Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
All terrorists, big and small, are subhuman; ergo let's say "subhuman Obama... Re: Subhuman terrorist scum kill soldier in machete attack in London!
2 views
Skip to first unread message
lo yeeOn
May 23, 2013, 10:58:47 PM5/23/13
to
In article <6b686176-e1c7-4269...@googlegroups.com>,
ahonkan <aho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I am shocked you'd let your Obama-hatred get the better of your sense of
>right and wrong
>and defend these nutcases. Exactly what country did India invade that
>has resulted in tens
>of thousands of deaths in India due to terror attacks? How about the
>nightclub bombing
>in Bali? Massacre of Russian children by Chechen rebels?
>Don't be silly. The nut cases need to be sent pronto to the heaven they
>wish to attain by killing innocents of other religions.
I don't know about Dave; but what is just and what is not in a killing
has become a matter of who is doing the talking.
All killing is wrong, especially of innocent people; and Dave is right
about quoting Jesus of Nazareth in many occasions.
Actually, Siddhartha Gautama also preached the same kind of thing and
he preceded Jesus by perhaps half a millennium.
And they were not saying something deep or mythical in nature. It's
just simple truth. Can we honestly believe that if we harm somebody
else deeply, we will simply be ignored?
I think the reason why we as individuals act peaceably most of the
time is because we don't want to draw people's ire that would bring us
undesired consequences. It is just universal ethic.
The problem is rulers never pay attention to this kind of ethic when
it does not serve them and they - the succesful kind like Obama - know
how to manipulate the public to believe their nonsense.
Today, the BBC News headlines:
US President Barack Obama says his country "stands resolute with the
United Kingdom, our ally and friend, against violent extremism and
terror"
Barack Obama defends 'just war' using drones
Obama is the kind of politicians the neocons needed to keep their War
on Terror alive for years and years to come, ignoring the toll it is
exerting on those who are gravely affected.
It would be indeed naive to think that Gitmo, drone strikes, the air
raids in Afghan villages, and the active engagement in regime change
in other countries (including the deployment of US troops withdrawn
from Iraq for in Jordan to help out the logistics in tearing down the
current government in Syria) have beem sowing the seed of doubts and
resentment among the many Muslims who feel powerless to stop.
Don't say that peaceful protest would stop the killing of Muslims in
Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia because there is no evidence
that it would.
>
> Honestly, would you pay attention to 1,000 muslims protesting
> Western military action in Pakistan?
Without a doubt, YES.
> Would it even get front page
> attention? Not likely.
>
It would get coverage in the U.S.
Such an assertion is easily contradicted by what actually happened!
Thousands of Pakistanis rally against US drone strikes
Nine-mile convoy led by Imran Khan heads towards South Waziristan as
local officials say it will not be allowed to proceed
Associated Press in Islamabad
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 7 October 2012 05.59 EDT
Of course, we can't expect Muslims in the U.S. to organize protests to
express their grievances against these wars that kill Muslims far away
- knowing damn well what Homeland Security and the FBI would do to
them.
While all the individuals (who can't take it anymore) can do is to
seek revenge by doing retailed killing, rulers continue to kill with
impunity and in large numbers - from hundreds during biblical times to
tens of thousands in modernity, with inexhaustible supply of bombs and
bullets. Nothing is new.
But people who jump out and condemn a domestic incident of murder
often forget or ignore two things: causality and proportionality.
Causality is exactly what Dave was talking about when he said he
understood why.
It is ridiculous to be taking three full years to withdraw from
Afghanistan (begin of 2012 - end of 2014) - it is a joke. As we are
inching forward with our withdrawals, suicide bombers or IED were
killing US-led NATO personnels as well as foreign "civilians" - who
are nothing but spies or mercenaries. Remember the young American
State Department Anne Smedinghoff who was killed recently in
Afghanistan?
Afghanistan bomb kills Nato personnel in Zabul
6 April 2013 Last updated at 15:12 ET
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22051858
A bomb in Afghanistan's southern Zabul province has killed five
Americans - three soldiers and two civilians serving with the
Nato-led forces - and an Afghan doctor.
One of the two "civilians" is Anne Smedinghoff, 25 of the State
Department.
. . .
US Secretary of State John Kerry paid special tribute to a state
department foreign service officer, who was one of those killed.
He said he had met the officer when she was assigned to support him
on his recent visit to Afghanistan.
And the next day, the news from Afghanistan was our turn of killing -
it was a familiar pattern of revenge killing and a form of retribution
meant to warn the Afghan people not to mess with the people who we
sent there to occupy them.
Afghan children 'killed by Nato air strike in Shigal'
7 April 2013 Last updated at 16:30 ET
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22058455
Eleven children have been killed in a Nato air strike in eastern
Afghanistan, officials and witnesses say.
So, the cycle of violence just turns while western governments
continue to strain to defend the indefensible.
Why is it ok for Obama and G W Bush to view the women and children
they killed in the stealth of night in Afghanistan regularly as mere
collateral damage while it is not ok for Muslims and people who are
recent descendents of Africa folks to view the killing of the UK
soldier the same way?
Why shouldn't we start realizing that the observation that violence
begets more violence is a universal process, as the wise men have
taught us a long time ago?
But these wise men didn't even realize the shock'n awe aspect of
violence. We even resorted mass deception to justify our massive
violence against the weak.
So, whatever wrong some ragtag Muslim groups have done to us in one
day and without any prospect of repeating the act, we are exacting
decades of devastation and killing against all those innocent men and
women and children in the Middle East in the name of a "Just War"!
That is not proportionality.
And it has never been a question of achieving the stated goal of
defeating terrorism since you cannot defeat terrorism by wielding
terrorism, not to mention wielding a ten zillion ton terrorism against
your enemies who you cannot even identify.
Of course fighting terrorism has always been a joke! Even if the FBI
or other domestic defense agencies were asleep when the WTC attacks
happened, the perpetrators were dead. They were as the FBI told us,
cells.
I don't know what school our leaders went to that tell them that they
could defeat terrorism this way!
This brings to the terrorism Mr. ahonkan apparently was referring to
that has cost untold number of lives in India. India has had a long
history of sectarian strifes between Muslims and Hindus. Not even the
greatly revered Mahatma Gandhi was able to brought peace between them.
And they continue to fight over Kashmir.
So, while I think India has been smart enough not to get into the War
on Terror adventure of the West, India does have a history of violent
engagements with Pakistan that does not require her to have "invaded"
another country to incur the terrorism she suffered.
I'm very sorry about the deep-seated conflict between Pakistan and
India. But cycle of violence turns and turns between these two
countries - and it does not require India to invade a country far away
like the U.S. to see blood flowing on her own soil.
And it is not fair to simply single out the Muslims either, just
because there is a long standing conflict between Pakistan and India.
I am thinking of the fact that India has also suffered much bloodshed
from the conflict between the Buddhists who have held power in Sri
Lanka and India's own support of the Tamils in Sri Lanka and southern
India. Isn't it true?
Therefore, the terrorism India has unfortunately suffered has little
to do with the "War on Terror" U.S. presidents have been bandying
around to justify their wars in the Middle East.
Neither has Chechnya's war with Russia has anything to do with our
"War on Terror". Chechnya has quite a history of being oppressed by
the Russians from what I read from the Wikipedia.
The suffering of the Indian people and of the Chechens have simply
been expropriated by our government for its nefarious geopolitical
purposes.
As for Bali, who knows if it wasn't the same "black hand" which was
behind the WTC attacks? And I am talking about a possible role of
some foreign agents, exploiting a segment of the Muslim population.
As for bin Laden, our government could have easily bribed the Taliban
governemnt to shut down the camps run by bin Laden and got him handed
over to us, for a fraction of the bribe we've been spending on Karzai
from month to month, not to mention the money spent on the decade-long
war as well as the massive reconstruction money that has enriched some
American financiers like our Senator Dianne Feinstein's hubby Richard
Blum. Besides, it is not even clear by any means that the attacks on
9/11 weren't allowed to happened to stoke the public's support for G W
Bush's plan to invade Iraq.
No matter whether a war against Afghanistan is justified, an end of it
is long overdued. It is ridiculous to allow three full years to just
draw down the troops to tens of thousands while keeping at least nine
huge FOB, including Bagram, in the country, and paying over a hundred
thousands of contractors to replace the NATO soldiers being withdrawn.
At first, the world, including me was elated with Obama's election.
But after a while, we all realize that he was just a tool for the
neocons who want their "War on Terror" to last for decades more.
(I have never hated Obama. I used to admire him. Now I despise him
because of the Afghanistan war, Gitmo, and the extra-judicial killing
of people by drone strikes.)
Should we be surprised to see the string of violence that have
transpired in response to our government's behavior toward Muslims?
*** 2012/09/11 in Benghazi, Libya
*** 2013/04/15 in Boston, U.S.A.
*** 2013/05/22 in Woolwich in the U.K
(Notice that Africa has now been radicalized since the NATO
destruction of Libya and the French invasion of Mali. So, not
surprisingly, the latest in Woolwich showed someone with African
features talking to a woman about "an eye for an eye". Do we even
have to ask what was done in Africa to cause the radicalization of
a few dark-skinned people in England today then?)
It is true that the Muslims collectively have a problem. Despite
being taken advantaged like this, they remain terribly divided and
impotent to do anything to defend themselves. So, the frustrated
individuals resorted to retail violence. It is futile!
The Sheiks and Princes and Kings from the Gulf States are exactly what
the U.S. and U.K. want - not secular states like Libya, Syria, and the
former Iraq! Those secular states were too inobedient while the oil
Sheiks always need our protection! The losers are then the people of
those states - the Muslims.
But don't say that nothing caused them to do what they did. In every
death they have directly caused, the countries in the West like the
U.S. and the U.K. have a bloody hand behind it. Violence begets more
violence. A country with our might could easily break the cycle of
violence. But it does not. It continues to resort to lie - massive
lie - to keep the "War on Terror" going and to keep the wound we have
inflicted on the Islamic world open, and furthermore to use this kind
of age-old grievance-related domestic violence that took place in the
U.K. yesterday to justify its continuing foreign adventure.
lo yeeOn
Dave's original response attached below:
>On May 23, 7:17?am, ahonkan <ahon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 23, 12:47?am, Iceberg <iceberg.ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > This is awful, the subhumans killed a soldier in Woolwich with a
>> > machete hollering about how they'd never stop fighting us. Dave is
>> > right, we should arm citizens now.
>>
>> >http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22630303
>>
>> > A man has been killed in a machete attack and two suspects shot by
>> > police in Woolwich, south-east London.
>>
>> ? ? So much for multiculturalism. The killers looked like
>> ? ? immigrants from North Africa and the hapless victim
>> ? ? was apparently a British soldier returning to the
>> ? ? barracks. The terrorist killers shouted 'Allahu Akbar'
>> ? ? indicating that they belonged to the 'Religion of Peace'
>> ? ? that is responsible for 99.999% of all such attacks.
