply trying to hold on to what little is left. The Pope's palace's in France were seized by the government back in the 18th century and then what was left was taken after World War II in retribution for Italy going facist. The American catholic church has a massive priest shortage and is actually considering ordaining women. I worked in a church as a teenager, and I can tell you that what $$$ come in from the collection plate is enough to keep the parish running and do some humanitary projects, but it isn't much.

Besides, the church does far more good than harm. At least mine does. Do you go to church ever Sunday? The people who are so quick to condemn the church are most often the ones who have no part in it. Personally, I think criticism, should work the way comedy does: i.e. you have to understand it first. The performer who flails around on a unicycle in his act has spent years learning how to ride it perfectly.

And it isn't the Catholic church who's causing this crap in the middle east - that's your big money oil barrons.


é t i e n n e

[ 02-08-2002: Message edited by: le pire ]</p>

[Stephon]

I hate to inject some facts into this debate but:

According to Forbes, the world's company with the highest revenues is DaimlerChrysler. McDonald's ain't evin on the list, Steve.

"Smokescreens" by Jack T. Chick at Chick Publications quotes "THE VATICAN BILLIONS" by Avro Manhattan:
"In a statement published in connection with a bond prospectus, the Boston archdiocese listed its assets at Six Hundred and Thirty-five Million ($635,891,004), which is 9.9 times its liabilities. This leaves a net worth of Five Hundred and Seventy-one million dollars ($571,704,953)."

"The Catholic church is the biggest financial power, wealth accumulator and property owner in existence. She is a greater possessor of material riches than any other single institution, corporation, bank, giant trust, government or state of the whole globe."

Now, that book is 10 years old, (so the figures may be +/- at this point) and Mr. Chick clearly has an agenda, but there at least is some referencable information.