>
>yep! it's a Religion of Peace and anybody who disagrees deserves to be
>killed!
sure but maybe if we stop invadin there countries for NO fuckin reason
but to meddle and steal their wealth and killin there wives and kids
just perhaps they would not want to kill us? I do not condon what they
do but i understand why they do it. i guess in Obama eyes dat make me
a terrorist ? Ough oh and now he can kill me wif no due process no
trial no nothin. how is dat any dif than saddam hussein ?
ahonkan <aho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I am shocked you'd let your Obama-hatred get the better of your sense of
>right and wrong
>and defend these nutcases. Exactly what country did India invade that
>has resulted in tens
>of thousands of deaths in India due to terror attacks? How about the
>nightclub bombing
>in Bali? Massacre of Russian children by Chechen rebels?
>Don't be silly. The nut cases need to be sent pronto to the heaven they
>wish to attain by killing innocents of other religions.
I don't know about Dave; but what is just and what is not in a killing
has become a matter of who is doing the talking.
All killing is wrong, especially of innocent people; and Dave is right
about quoting Jesus of Nazareth in many occasions.
Actually, Siddhartha Gautama also preached the same kind of thing and
he preceded Jesus by perhaps half a millennium.
And they were not saying something deep or mythical in nature. It's
just simple truth. Can we honestly believe that if we harm somebody
else deeply, we will simply be ignored?
I think the reason why we as individuals act peaceably most of the
time is because we don't want to draw people's ire that would bring us
undesired consequences. It is just universal ethic.
The problem is rulers never pay attention to this kind of ethic when
it does not serve them and they - the succesful kind like Obama - know
how to manipulate the public to believe their nonsense.
Today, the BBC News headlines:
US President Barack Obama says his country "stands resolute with the
United Kingdom, our ally and friend, against violent extremism and
terror"
Barack Obama defends 'just war' using drones
Obama is the kind of politicians the neocons needed to keep their War
on Terror alive for years and years to come, ignoring the toll it is
exerting on those who are gravely affected.
It would be indeed naive to think that Gitmo, drone strikes, the air
raids in Afghan villages, and the active engagement in regime change
in other countries (including the deployment of US troops withdrawn
from Iraq for in Jordan to help out the logistics in tearing down the
current government in Syria) have beem sowing the seed of doubts and
resentment among the many Muslims who feel powerless to stop.
Don't say that peaceful protest would stop the killing of Muslims in
Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia because there is no evidence
that it would.
>
> Honestly, would you pay attention to 1,000 muslims protesting
> Western military action in Pakistan?
Without a doubt, YES.
> Would it even get front page
> attention? Not likely.
>
It would get coverage in the U.S.
Such an assertion is easily contradicted by what actually happened!
Thousands of Pakistanis rally against US drone strikes
Nine-mile convoy led by Imran Khan heads towards South Waziristan as
local officials say it will not be allowed to proceed
Associated Press in Islamabad
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 7 October 2012 05.59 EDT
Of course, we can't expect Muslims in the U.S. to organize protests to
express their grievances against these wars that kill Muslims far away
- knowing damn well what Homeland Security and the FBI would do to
them.
While all the individuals (who can't take it anymore) can do is to
seek revenge by doing retailed killing, rulers continue to kill with
impunity and in large numbers - from hundreds during biblical times to
tens of thousands in modernity, with inexhaustible supply of bombs and
bullets. Nothing is new.
But people who jump out and condemn a domestic incident of murder
often forget or ignore two things: causality and proportionality.
Causality is exactly what Dave was talking about when he said he
understood why.
It is ridiculous to be taking three full years to withdraw from
Afghanistan (begin of 2012 - end of 2014) - it is a joke. As we are
inching forward with our withdrawals, suicide bombers or IED were
killing US-led NATO personnels as well as foreign "civilians" - who
are nothing but spies or mercenaries. Remember the young American
State Department Anne Smedinghoff who was killed recently in
Afghanistan?
Afghanistan bomb kills Nato personnel in Zabul
6 April 2013 Last updated at 15:12 ET
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22051858
A bomb in Afghanistan's southern Zabul province has killed five
Americans - three soldiers and two civilians serving with the
Nato-led forces - and an Afghan doctor.
One of the two "civilians" is Anne Smedinghoff, 25 of the State
Department.
. . .
US Secretary of State John Kerry paid special tribute to a state
department foreign service officer, who was one of those killed.
He said he had met the officer when she was assigned to support him
on his recent visit to Afghanistan.
And the next day, the news from Afghanistan was our turn of killing -
it was a familiar pattern of revenge killing and a form of retribution
meant to warn the Afghan people not to mess with the people who we
sent there to occupy them.
Afghan children 'killed by Nato air strike in Shigal'
7 April 2013 Last updated at 16:30 ET
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22058455
Eleven children have been killed in a Nato air strike in eastern
Afghanistan, officials and witnesses say.
So, the cycle of violence just turns while western governments
continue to strain to defend the indefensible.
Why is it ok for Obama and G W Bush to view the women and children
they killed in the stealth of night in Afghanistan regularly as mere
collateral damage while it is not ok for Muslims and people who are
recent descendents of Africa folks to view the killing of the UK
soldier the same way?
Why shouldn't we start realizing that the observation that violence
begets more violence is a universal process, as the wise men have
taught us a long time ago?
But these wise men didn't even realize the shock'n awe aspect of
violence. We even resorted mass deception to justify our massive
violence against the weak.
So, whatever wrong some ragtag Muslim groups have done to us in one
day and without any prospect of repeating the act, we are exacting
decades of devastation and killing against all those innocent men and
women and children in the Middle East in the name of a "Just War"!
That is not proportionality.
And it has never been a question of achieving the stated goal of
defeating terrorism since you cannot defeat terrorism by wielding
terrorism, not to mention wielding a ten zillion ton terrorism against
your enemies who you cannot even identify.
Of course fighting terrorism has always been a joke! Even if the FBI
or other domestic defense agencies were asleep when the WTC attacks
happened, the perpetrators were dead. They were as the FBI told us,
cells.
I don't know what school our leaders went to that tell them that they
could defeat terrorism this way!
This brings to the terrorism Mr. ahonkan apparently was referring to
that has cost untold number of lives in India. India has had a long
history of sectarian strifes between Muslims and Hindus. Not even the
greatly revered Mahatma Gandhi was able to brought peace between them.
And they continue to fight over Kashmir.
So, while I think India has been smart enough not to get into the War
on Terror adventure of the West, India does have a history of violent
engagements with Pakistan that does not require her to have "invaded"
another country to incur the terrorism she suffered.
I'm very sorry about the deep-seated conflict between Pakistan and
India. But cycle of violence turns and turns between these two
countries - and it does not require India to invade a country far away
like the U.S. to see blood flowing on her own soil.
And it is not fair to simply single out the Muslims either, just
because there is a long standing conflict between Pakistan and India.
I am thinking of the fact that India has also suffered much bloodshed
from the conflict between the Buddhists who have held power in Sri
Lanka and India's own support of the Tamils in Sri Lanka and southern
India. Isn't it true?
Therefore, the terrorism India has unfortunately suffered has little
to do with the "War on Terror" U.S. presidents have been bandying
around to justify their wars in the Middle East.
Neither has Chechnya's war with Russia has anything to do with our
"War on Terror". Chechnya has quite a history of being oppressed by
the Russians from what I read from the Wikipedia.
The suffering of the Indian people and of the Chechens have simply
been expropriated by our government for its nefarious geopolitical
purposes.
As for Bali, who knows if it wasn't the same "black hand" which was
behind the WTC attacks? And I am talking about a possible role of
some foreign agents, exploiting a segment of the Muslim population.
As for bin Laden, our government could have easily bribed the Taliban
governemnt to shut down the camps run by bin Laden and got him handed
over to us, for a fraction of the bribe we've been spending on Karzai
from month to month, not to mention the money spent on the decade-long
war as well as the massive reconstruction money that has enriched some
American financiers like our Senator Dianne Feinstein's hubby Richard
Blum. Besides, it is not even clear by any means that the attacks on
9/11 weren't allowed to happened to stoke the public's support for G W
Bush's plan to invade Iraq.
No matter whether a war against Afghanistan is justified, an end of it
is long overdued. It is ridiculous to allow three full years to just
draw down the troops to tens of thousands while keeping at least nine
huge FOB, including Bagram, in the country, and paying over a hundred
thousands of contractors to replace the NATO soldiers being withdrawn.
At first, the world, including me was elated with Obama's election.
But after a while, we all realize that he was just a tool for the
neocons who want their "War on Terror" to last for decades more.
(I have never hated Obama. I used to admire him. Now I despise him
because of the Afghanistan war, Gitmo, and the extra-judicial killing
of people by drone strikes.)
Should we be surprised to see the string of violence that have
transpired in response to our government's behavior toward Muslims?
*** 2012/09/11 in Benghazi, Libya
*** 2013/04/15 in Boston, U.S.A.
*** 2013/05/22 in Woolwich in the U.K
(Notice that Africa has now been radicalized since the NATO
destruction of Libya and the French invasion of Mali. So, not
surprisingly, the latest in Woolwich showed someone with African
features talking to a woman about "an eye for an eye". Do we even
have to ask what was done in Africa to cause the radicalization of
a few dark-skinned people in England today then?)
It is true that the Muslims collectively have a problem. Despite
being taken advantaged like this, they remain terribly divided and
impotent to do anything to defend themselves. So, the frustrated
individuals resorted to retail violence. It is futile!
The Sheiks and Princes and Kings from the Gulf States are exactly what
the U.S. and U.K. want - not secular states like Libya, Syria, and the
former Iraq! Those secular states were too inobedient while the oil
Sheiks always need our protection! The losers are then the people of
those states - the Muslims.
But don't say that nothing caused them to do what they did. In every
death they have directly caused, the countries in the West like the
U.S. and the U.K. have a bloody hand behind it. Violence begets more
violence. A country with our might could easily break the cycle of
violence. But it does not. It continues to resort to lie - massive
lie - to keep the "War on Terror" going and to keep the wound we have
inflicted on the Islamic world open, and furthermore to use this kind
of age-old grievance-related domestic violence that took place in the
U.K. yesterday to justify its continuing foreign adventure.
lo yeeOn
Dave's original response attached below:
>On May 23, 7:17?am, ahonkan <ahon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 23, 12:47?am, Iceberg <iceberg.ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > This is awful, the subhumans killed a soldier in Woolwich with a
>> > machete hollering about how they'd never stop fighting us. Dave is
>> > right, we should arm citizens now.
>>
>> >http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22630303
>>
>> > A man has been killed in a machete attack and two suspects shot by
>> > police in Woolwich, south-east London.
>>
>> ? ? So much for multiculturalism. The killers looked like
>> ? ? immigrants from North Africa and the hapless victim
>> ? ? was apparently a British soldier returning to the
>> ? ? barracks. The terrorist killers shouted 'Allahu Akbar'
>> ? ? indicating that they belonged to the 'Religion of Peace'
>> ? ? that is responsible for 99.999% of all such attacks.
>
>yep! it's a Religion of Peace and anybody who disagrees deserves to be
>killed!
sure but maybe if we stop invadin there countries for NO fuckin reason
but to meddle and steal their wealth and killin there wives and kids
just perhaps they would not want to kill us? I do not condon what they
do but i understand why they do it. i guess in Obama eyes dat make me
a terrorist ? Ough oh and now he can kill me wif no due process no
trial no nothin. how is dat any dif than saddam hussein ?
lo yeeOn
May 23, 2013, 11:06:00 PM5/23/13
to
lo yeeOn
May 24, 2013, 12:32:58 AM5/24/13
to
In article <6b686176-e1c7-4269...@googlegroups.com>,
ahonkan <aho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I am shocked you'd let your Obama-hatred get the better of your sense of
>right and wrong
>and defend these nutcases. Exactly what country did India invade that
>has resulted in tens
>of thousands of deaths in India due to terror attacks? How about the
>nightclub bombing
>in Bali? Massacre of Russian children by Chechen rebels?
>Don't be silly. The nut cases need to be sent pronto to the heaven they
>wish to attain by killing innocents of other religions.
I don't know about Dave; but what is just and what is not in a killing
has become a matter of who is doing the talking.
All killing is wrong, especially of innocent people; and Dave is right
about quoting Jesus of Nazareth in many occasions.
Actually, Siddhartha Gautama also preached the same kind of thing and
he preceded Jesus by perhaps half a millennium.
And they were not saying something deep or mythical in nature. It's
just simple truth. Can we honestly believe that if we harm somebody
else deeply, we will simply be ignored?
I think the reason why we as individuals act peaceably most of the
time is because we don't want to draw people's ire that would bring us
undesired consequences. It is just a universal ethic.
ahonkan <aho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I am shocked you'd let your Obama-hatred get the better of your sense of
>right and wrong
>and defend these nutcases. Exactly what country did India invade that
>has resulted in tens
>of thousands of deaths in India due to terror attacks? How about the
>nightclub bombing
>in Bali? Massacre of Russian children by Chechen rebels?
>Don't be silly. The nut cases need to be sent pronto to the heaven they
>wish to attain by killing innocents of other religions.
I don't know about Dave; but what is just and what is not in a killing
has become a matter of who is doing the talking.
All killing is wrong, especially of innocent people; and Dave is right
about quoting Jesus of Nazareth in many occasions.
Actually, Siddhartha Gautama also preached the same kind of thing and
he preceded Jesus by perhaps half a millennium.
And they were not saying something deep or mythical in nature. It's
just simple truth. Can we honestly believe that if we harm somebody
else deeply, we will simply be ignored?
I think the reason why we as individuals act peaceably most of the
time is because we don't want to draw people's ire that would bring us
The problem is rulers never pay attention to this kind of ethic when
it does not serve them and they - the succesful kind like Obama - know
how to manipulate the public to believe their nonsense.
Today, the BBC News headlines:
US President Barack Obama says his country "stands resolute with the
United Kingdom, our ally and friend, against violent extremism and
terror"
Barack Obama defends 'just war' using drones
on Terror alive for years and years to come, ignoring the toll it is
exerting on those who are gravely affected.
It would be indeed naive to think that Gitmo, drone strikes, the air
raids in Afghan villages, and the active engagement in regime change
in other countries (including the deployment of US troops withdrawn
from Iraq to Jordan to help out the logistics in tearing down the
exerting on those who are gravely affected.
It would be indeed naive to think that Gitmo, drone strikes, the air
raids in Afghan villages, and the active engagement in regime change
in other countries (including the deployment of US troops withdrawn
current government in Syria) have not been sowing the seed of doubts
and resentment among the many Muslims who feel powerless to stop this
evil.
Don't say that peaceful protest would stop the killing of Muslims in
Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia because there is no evidence
that it would.
>
> Honestly, would you pay attention to 1,000 muslims protesting
> Western military action in Pakistan?
Without a doubt, YES.
> Would it even get front page
> attention? Not likely.
>
It would get coverage in the U.S.
Such an assertion is easily contradicted by what actually happened!
Thousands of Pakistanis rally against US drone strikes
Nine-mile convoy led by Imran Khan heads towards South Waziristan as
local officials say it will not be allowed to proceed
Associated Press in Islamabad
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 7 October 2012 05.59 EDT
Of course, we can't expect Muslims in the U.S. to organize protests to
express their grievances against these wars that kill Muslims far away
- knowing damn well what Homeland Security and the FBI would do to
them.
While all the individuals (who can't take it anymore) can do is to
seek revenge by doing retailed killing, rulers continue to kill with
impunity and in large numbers - from hundreds during biblical times to
and bullets. Nothing is new.
But people who jump out and condemn a domestic incident of murder
often forget or ignore two things: causality and proportionality.
Causality is exactly what Dave was talking about when he said he
understood why.
It is ridiculous to be taking three full years to withdraw from
Afghanistan (begin of 2012 - end of 2014) - it is a joke. As we are
inching forward with our withdrawals, suicide bombers or IED were
killing US-led NATO personnels as well as foreign "civilians" - who
are nothing but spies or mercenaries. Remember the young American
State Department employee named Anne Smedinghoff who was killed
But people who jump out and condemn a domestic incident of murder
often forget or ignore two things: causality and proportionality.
Causality is exactly what Dave was talking about when he said he
understood why.
It is ridiculous to be taking three full years to withdraw from
Afghanistan (begin of 2012 - end of 2014) - it is a joke. As we are
inching forward with our withdrawals, suicide bombers or IED were
killing US-led NATO personnels as well as foreign "civilians" - who
are nothing but spies or mercenaries. Remember the young American
recently in Afghanistan?
Afghanistan bomb kills Nato personnel in Zabul
6 April 2013 Last updated at 15:12 ET
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22051858
A bomb in Afghanistan's southern Zabul province has killed five
Americans - three soldiers and two civilians serving with the
Nato-led forces - and an Afghan doctor.
One of the two "civilians" is Anne Smedinghoff, 25 of the State
Department.
. . .
US Secretary of State John Kerry paid special tribute to a state
department foreign service officer, who was one of those killed.
He said he had met the officer when she was assigned to support him
on his recent visit to Afghanistan.
And the next day, the news from Afghanistan was our turn of killing -
it was a familiar pattern of revenge killing and a form of retribution
meant to warn the Afghan people not to mess with the people who we
sent there to occupy their country.
Afghanistan bomb kills Nato personnel in Zabul
6 April 2013 Last updated at 15:12 ET
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22051858
A bomb in Afghanistan's southern Zabul province has killed five
Americans - three soldiers and two civilians serving with the
Nato-led forces - and an Afghan doctor.
One of the two "civilians" is Anne Smedinghoff, 25 of the State
Department.
. . .
US Secretary of State John Kerry paid special tribute to a state
department foreign service officer, who was one of those killed.
He said he had met the officer when she was assigned to support him
on his recent visit to Afghanistan.
And the next day, the news from Afghanistan was our turn of killing -
it was a familiar pattern of revenge killing and a form of retribution
meant to warn the Afghan people not to mess with the people who we
Afghan children 'killed by Nato air strike in Shigal'
7 April 2013 Last updated at 16:30 ET
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22058455
Eleven children have been killed in a Nato air strike in eastern
Afghanistan, officials and witnesses say.
So, the cycle of violence just turns while western governments
continue to strain to defend the indefensible.
Why is it ok for Obama and G W Bush to view the women and children
they killed in the stealth of night in Afghanistan regularly as mere
collateral damage while it is not ok for Muslims and people who are
soldier the same way?
Why shouldn't we start realizing that the observation that violence
begets more violence is a universal process, as the wise men have
taught us a long time ago?
But these wise men didn't even realize the shock'n awe aspect of
violence. We even resorted to mass deception to justify our massive
Why shouldn't we start realizing that the observation that violence
begets more violence is a universal process, as the wise men have
taught us a long time ago?
But these wise men didn't even realize the shock'n awe aspect of
violence against the weak.
So, whatever wrong some ragtag Muslim groups have done to us in one
day and without any prospect of repeating the act, we are exacting
decades of devastation and killing against all those innocent men and
women and children in the Middle East in the name of a "Just War"!
That is not proportionality.
And it has never been a question of achieving the stated goal of
defeating terrorism since you cannot defeat terrorism by wielding
terrorism, not to mention wielding a ten zillion ton terrorism against
your enemies who you cannot even identify.
Of course fighting terrorism has always been a joke! Even if the FBI
or other domestic defense agencies were asleep when the WTC attacks
happened, the perpetrators were dead. They were as the FBI told us,
cells.
I don't know what school our leaders went to that tell them that they
could defeat terrorism this way!
This brings to the terrorism Mr. "ahonkan" apparently was referring to
that has cost untold number of lives in India. India has had a long
history of sectarian strife between Muslims and Hindus. Not even the
So, whatever wrong some ragtag Muslim groups have done to us in one
day and without any prospect of repeating the act, we are exacting
decades of devastation and killing against all those innocent men and
women and children in the Middle East in the name of a "Just War"!
That is not proportionality.
And it has never been a question of achieving the stated goal of
defeating terrorism since you cannot defeat terrorism by wielding
terrorism, not to mention wielding a ten zillion ton terrorism against
your enemies who you cannot even identify.
Of course fighting terrorism has always been a joke! Even if the FBI
or other domestic defense agencies were asleep when the WTC attacks
happened, the perpetrators were dead. They were as the FBI told us,
cells.
I don't know what school our leaders went to that tell them that they
could defeat terrorism this way!
This brings to the terrorism Mr. "ahonkan" apparently was referring to
that has cost untold number of lives in India. India has had a long
draw down the troops to tens of thousands while keeping at least nine
huge FOBs, including Bagram, in the country, and paying over a hundred
thousand contractors to replace the NATO soldiers being withdrawn.
At first, the world, including me, was elated with Obama's election.
But after a while, we all realized that he was just a tool for the
neocons who wanted their "War on Terror" to last for decades more.
(I have never hated Obama. I used to admire him. Now I despise him
because of the Afghanistan war, Gitmo, and the extra-judicial killing
of people by drone strikes.)
transpired in response to our government's behavior toward Muslims?
*** 2012/09/11 in Benghazi, Libya
*** 2013/04/15 in Boston, U.S.A.
*** 2013/05/22 in Woolwich in the U.K
(Notice that Africa has now been radicalized since the NATO
destruction of Libya and the French invasion of Mali. So, not
surprisingly, the latest in Woolwich showed someone with African
features talking to a woman about "an eye for an eye". Do we even
have to ask what was done in Africa to cause the radicalization of
a few dark-skinned people in England today then?)
It is true that the Muslims collectively have a problem. Despite
being taken advantage of like this, they remain terribly divided and
*** 2012/09/11 in Benghazi, Libya
*** 2013/04/15 in Boston, U.S.A.
*** 2013/05/22 in Woolwich in the U.K
(Notice that Africa has now been radicalized since the NATO
destruction of Libya and the French invasion of Mali. So, not
surprisingly, the latest in Woolwich showed someone with African
features talking to a woman about "an eye for an eye". Do we even
have to ask what was done in Africa to cause the radicalization of
a few dark-skinned people in England today then?)
It is true that the Muslims collectively have a problem. Despite
impotent to do anything to defend themselves. So, the frustrated
individuals resorted to retail violence. It is futile!
The Sheiks and Princes and Kings from the Gulf States are exactly what
the U.S. and U.K. want - not secular states like Libya, Syria, and the
former Iraq! Those secular states were too disobedient while the oil
individuals resorted to retail violence. It is futile!
The Sheiks and Princes and Kings from the Gulf States are exactly what
the U.S. and U.K. want - not secular states like Libya, Syria, and the
Sheiks always need our protection! The losers are then the people of
those states - the Muslims.
But don't say that nothing caused them to do what they did. In every
death they have directly caused, the countries in the West like the
U.S. and the U.K. have a bloody hand behind it. Violence begets more
violence. A country with our might could easily break the cycle of
violence. But it does not. It continues to resort to lying - massive
those states - the Muslims.
But don't say that nothing caused them to do what they did. In every
death they have directly caused, the countries in the West like the
U.S. and the U.K. have a bloody hand behind it. Violence begets more
violence. A country with our might could easily break the cycle of
lying - to keep the "War on Terror" going and to keep the wound we
lo yeeOn
May 24, 2013, 1:26:31 AM5/24/13
to
In article <da6265ec-ffac-4a5d...@ys5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
trr <jsm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On May 23, 9:43 am, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
>> On 23 May, 11:03, trr <jsm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On May 23, 7:52 am, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On 22 May, 18:53, trr <jsm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > Those cowards should try protesting, carrying signs, things like that
>> > > > go a lot further than what they did.
>>
>> > > You can call them many names but
>> > > they aren't cowards.
>>
>> > If the murderer had been facing a shotgun or similar, you bet he'll be
>> > finding someone to kill who no protection.
>> > That's a coward.
>>
>> This was a symbolic act. The man represented the Western military and
>> they cut him to bits. Of course they chose somebody they COULD kill.
>> They wouldn't go up to someone with a shotgun while armed with a
>> machete.
>> They aren't afraid of dying but they don't want to die without making
>> their
>> statement. Now if they had wanted to simply kill a soldier they could
>> have
>> done so anonymously and safely from a distance...
>>
>>
>>
>> > Why is it they don't face up with someone who can take them down?
>>
>> Why does Obama use drone strikes?
>>
>>
>>
>> > Peaceful protest is the best way, no one gets hurt.
>>
>> In the 60s peaceful protest gained attention. The civil rights
>> demonstrations, the demonstrations
>> against the war...this kind of protest doesn't get results TODAY.
>> Peaceful protesters are rethinking their
>> participation in these types of protest because they are easily
>> ignored.....just another protest....as
>> you say, no one gets hurt, everybody can just carry on as if the
>> protest doesn't exist.
>
>There are different methods of protesting; peaceful protest, signs
>etc.
>The best way to protest is via your pocket book, and convince others
>outside your religion to do the same. Hacking our neighbors to death
>will not get any sympathy, on the contrary it really turns me and
>others in the opposite direction.
>
For some reason your glib answers to drew's questions reminds me of
NYC's MB telling young people to get a job as a plumber to avoid
getting in debt (for the high cost of a tertiary education today).
They comparison is not exact but the feel somehow is there.
I have long been struck by the disappearance of public protests in the
U.S. in the New American Century. Are we living in paradise now?
No, but police tactics has essentially silenced domestic dissent.
See below for an article on this topic.
As for the question of whether a march of a thousand Pakistanis
protesting against U.S. drone strikes in their country would even get
front page coverage in the U.S., I googled Imran Khan's march,
which according to the UK Guardians drew thousands.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/07/pakistanis-rally-against-us-drone-strikes
Thousands turned out on the road outside Dera Ismail Khan to cheer
on Khan and the convoy of supporters and accompanying media, which
stretched to a length of nine miles. Supporters packed into vehicles
waved flags for Khan's political group and chanted: "We want peace."
Few US media outlets appear on the front page of google's search
results. The NYT has an article on page 11 citing only hundreds for
the march.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/world/asia/americans-join-pakistan-convoy-to-protest-drone-strikes.html?_r=0
Hundreds of political activists, led by the opposition politician
Imran Khan and accompanied by 32 American peace activists, departed
Pakistan's capital on Saturday in a convoy headed toward the
country's tribal regions to protest American drone strikes.
I think drew's (rhetorical) questions were meant to point out a fact:
the fact that there is a general media blackout on the level of anger
Obama's illegal drone strikes in Pakistan in the last few years have
generated.
The truth, free speech has effectively been silenced in the New
American Century. The best evidence is the surprising whimpering out
of the Occupy Movement. And some of reasons can be found in the
article attached below.
lo yeeOn
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The criminalization of political dissent in America
14 May 2013
In a series of prosecutions, precedents are being established for the
criminalization of political dissent in America.
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/05/14/pers-m14.html
Last week, Massachusetts high school student Cameron D'Ambrosio was
arrested and charged under "terrorism" laws merely for posting lyrics
on Facebook that make reference to the Boston Marathon bombings. He
faces 20 years in prison. A string of similar "terror" prosecutions
around the country take aim at the First Amendment protection of free
speech and political expression.
The authorities have already branded select participants in Occupy
Wall Street and anti-NATO protests as "terrorists". Last year,
heavily-armed "domestic terrorism" commandos raided Occupy Wall Street
protesters' homes in Washington and Oregon, using battering rams and
stun grenades. The commandos were authorized to seize all
"anti-government or anarchist literature or material."
As with freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, also guaranteed under
the First Amendment, has not been officially repealed. The reality,
however, is that political assembly is already a semi-criminal
activity in America. Political protests are routinely met with vastly
disproportionate police mobilizations, confinement to oxymoronic "free
speech zones", "kettling" (in which protesters are surrounded and
forcibly moved in one direction or prevented from leaving an area),
beatings, tear gas, pepper spray, stun grenades or rubber bullets. The
standard government response to a political protest is a massive show
of force, complete with police snipers on rooftops.
The drive towards the establishment of an American police state,
initiated under the Bush administration, has shifted into high gear
under Obama. For nearly twelve years, the phony "war on terror" has
been used as the overarching pretext for illegal imperialist war
abroad and a methodical assault on democratic rights at home. The
basic structure of authoritarian rule is now emerging into plain view.
Over the recent period, the government has vastly expanded its
warrantless surveillance of the population. The Obama administration
has constructed a massive data center in Utah big enough to store the
contents of every personal computer in the country. Already at a
government agent's fingertips--without a warrant--are all of a
person's Internet browsing activity, telephone conversations, text
messages, credit card transactions, mobile phone GPS location data,
travel itineraries, Skype and Facebook data, medical records, criminal
records, financial records and surveillance camera footage. Tens of
thousands of drones are slated to be launched over the US mainland in
the coming years, with thousands already buzzing overhead. These
high-tech aircraft are able to monitor meetings and demonstrations,
access wireless networks and record the movements of citizens. Obama's
recent appointee for the position of CIA director, John Brennan,
expressly refused at his confirmation hearings to rule out the
possibility that these drones could be armed and used for carrying out
assassinations within the US.
While schools are being shuttered and teachers fired supposedly for
lack of money, local police departments are awash in billions of
dollars of military hardware and training provided by the Department
of Homeland Security. When local police are mobilized to respond to a
political protest, they now do so in coordination with the federal
military and intelligence agencies. It is not a rarity for armored
vehicles, body armor and military equipment to be deployed.
Under the precedent set by the recent events in Boston, the
authorities now have the power to subject an entire city to a military
siege, with the population ordered to "shelter in place", while
businesses and transportation are shut down and heavily armed SWAT
teams are deployed to conduct warrantless house-to-house searches
without regard for basic rights.
The Obama administration, in concert with state and local police
departments, has sent untold numbers of anti-terror undercover spies into
domestic political parties and protest groups. In addition to
gathering information, the job of these spies is to divert, disrupt
and prevent the emergence of organized social opposition.
A person can be designated a "terrorist" on the secret, unreviewable
say-so of the president, without notice and without a trial. Under the
"material support" for terrorism laws signed into law as part of the
PATRIOT Act of 2001, a person may be jailed simply for offering
vaguely-defined "material support" to any person or group labeled as
"terrorist".
Under the National Defense Authorization Acts of 2011 and 2012, as
tested in the case of Jose Padilla, the US government asserts the
power to subject a designated "terrorist" to arbitrary arrest and
detention without trial. In the cases of Padilla and Bradley Manning,
and at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp and countless CIA "black sites"
around the world, the US government subjects alleged terrorists to
torture. Finally, in the cases of Anwar Al-Awlaki, Samir Khan and
Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki, the US government tested out its asserted power
to murder terrorists outright, even if they are US citizens.
Under these precedents, it would not be necessary to officially
suspend the Constitution in order for the US government to meet future
domestic opposition with military lockdowns, curfews, house-to-house
searches, mass arrests, torture and even assassination. With political
dissent labeled as "terrorism" or material support for terrorism,"
Congress, the president, the courts, the military, and the so-called
"free press" could continue in their present roles.
In the second half of the 20th century, US-backed dictatorships in
Argentina and Chile used the supposed struggle against "terrorism" as
a political cover for the arrest and murder of tens of thousands of
political opponents, youth, workers, intellectuals and other "enemies
of the state". As the World Socialist Web Site warned from the
outset, such is the inevitable logic of the American "war on terror".
Two essential factors are driving the trampling of democratic rights
and the shift towards authoritarian rule. The first is the massive
growth of social inequality, which in turn is driven by the historic
crisis of the world capitalist system. While it robs the population in
order to pile up ever greater and more obscene levels of private
wealth, the financial aristocracy is terrified of the emergence of
social opposition. Not from a position of strength, but out of extreme
fear and vulnerability, the billionaires look to police state
repression as a means to preserve their status, power and wealth.
Second, just as democracy is incompatible with such levels of social
inequality, it is incompatible with imperialist war. The US military
and intelligence agencies have for twelve years been wading in blood
in a drive to plunder the world's strategic resources. The dead,
wounded and displaced number in the millions.
A professional military, divorced from and hostile to the population
and resentful of civilian control, has immensely expanded its size,
resources and political power, to the point where it and its
intelligence counterpart, in league with Wall Street, dominate the
workings of the state.
The ruling class is in the advanced stage of preparations for an
inevitable confrontation with the working class. Working people must
make their own preparations, central to which is the building of a
new, revolutionary leadership. Only a conscious political struggle for
a workers' government and socialism can avert the threat of
dictatorship and establish genuine democracy and social equality.
Tom Carter
trr <jsm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On May 23, 9:43 am, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
>> On 23 May, 11:03, trr <jsm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On May 23, 7:52 am, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On 22 May, 18:53, trr <jsm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > Those cowards should try protesting, carrying signs, things like that
>> > > > go a lot further than what they did.
>>
>> > > You can call them many names but
>> > > they aren't cowards.
>>
>> > If the murderer had been facing a shotgun or similar, you bet he'll be
>> > finding someone to kill who no protection.
>> > That's a coward.
>>
>> This was a symbolic act. The man represented the Western military and
>> they cut him to bits. Of course they chose somebody they COULD kill.
>> They wouldn't go up to someone with a shotgun while armed with a
>> machete.
>> They aren't afraid of dying but they don't want to die without making
>> their
>> statement. Now if they had wanted to simply kill a soldier they could
>> have
>> done so anonymously and safely from a distance...
>>
>>
>>
>> > Why is it they don't face up with someone who can take them down?
>>
>> Why does Obama use drone strikes?
>>
>>
>>
>> > Peaceful protest is the best way, no one gets hurt.
>>
>> In the 60s peaceful protest gained attention. The civil rights
>> demonstrations, the demonstrations
>> against the war...this kind of protest doesn't get results TODAY.
>> Peaceful protesters are rethinking their
>> participation in these types of protest because they are easily
>> ignored.....just another protest....as
>> you say, no one gets hurt, everybody can just carry on as if the
>> protest doesn't exist.
>
>There are different methods of protesting; peaceful protest, signs
>etc.
>The best way to protest is via your pocket book, and convince others
>outside your religion to do the same. Hacking our neighbors to death
>will not get any sympathy, on the contrary it really turns me and
>others in the opposite direction.
>
>>
>> Honestly, would you pay attention to 1,000 muslims protesting Western
>> military action in Pakistan?
>
>Without a doubt, YES.
>
>
>
>> Would it even get front page
>> attention? Not likely.
>>
>
>It would get coverage in the U.S.
>
>> This was a horrible act of war or terrorism if you like.
>>
>> Honestly, would you pay attention to 1,000 muslims protesting Western
>> military action in Pakistan?
>
>Without a doubt, YES.
>
>
>
>> Would it even get front page
>> attention? Not likely.
>>
>
>It would get coverage in the U.S.
>
>
For some reason your glib answers to drew's questions reminds me of
NYC's MB telling young people to get a job as a plumber to avoid
getting in debt (for the high cost of a tertiary education today).
They comparison is not exact but the feel somehow is there.
I have long been struck by the disappearance of public protests in the
U.S. in the New American Century. Are we living in paradise now?
No, but police tactics has essentially silenced domestic dissent.
See below for an article on this topic.
As for the question of whether a march of a thousand Pakistanis
protesting against U.S. drone strikes in their country would even get
front page coverage in the U.S., I googled Imran Khan's march,
which according to the UK Guardians drew thousands.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/07/pakistanis-rally-against-us-drone-strikes
Thousands turned out on the road outside Dera Ismail Khan to cheer
on Khan and the convoy of supporters and accompanying media, which
stretched to a length of nine miles. Supporters packed into vehicles
waved flags for Khan's political group and chanted: "We want peace."
Few US media outlets appear on the front page of google's search
results. The NYT has an article on page 11 citing only hundreds for
the march.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/world/asia/americans-join-pakistan-convoy-to-protest-drone-strikes.html?_r=0
Hundreds of political activists, led by the opposition politician
Imran Khan and accompanied by 32 American peace activists, departed
Pakistan's capital on Saturday in a convoy headed toward the
country's tribal regions to protest American drone strikes.
I think drew's (rhetorical) questions were meant to point out a fact:
the fact that there is a general media blackout on the level of anger
Obama's illegal drone strikes in Pakistan in the last few years have
generated.
The truth, free speech has effectively been silenced in the New
American Century. The best evidence is the surprising whimpering out
of the Occupy Movement. And some of reasons can be found in the
article attached below.
lo yeeOn
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The criminalization of political dissent in America
14 May 2013
In a series of prosecutions, precedents are being established for the
criminalization of political dissent in America.
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/05/14/pers-m14.html
Last week, Massachusetts high school student Cameron D'Ambrosio was
arrested and charged under "terrorism" laws merely for posting lyrics
on Facebook that make reference to the Boston Marathon bombings. He
faces 20 years in prison. A string of similar "terror" prosecutions
around the country take aim at the First Amendment protection of free
speech and political expression.
The authorities have already branded select participants in Occupy
Wall Street and anti-NATO protests as "terrorists". Last year,
heavily-armed "domestic terrorism" commandos raided Occupy Wall Street
protesters' homes in Washington and Oregon, using battering rams and
stun grenades. The commandos were authorized to seize all
"anti-government or anarchist literature or material."
As with freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, also guaranteed under
the First Amendment, has not been officially repealed. The reality,
however, is that political assembly is already a semi-criminal
activity in America. Political protests are routinely met with vastly
disproportionate police mobilizations, confinement to oxymoronic "free
speech zones", "kettling" (in which protesters are surrounded and
forcibly moved in one direction or prevented from leaving an area),
beatings, tear gas, pepper spray, stun grenades or rubber bullets. The
standard government response to a political protest is a massive show
of force, complete with police snipers on rooftops.
The drive towards the establishment of an American police state,
initiated under the Bush administration, has shifted into high gear
under Obama. For nearly twelve years, the phony "war on terror" has
been used as the overarching pretext for illegal imperialist war
abroad and a methodical assault on democratic rights at home. The
basic structure of authoritarian rule is now emerging into plain view.
Over the recent period, the government has vastly expanded its
warrantless surveillance of the population. The Obama administration
has constructed a massive data center in Utah big enough to store the
contents of every personal computer in the country. Already at a
government agent's fingertips--without a warrant--are all of a
person's Internet browsing activity, telephone conversations, text
messages, credit card transactions, mobile phone GPS location data,
travel itineraries, Skype and Facebook data, medical records, criminal
records, financial records and surveillance camera footage. Tens of
thousands of drones are slated to be launched over the US mainland in
the coming years, with thousands already buzzing overhead. These
high-tech aircraft are able to monitor meetings and demonstrations,
access wireless networks and record the movements of citizens. Obama's
recent appointee for the position of CIA director, John Brennan,
expressly refused at his confirmation hearings to rule out the
possibility that these drones could be armed and used for carrying out
assassinations within the US.
While schools are being shuttered and teachers fired supposedly for
lack of money, local police departments are awash in billions of
dollars of military hardware and training provided by the Department
of Homeland Security. When local police are mobilized to respond to a
political protest, they now do so in coordination with the federal
military and intelligence agencies. It is not a rarity for armored
vehicles, body armor and military equipment to be deployed.
Under the precedent set by the recent events in Boston, the
authorities now have the power to subject an entire city to a military
siege, with the population ordered to "shelter in place", while
businesses and transportation are shut down and heavily armed SWAT
teams are deployed to conduct warrantless house-to-house searches
without regard for basic rights.
The Obama administration, in concert with state and local police
departments, has sent untold numbers of anti-terror undercover spies into
domestic political parties and protest groups. In addition to
gathering information, the job of these spies is to divert, disrupt
and prevent the emergence of organized social opposition.
A person can be designated a "terrorist" on the secret, unreviewable
say-so of the president, without notice and without a trial. Under the
"material support" for terrorism laws signed into law as part of the
PATRIOT Act of 2001, a person may be jailed simply for offering
vaguely-defined "material support" to any person or group labeled as
"terrorist".
Under the National Defense Authorization Acts of 2011 and 2012, as
tested in the case of Jose Padilla, the US government asserts the
power to subject a designated "terrorist" to arbitrary arrest and
detention without trial. In the cases of Padilla and Bradley Manning,
and at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp and countless CIA "black sites"
around the world, the US government subjects alleged terrorists to
torture. Finally, in the cases of Anwar Al-Awlaki, Samir Khan and
Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki, the US government tested out its asserted power
to murder terrorists outright, even if they are US citizens.
Under these precedents, it would not be necessary to officially
suspend the Constitution in order for the US government to meet future
domestic opposition with military lockdowns, curfews, house-to-house
searches, mass arrests, torture and even assassination. With political
dissent labeled as "terrorism" or material support for terrorism,"
Congress, the president, the courts, the military, and the so-called
"free press" could continue in their present roles.
In the second half of the 20th century, US-backed dictatorships in
Argentina and Chile used the supposed struggle against "terrorism" as
a political cover for the arrest and murder of tens of thousands of
political opponents, youth, workers, intellectuals and other "enemies
of the state". As the World Socialist Web Site warned from the
outset, such is the inevitable logic of the American "war on terror".
Two essential factors are driving the trampling of democratic rights
and the shift towards authoritarian rule. The first is the massive
growth of social inequality, which in turn is driven by the historic
crisis of the world capitalist system. While it robs the population in
order to pile up ever greater and more obscene levels of private
wealth, the financial aristocracy is terrified of the emergence of
social opposition. Not from a position of strength, but out of extreme
fear and vulnerability, the billionaires look to police state
repression as a means to preserve their status, power and wealth.
Second, just as democracy is incompatible with such levels of social
inequality, it is incompatible with imperialist war. The US military
and intelligence agencies have for twelve years been wading in blood
in a drive to plunder the world's strategic resources. The dead,
wounded and displaced number in the millions.
A professional military, divorced from and hostile to the population
and resentful of civilian control, has immensely expanded its size,
resources and political power, to the point where it and its
intelligence counterpart, in league with Wall Street, dominate the
workings of the state.
The ruling class is in the advanced stage of preparations for an
inevitable confrontation with the working class. Working people must
make their own preparations, central to which is the building of a
new, revolutionary leadership. Only a conscious political struggle for
a workers' government and socialism can avert the threat of
dictatorship and establish genuine democracy and social equality.
Tom Carter
lo yeeOn
May 24, 2013, 1:37:08 AM5/24/13
to
NYC's MB telling young people to get a job as a plumber to avoid
getting into debt (for the high cost of a tertiary education today).
The comparison is not exact but the feel somehow is there.
I have long been struck by the disappearance of public protests in the
U.S. in the New American Century.
Are we living in paradise now?
No, but police tactics has essentially silenced domestic dissent.
See below for an article on this topic.
As for the question of whether a march of a thousand Pakistanis
protesting against U.S. drone strikes in their country would even get
which, according to the UK Guardian, drew thousands.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/07/pakistanis-rally-against-us-drone-strikes
Thousands turned out on the road outside Dera Ismail Khan to cheer
on Khan and the convoy of supporters and accompanying media, which
stretched to a length of nine miles. Supporters packed into vehicles
waved flags for Khan's political group and chanted: "We want peace."
results. The NYT has an article on page 11 citing only "hundreds" for
the march.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/world/asia/americans-join-pakistan-convoy-to-protest-drone-strikes.html?_r=0
Hundreds of political activists, led by the opposition politician
Imran Khan and accompanied by 32 American peace activists, departed
Pakistan's capital on Saturday in a convoy headed toward the
country's tribal regions to protest American drone strikes.
I think drew's (rhetorical) questions were meant to point out a fact:
the fact that there is a general media blackout on the level of anger
Obama's illegal drone strikes in Pakistan in the last few years have
generated.
The truth is: free speech has effectively been silenced in the New
the march.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/world/asia/americans-join-pakistan-convoy-to-protest-drone-strikes.html?_r=0
Hundreds of political activists, led by the opposition politician
Imran Khan and accompanied by 32 American peace activists, departed
Pakistan's capital on Saturday in a convoy headed toward the
country's tribal regions to protest American drone strikes.
I think drew's (rhetorical) questions were meant to point out a fact:
the fact that there is a general media blackout on the level of anger
Obama's illegal drone strikes in Pakistan in the last few years have
generated.
American Century. The best evidence is the surprising whimpering-out
of the Occupy Movement in 2012. And some of the reasons can be found
lo yeeOn
May 26, 2013, 3:09:00 AM5/26/13
to
In article <5ae9c70b-6733-4522...@pd6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
ahonkan <aho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 24, 7:58�am, acous...@panix.com (lo yeeOn) wrote:
>
><lengthy reply deleted>
>
> My point was to indicate that in each country I mentioned,
> the terrorists belonged to 'the religion of peace'. You just
> can't ignore that every single country in the world that has
> more than 10% of people practising 'the religion of peace'
> has suffered from instability and violence caused by them.
> What is it that causes the practitioners to be so totally
> brainwashed by well-paid, irrational, firebrand 'priests'
> that they want to kill large numbers of complete strangers
> in the name of their allegedly oppressed brethren living
> halfway across the world?
> The moment your religion starts ruling your life and not
> your conscience nor loyalty to the land where you live,
> you are going to have incidents like these. And there is
> exactly one religion that demands absolute, ritualistic,
> loyalty from its adherents - 'The religion of peace'.
> It is time for the moderate, liberal majority of adherents
> to reclaim their way of life from the radical clergy.
Your elaboration is a common, but quite unexamined, belief
in the West. Sometimes it is explicit, and sometimes it is
merely hinted at by our free-to-lie-and-omit press.
But let me be totally explicit here.
First, when you say 'the religion of peace', you clearly did not mean
the Maoists right? You had in mind the Muslims, right? Since there
were no Maoists in the UK or France, nor in Moscow, we can all agree
that you were talking about that one religion commonly known as Islam.
But the Maoists had just killed 17 people in the Chhattisgarh state of
India.
And according to the Wikipedia, the Maoists were officially declared
as a terrorists' organization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_India_%28Maoist%29
In 2006, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh referred to the Naxalites as
"the single biggest internal security challenge ever faced by our
country."[6][13] The Indian government, led by the United
Progressive Alliance, banned the CPI (Maoist) under the Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) as a terrorist organisation[14]
on 22 June 2009. As of June 2010, the Indian government has
identified 83 districts in nine states as "Naxal-hit".
So, you don't have to go by what I said, that terrorists have no
religious boundary.
Indeed, the Maoists are supposedly atheists.
Terrorism is just a tool.
And when you have a grievance and lack power, you fight with a knife
or just your fists - as the Chinese "boxers" or martial artists did,
believing that with righteousness on their side, their bare fists
would defeat the foreigners who trampled the Chinese left and right on
their own soil at the end of the 19th century. Of course the boxers
were naive.
Along the same vein, Menachem Begin, the late PM of Israel, who was
also not a Muslim, participated in bombing of some British hotels in
Palestine.
Terrorism is not marked by religion - especially not a religion called
the `religion of peace' as some of you have cited.
And when you are talking about the "religion of peace" being the
common denominator of all these terrorist activities in the U.S., in
Europe, in India, and in Bali, you are pointing your finger at the
Muslims and the Muslims only.
But as I pointed out, India has many enemies: the Buddhists, the
Muslims, and the Maoists. And although I was very careful not to say
too much about the Hindus, they are in fact the reason for much of the
racial strife and social inequity in India which gives rise to the
bloodshed the innocent people of India have to face.
In fact, there has been a great deal of terrorism committed by the
Tamils against the Sri Lankans for the former's political drive for
independence. And there are certainly more than 10% of Tamils in Sri
Lanka. Yet the Tamils are Hindus. And so Hindus are capable of being
just as violent as any other kind of terrorist.
There is no point in trying to pigeon-hole terrorists into a single
religion.
It is just wilful ignorance to point a finger at the Muslims when they
are the ones who have suffered the most today.
India was smart not to get into the international hate campaign
against the Muslims that G W Bush and Tony Blair tried to mislead the
world into participating in, and that Obama, Cameron and
Sarkozy/Hollande have continued.
And I have faith in the Indian people to eventually sort out their own
problems in various parts of their country. But I reject the notion
that even the terrorism committed in India that can be attributed to
the Muslims has anything to do with the terrorism committed in the
West.
The terrorism committed in the West clearly orginates in the
U.S. government's geopolitical ambition.
The terrorism committed in India by Muslims has a long history, partly
exacerbated by British colonialism.
Just consider the terrorism against the French soldier in a Parisian
suburb today. It is a near replica of what happened in a London
suburb two to three days ago. Luckily, the French soldier is expected
to live. But it would be wilful ignorance to refuse to recognize the
link to the recent African Pivot led by Obama, Cameron, and Hollande.
The African Pivot is extremely hard on the impoverished African
countries and their people. And they were driven to "desperation",
citing Tibetan lamaism for the self-immolators who shook the world.
You see, Bush was very much hated but people in the Islamic world were
very hopeful that Bush was just an aberration of America, as Obama
came into office and told the Muslims to trust him.
They thought Obama was a breath of fresh air! But how badly were they
deceived.
After Libya and Mali, American hegemony is now unmasked even to the
Africans. Indeed, the people in that part of Africa that extends as
far as Nigeria, from which the London suspects hail, are dark-skinned
people.
(And they were not "nut cases" who attacked everyone. They even
apologized to women bystanders for the grisly crimes that they have
committed. That sound just about the kind of teaching I understand
Islam teaches. It's a religion of peace but not a religion of rolling
over for anyone who rapes their countries and destroy their homes. It
is like they say: an eye for an eye - exactly as Moses taught the
children of Israel. While I do not subscribe to either Islam or the
Old Testament of the Christian Bible simply because of Jesus Christ's
teaching - violence begets more violence, I can see where they're
coming from and they are from that 99% of the world's people today who
believe in "an eye for an eye". But for the world's good, wilful
ignorance of the origin of the sin will only bring more violence and
death to this world, for Christ's sake!)
And back to the original sin... after Libya and Mali, the reputation
of Obama and his European lap dogs, as well as the "War on Terror", is
in tatters.
It is like the story that Pastor Niemoller told about people who were
in a slumber when the Nazis came and took away their gypsie neighbors,
and they thought they were not a target of the Nazis. And when they
came again for the commies, they again thought that they were safe.
And then they came for the Jews and they were screwed.
Dark-skinned muslims in Africa are simple, decent people - they didn't
think that the War on Terror would affect them. And, for a full
decade, nothing happened to the people on the African continent. And,
as a result, of course we in the West thought that our bombs and
missiles have done the trick of winning over the religious fanatics in
the Islamic world (and we thought Jesus was wrong about the effect of
committing violence, etc.).
The West claims to be Christian; but it rubs Jesus' nose in the
dirt everyday!
Perhaps, if our governments in the West weren't so greedy and haughty,
if our governments hadn't gotten back into Africa so brazenly, maybe
the people in Africa would keep minding their own business and the
people in the West would be convinced that bombs and bullets could
really do the job of silencing the weak as our rulers intend for them.
Today, however, we have seen what happened in Benghazi, Libya
(2012/09/11), in Boston, the USA (2013/04/15), in London, the UK
(2013/5/22), and in Paris, France (2013/05/25). These incidents are
unmistakably traceable to the "War on Terror" and its bloody history
on the Muslims and the non-Muslims alike.
We, the average people in the West, can choose to believe that the
perpetrators of these crimes committed violence without a cause or
were driven to commit them as a result of pure "brainwashing" by their
preachers, or alternatively, we can start recognizing that causality
and a lack of proportionality in state-sponsored terrorism have been
responsible for pushing state-sponsored terrorism to the front of
people's consciousness, and becoming naked for all to see.
The choice is ultimately ours. We, can vote the warmongers out of
office, starting with Cameron's next election. Or we can remain the
wilfully igorant lemmings of the "War on Terror", and remain blind to
the fact that our leaders are ultimately responsible for all the harm
that has been done to the people in the West, like the soldiers in the
London and Paris terrorist acts and the runners in Boston - not to
mention the people in the Middle East, who have to face the
state-sponsored terrorism in their villages and cities everyday, for
the past decade.
And now, per Niemoller, the West is coming for Africa.
The Guardian's latest quote of what one of the perpetrators of the
London killing has said could not be more specific:
In mobile phone video footage first broadcast by ITV News, one of
the suspects was seen brandishing a cleaver and a knife. With the
body of the victim lying yards away, the man said:
"We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you. The
only reason we have done this is because Muslims are dying every
day. This British soldier is an eye for an eye, a tooth for a
tooth."
Speaking in a British accent, the man said:
"We must fight them. I apologise that women had to witness this
today. But in our land, our women have to see the same. You
people will never be safe. Remove your government, they don't
care about you.
"You think David Cameron is going to get caught in the street
when we start bussin' our guns? You think politicians are going
to die? No it's going to be the average guy, like you, and your
children. So get rid of them. Tell them to bring our troops back
so you can all live in peace."
In the footage, the man then walks away and talks to another
suspected attacker, pictures of whom were also circulating.
So, one can choose to remain wilfully ignorant or one can choose to
tell our government that the people cannot live a normal life as long
as our bombs and missiles are killing others in other parts of the
world, no matter how far!
Finally, I want to cite your original follow-up to Hazelwood's earlier
one so that we can be clear about what you said and what everybody
said:
ahonkan's follow-up [to Hazelwood - that is the "you" below refers to
Hazelwood]:
I am shocked you'd let your Obama-hatred get the better of your
sense of right and wrong and defend these nutcases. Exactly what
country did India invade that has resulted in tens of thousands of
deaths in India due to terror attacks? How about the nightclub
bombing in Bali? Massacre of Russian children by Chechen rebels?
Don't be silly. The nut cases need to be sent pronto to the heaven
they wish to attain by killing innocents of other religions.
The thread ahonkan followed up to:
From: Dave Hazelwood <fedn...@gmail.com> |-(1)+-(1)
[1] Re: Subhuman terrorist scum kill soldier | \-(1)+-(1)--(1)+-(1)
+ in machete attack in London! | | |-<2>
Date: Thu May 23 08:09:29 EDT 2013 | | \-( )-
Lines: 31 | |
On Thu, 23 May 2013 04:27:22 -0700 (PDT), Iceberg
<iceber...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 23, 7:17?am, ahonkan <ahon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 23, 12:47?am, Iceberg <iceberg.ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > This is awful, the subhumans killed a soldier in Woolwich with a
>> > machete hollering about how they'd never stop fighting us. Dave is
>> > right, we should arm citizens now.
>>
>> >http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22630303
>>
>> > A man has been killed in a machete attack and two suspects shot by
>> > police in Woolwich, south-east London.
>>
>> ? ? So much for multiculturalism. The killers looked like
>> ? ? immigrants from North Africa and the hapless victim
>> ? ? was apparently a British soldier returning to the
>> ? ? barracks. The terrorist killers shouted 'Allahu Akbar'
>> ? ? indicating that they belonged to the 'Religion of Peace'
>> ? ? that is responsible for 99.999% of all such attacks.
>
>yep! it's a Religion of Peace and anybody who disagrees deserves to be
>killed!
sure but maybe if we stop invadin there countries for NO fuckin reason
but to meddle and steal their wealth and killin there wives and kids
just perhaps they would not want to kill us? I do not condon what they
do but i understand why they do it. i guess in Obama eyes dat make me
a terrorist ? Ough oh and now he can kill me wif no due process no
trial no nothin. how is dat any dif than saddam hussein ?
The funny paragraph above was written by David Hazelwood to whom
ahonkan immediately responded by saying:
I am shocked you'd let your Obama-hatred get the better of your
sense of right and wrong and defend these nutcases. Exactly what
country did India invade that has resulted in tens of thousands of
deaths in India due to terror attacks? How about the nightclub
bombing in Bali? Massacre of Russian children by Chechen rebels?
Don't be silly. The nut cases need to be sent pronto to the heaven
they wish to attain by killing innocents of other religions.
I personally think that it would help the world to chill out if we
don't mix and match every bloody event in the world as the same kind
perpetrated by the same `religion of peace' followers. It just would!
To wind up, I shall cite ANSWER after my signature. Remember that in
Syria, except for Israel's increasing role in the regional war, most
are followers of the same `religion of peace'. And guess what?
The State Department of the U.S.A. has been setting this up since
2006.
And of course, neither Condoleezza Rice nor Hillary Clinton, who were
successive heads of the agency, were followers of this `religion of
peace'. So, chaos and murders have been sown by outsiders of this
'religion of peace'. If we want to point fingers, there is more
credibility if you point to the State Department of the U.S.! Only
the wilfully ignorant will deny that!
lo yeeOn
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Why We Oppose U.S. and Israeli intervention in Syria
Statement by ANSWER Coalition
http://www.globalresearch.ca/why-we-oppose-u-s-and-israeli-intervention-in-syria/5336263
Having overthrown the Governments in Iraq in 2003 and Libya in 2011,
the U.S. government has sought to topple the Syrian government during
the past two years. The CIA has been the coordinating agency for
massive weapons shipments from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey to armed
groups fighting to topple the Syrian government.
The conflict in Syria that began more than two years ago was fueled by
a wide range of grievances, some legitimate, some reactionary. But the
armed rebellion inside the country is today inextricably bound to
imperialism and the most reactionary regimes in the Arab world. Its
aim is to destroy a secular, nationalist government that U.S. leaders
view as an obstacle to their goal of dominating the entire Middle
East.
The United States, Britain, France, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar
have been funneling vast quantities of arms, money and supplies to the
Syrian opposition, and training thousands of anti-government fighters
in Turkey, Jordan and elsewhere. On May 5, Israel heavily bombed an
area close to the capital, Damascus.
Israeli air strikes on May 5 near Damascus (right)
http://www.answercoalition.org/national/assets/images/israeli-airstrikes-syria.jpg
Harsh economic sanctions have been imposed on Syria. The United States
and its allies have waged a worldwide campaign to isolate and demonize
the Syrian government.
Outside support has sustained the opposition, but not brought it
victory. Thus, the leaders of the U.S.-organized "National Coalition
of Opposition and Revolutionary Forces" and the "Free Syrian Army"
have been making repeated and urgent appeals for more direct
imperialist intervention, including an air war against their own
country. Those appeals have become even more urgent due to losses
suffered by the splintered opposition forces in recent weeks.
"Friends of Syria": another face of imperialism
Stepping up the imperialist-led campaign, on May 22, the so-called
"Friends of Syria" met in Amman, Jordan. Led by U.S. Secretary of
State John Kerry, the other "Friends" at the meeting were the foreign
ministers of Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan,
the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.
The open aim of the "Friends" is the overthrow of existing government
in Syria. Its concluding statement speaks of "supporting the
legitimate rights of the Syrian people" and "a new Syrian constitution
with equal rights for all".
This supposed concern for "human rights" in Syria is nothing but the
crassest cynicism.
Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE and Jordan are all police-state, absolute
monarchies, sustained in power by U.S. support. Saudi Arabia has never
had an election, women are forbidden to drive cars and public
beheadings are a frequent occurrence. Britain and France are the
former colonizing powers in the region, striving to retain their
influence today. Germany and Italy shared in the colonial division of
Africa; half the population of Libya died under Italian rule during
World War II. Turkey has long repressed the Kurdish population inside
its borders, as well as unions, leftist parties and other progressive
organizations. The Egyptian government is suppressing the opposition
as it seeks to consolidate its power.
As the dominant world power over the past 70 years, the United States
has carried out genocidal wars from Korea to Vietnam to Iraq, leaving
tens of millions dead, wounded and displaced. In addition,
U.S. military and intelligence forces have intervened hundreds of
times in countries around the world, and today the United States
maintains more than 900 military bases on every continent. Death by
U.S. drone is today a regular and terrorizing feature of life for
people in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen.
The "Friends" are in reality a criminal gang who have no concern
whatsoever for the interests of the people of Syria - or any people
anywhere, for that matter.
Say no to U.S./NATO and Israeli intervention
An international peace conference on Syria has been jointly proposed
by Russia and the United States, and is tentatively set to take place
in Geneva, Switzerland, in June. It is not clear yet whether it will
actually take place.
Regarding the proposed conference, the "Friends of Syria" statement
ended by threatening, "[U]ntil such a time as the Geneva meeting
produces a transitional government, they [the "Friends"] will further
increase their support for the opposition and take all other steps as
necessary. By "transitional government", the "Friends" mean one
absent the present leadership. In other words, until there is "regime
change", they will escalate the war.
The anti-war movement in the United States has a duty to unequivocally
oppose all forms of intervention by the United States, the other
imperialists and their clients, and to support the right of the Syrian
people to determine their own future, free from imperialist
intervention.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
My original response to ahonkan's:
Subject: All terrorists, big and small, are subhuman; ergo Obama's
subhuman. Re: Subhuman terrorist scum kill soldier in machete attack
in London!
In article <6b686176-e1c7-4269...@googlegroups.com>,
ahonkan <aho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I am shocked you'd let your Obama-hatred get the better of your sense of
>right and wrong
>and defend these nutcases. Exactly what country did India invade that
>has resulted in tens
>of thousands of deaths in India due to terror attacks? How about the
>nightclub bombing
>in Bali? Massacre of Russian children by Chechen rebels?
>Don't be silly. The nut cases need to be sent pronto to the heaven they
>wish to attain by killing innocents of other religions.
I don't know about Dave; but what is just and what is not in a killing
has become a matter of who is doing the talking.
All killing is wrong, especially of innocent people; and Dave is right
about quoting Jesus of Nazareth in many occasions.
Actually, Siddhartha Gautama also preached the same kind of thing and
he preceded Jesus by perhaps half a millennium.
And they were not saying something deep or mythical in nature. It's
just simple truth. Can we honestly believe that if we harm somebody
else deeply, we will simply be ignored?
I think the reason why we as individuals act peaceably most of the
time is because we don't want to draw people's ire that would bring us
undesired consequences. It is just a universal ethic.
The problem is rulers never pay attention to this kind of ethic when
it does not serve them and they - the succesful kind like Obama - know
how to manipulate the public to believe their nonsense.
Today, the BBC News headlines:
US President Barack Obama says his country "stands resolute with the
United Kingdom, our ally and friend, against violent extremism and
terror"
Barack Obama defends 'just war' using drones
Obama is the kind of politician the neocons needed to keep their War
current government in Syria) have not been sowing the seed of doubts
and resentment among the many Muslims who feel powerless to stop this
evil.
Don't say that peaceful protest would stop the killing of Muslims in
Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia because there is no evidence
that it would.
>
> Honestly, would you pay attention to 1,000 muslims protesting
> Western military action in Pakistan?
Without a doubt, YES.
> Would it even get front page
> attention? Not likely.
>
It would get coverage in the U.S.
Such an assertion is easily contradicted by what actually happened!
Thousands of Pakistanis rally against US drone strikes
Nine-mile convoy led by Imran Khan heads towards South Waziristan as
local officials say it will not be allowed to proceed
Associated Press in Islamabad
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 7 October 2012 05.59 EDT
Of course, we can't expect Muslims in the U.S. to organize protests to
express their grievances against these wars that kill Muslims far away
- knowing damn well what Homeland Security and the FBI would do to
them.
While all the individuals (who can't take it anymore) can do is to
seek revenge by doing retailed killing, rulers continue to kill with
impunity and in large numbers - from hundreds during biblical times to
tens of thousands in modernity, with an inexhaustible supply of bombs
Afghan children 'killed by Nato air strike in Shigal'
7 April 2013 Last updated at 16:30 ET
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22058455
Eleven children have been killed in a Nato air strike in eastern
Afghanistan, officials and witnesses say.
So, the cycle of violence just turns while western governments
continue to strain to defend the indefensible.
Why is it ok for Obama and G W Bush to view the women and children
they killed in the stealth of night in Afghanistan regularly as mere
collateral damage while it is not ok for Muslims and people who are
recent descendents of African folks to view the killing of the UK
thousand contractors to replace the NATO soldiers being withdrawn.
At first, the world, including me, was elated with Obama's election.
But after a while, we all realized that he was just a tool for the
neocons who wanted their "War on Terror" to last for decades more.
(I have never hated Obama. I used to admire him. Now I despise him
because of the Afghanistan war, Gitmo, and the extra-judicial killing
of people by drone strikes.)
Should we be at all surprised to see the string of violence that has
lying - to keep the "War on Terror" going and to keep the wound we
ahonkan <aho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 24, 7:58�am, acous...@panix.com (lo yeeOn) wrote:
>
><lengthy reply deleted>
>
> My point was to indicate that in each country I mentioned,
> the terrorists belonged to 'the religion of peace'. You just
> can't ignore that every single country in the world that has
> more than 10% of people practising 'the religion of peace'
> has suffered from instability and violence caused by them.
> What is it that causes the practitioners to be so totally
> brainwashed by well-paid, irrational, firebrand 'priests'
> that they want to kill large numbers of complete strangers
> in the name of their allegedly oppressed brethren living
> halfway across the world?
> The moment your religion starts ruling your life and not
> your conscience nor loyalty to the land where you live,
> you are going to have incidents like these. And there is
> exactly one religion that demands absolute, ritualistic,
> loyalty from its adherents - 'The religion of peace'.
> It is time for the moderate, liberal majority of adherents
> to reclaim their way of life from the radical clergy.
Your elaboration is a common, but quite unexamined, belief
in the West. Sometimes it is explicit, and sometimes it is
merely hinted at by our free-to-lie-and-omit press.
But let me be totally explicit here.
First, when you say 'the religion of peace', you clearly did not mean
the Maoists right? You had in mind the Muslims, right? Since there
were no Maoists in the UK or France, nor in Moscow, we can all agree
that you were talking about that one religion commonly known as Islam.
But the Maoists had just killed 17 people in the Chhattisgarh state of
India.
And according to the Wikipedia, the Maoists were officially declared
as a terrorists' organization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_India_%28Maoist%29
In 2006, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh referred to the Naxalites as
"the single biggest internal security challenge ever faced by our
country."[6][13] The Indian government, led by the United
Progressive Alliance, banned the CPI (Maoist) under the Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) as a terrorist organisation[14]
on 22 June 2009. As of June 2010, the Indian government has
identified 83 districts in nine states as "Naxal-hit".
So, you don't have to go by what I said, that terrorists have no
religious boundary.
Indeed, the Maoists are supposedly atheists.
Terrorism is just a tool.
And when you have a grievance and lack power, you fight with a knife
or just your fists - as the Chinese "boxers" or martial artists did,
believing that with righteousness on their side, their bare fists
would defeat the foreigners who trampled the Chinese left and right on
their own soil at the end of the 19th century. Of course the boxers
were naive.
Along the same vein, Menachem Begin, the late PM of Israel, who was
also not a Muslim, participated in bombing of some British hotels in
Palestine.
Terrorism is not marked by religion - especially not a religion called
the `religion of peace' as some of you have cited.
And when you are talking about the "religion of peace" being the
common denominator of all these terrorist activities in the U.S., in
Europe, in India, and in Bali, you are pointing your finger at the
Muslims and the Muslims only.
But as I pointed out, India has many enemies: the Buddhists, the
Muslims, and the Maoists. And although I was very careful not to say
too much about the Hindus, they are in fact the reason for much of the
racial strife and social inequity in India which gives rise to the
bloodshed the innocent people of India have to face.
In fact, there has been a great deal of terrorism committed by the
Tamils against the Sri Lankans for the former's political drive for
independence. And there are certainly more than 10% of Tamils in Sri
Lanka. Yet the Tamils are Hindus. And so Hindus are capable of being
just as violent as any other kind of terrorist.
There is no point in trying to pigeon-hole terrorists into a single
religion.
It is just wilful ignorance to point a finger at the Muslims when they
are the ones who have suffered the most today.
India was smart not to get into the international hate campaign
against the Muslims that G W Bush and Tony Blair tried to mislead the
world into participating in, and that Obama, Cameron and
Sarkozy/Hollande have continued.
And I have faith in the Indian people to eventually sort out their own
problems in various parts of their country. But I reject the notion
that even the terrorism committed in India that can be attributed to
the Muslims has anything to do with the terrorism committed in the
West.
The terrorism committed in the West clearly orginates in the
U.S. government's geopolitical ambition.
The terrorism committed in India by Muslims has a long history, partly
exacerbated by British colonialism.
Just consider the terrorism against the French soldier in a Parisian
suburb today. It is a near replica of what happened in a London
suburb two to three days ago. Luckily, the French soldier is expected
to live. But it would be wilful ignorance to refuse to recognize the
link to the recent African Pivot led by Obama, Cameron, and Hollande.
The African Pivot is extremely hard on the impoverished African
countries and their people. And they were driven to "desperation",
citing Tibetan lamaism for the self-immolators who shook the world.
You see, Bush was very much hated but people in the Islamic world were
very hopeful that Bush was just an aberration of America, as Obama
came into office and told the Muslims to trust him.
They thought Obama was a breath of fresh air! But how badly were they
deceived.
After Libya and Mali, American hegemony is now unmasked even to the
Africans. Indeed, the people in that part of Africa that extends as
far as Nigeria, from which the London suspects hail, are dark-skinned
people.
(And they were not "nut cases" who attacked everyone. They even
apologized to women bystanders for the grisly crimes that they have
committed. That sound just about the kind of teaching I understand
Islam teaches. It's a religion of peace but not a religion of rolling
over for anyone who rapes their countries and destroy their homes. It
is like they say: an eye for an eye - exactly as Moses taught the
children of Israel. While I do not subscribe to either Islam or the
Old Testament of the Christian Bible simply because of Jesus Christ's
teaching - violence begets more violence, I can see where they're
coming from and they are from that 99% of the world's people today who
believe in "an eye for an eye". But for the world's good, wilful
ignorance of the origin of the sin will only bring more violence and
death to this world, for Christ's sake!)
And back to the original sin... after Libya and Mali, the reputation
of Obama and his European lap dogs, as well as the "War on Terror", is
in tatters.
It is like the story that Pastor Niemoller told about people who were
in a slumber when the Nazis came and took away their gypsie neighbors,
and they thought they were not a target of the Nazis. And when they
came again for the commies, they again thought that they were safe.
And then they came for the Jews and they were screwed.
Dark-skinned muslims in Africa are simple, decent people - they didn't
think that the War on Terror would affect them. And, for a full
decade, nothing happened to the people on the African continent. And,
as a result, of course we in the West thought that our bombs and
missiles have done the trick of winning over the religious fanatics in
the Islamic world (and we thought Jesus was wrong about the effect of
committing violence, etc.).
The West claims to be Christian; but it rubs Jesus' nose in the
dirt everyday!
Perhaps, if our governments in the West weren't so greedy and haughty,
if our governments hadn't gotten back into Africa so brazenly, maybe
the people in Africa would keep minding their own business and the
people in the West would be convinced that bombs and bullets could
really do the job of silencing the weak as our rulers intend for them.
Today, however, we have seen what happened in Benghazi, Libya
(2012/09/11), in Boston, the USA (2013/04/15), in London, the UK
(2013/5/22), and in Paris, France (2013/05/25). These incidents are
unmistakably traceable to the "War on Terror" and its bloody history
on the Muslims and the non-Muslims alike.
We, the average people in the West, can choose to believe that the
perpetrators of these crimes committed violence without a cause or
were driven to commit them as a result of pure "brainwashing" by their
preachers, or alternatively, we can start recognizing that causality
and a lack of proportionality in state-sponsored terrorism have been
responsible for pushing state-sponsored terrorism to the front of
people's consciousness, and becoming naked for all to see.
The choice is ultimately ours. We, can vote the warmongers out of
office, starting with Cameron's next election. Or we can remain the
wilfully igorant lemmings of the "War on Terror", and remain blind to
the fact that our leaders are ultimately responsible for all the harm
that has been done to the people in the West, like the soldiers in the
London and Paris terrorist acts and the runners in Boston - not to
mention the people in the Middle East, who have to face the
state-sponsored terrorism in their villages and cities everyday, for
the past decade.
And now, per Niemoller, the West is coming for Africa.
The Guardian's latest quote of what one of the perpetrators of the
London killing has said could not be more specific:
In mobile phone video footage first broadcast by ITV News, one of
the suspects was seen brandishing a cleaver and a knife. With the
body of the victim lying yards away, the man said:
"We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you. The
only reason we have done this is because Muslims are dying every
day. This British soldier is an eye for an eye, a tooth for a
tooth."
Speaking in a British accent, the man said:
"We must fight them. I apologise that women had to witness this
today. But in our land, our women have to see the same. You
people will never be safe. Remove your government, they don't
care about you.
"You think David Cameron is going to get caught in the street
when we start bussin' our guns? You think politicians are going
to die? No it's going to be the average guy, like you, and your
children. So get rid of them. Tell them to bring our troops back
so you can all live in peace."
In the footage, the man then walks away and talks to another
suspected attacker, pictures of whom were also circulating.
So, one can choose to remain wilfully ignorant or one can choose to
tell our government that the people cannot live a normal life as long
as our bombs and missiles are killing others in other parts of the
world, no matter how far!
Finally, I want to cite your original follow-up to Hazelwood's earlier
one so that we can be clear about what you said and what everybody
said:
ahonkan's follow-up [to Hazelwood - that is the "you" below refers to
Hazelwood]:
I am shocked you'd let your Obama-hatred get the better of your
sense of right and wrong and defend these nutcases. Exactly what
country did India invade that has resulted in tens of thousands of
deaths in India due to terror attacks? How about the nightclub
bombing in Bali? Massacre of Russian children by Chechen rebels?
Don't be silly. The nut cases need to be sent pronto to the heaven
they wish to attain by killing innocents of other religions.
From: Dave Hazelwood <fedn...@gmail.com> |-(1)+-(1)
[1] Re: Subhuman terrorist scum kill soldier | \-(1)+-(1)--(1)+-(1)
+ in machete attack in London! | | |-<2>
Date: Thu May 23 08:09:29 EDT 2013 | | \-( )-
Lines: 31 | |
On Thu, 23 May 2013 04:27:22 -0700 (PDT), Iceberg
<iceber...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 23, 7:17?am, ahonkan <ahon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 23, 12:47?am, Iceberg <iceberg.ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > This is awful, the subhumans killed a soldier in Woolwich with a
>> > machete hollering about how they'd never stop fighting us. Dave is
>> > right, we should arm citizens now.
>>
>> >http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22630303
>>
>> > A man has been killed in a machete attack and two suspects shot by
>> > police in Woolwich, south-east London.
>>
>> ? ? So much for multiculturalism. The killers looked like
>> ? ? immigrants from North Africa and the hapless victim
>> ? ? was apparently a British soldier returning to the
>> ? ? barracks. The terrorist killers shouted 'Allahu Akbar'
>> ? ? indicating that they belonged to the 'Religion of Peace'
>> ? ? that is responsible for 99.999% of all such attacks.
>
>yep! it's a Religion of Peace and anybody who disagrees deserves to be
>killed!
sure but maybe if we stop invadin there countries for NO fuckin reason
but to meddle and steal their wealth and killin there wives and kids
just perhaps they would not want to kill us? I do not condon what they
do but i understand why they do it. i guess in Obama eyes dat make me
a terrorist ? Ough oh and now he can kill me wif no due process no
trial no nothin. how is dat any dif than saddam hussein ?
ahonkan immediately responded by saying:
I am shocked you'd let your Obama-hatred get the better of your
sense of right and wrong and defend these nutcases. Exactly what
country did India invade that has resulted in tens of thousands of
deaths in India due to terror attacks? How about the nightclub
bombing in Bali? Massacre of Russian children by Chechen rebels?
Don't be silly. The nut cases need to be sent pronto to the heaven
they wish to attain by killing innocents of other religions.
don't mix and match every bloody event in the world as the same kind
perpetrated by the same `religion of peace' followers. It just would!
To wind up, I shall cite ANSWER after my signature. Remember that in
Syria, except for Israel's increasing role in the regional war, most
are followers of the same `religion of peace'. And guess what?
The State Department of the U.S.A. has been setting this up since
2006.
And of course, neither Condoleezza Rice nor Hillary Clinton, who were
successive heads of the agency, were followers of this `religion of
peace'. So, chaos and murders have been sown by outsiders of this
'religion of peace'. If we want to point fingers, there is more
credibility if you point to the State Department of the U.S.! Only
the wilfully ignorant will deny that!
lo yeeOn
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Why We Oppose U.S. and Israeli intervention in Syria
Statement by ANSWER Coalition
http://www.globalresearch.ca/why-we-oppose-u-s-and-israeli-intervention-in-syria/5336263
Having overthrown the Governments in Iraq in 2003 and Libya in 2011,
the U.S. government has sought to topple the Syrian government during
the past two years. The CIA has been the coordinating agency for
massive weapons shipments from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey to armed
groups fighting to topple the Syrian government.
The conflict in Syria that began more than two years ago was fueled by
a wide range of grievances, some legitimate, some reactionary. But the
armed rebellion inside the country is today inextricably bound to
imperialism and the most reactionary regimes in the Arab world. Its
aim is to destroy a secular, nationalist government that U.S. leaders
view as an obstacle to their goal of dominating the entire Middle
East.
The United States, Britain, France, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar
have been funneling vast quantities of arms, money and supplies to the
Syrian opposition, and training thousands of anti-government fighters
in Turkey, Jordan and elsewhere. On May 5, Israel heavily bombed an
area close to the capital, Damascus.
Israeli air strikes on May 5 near Damascus (right)
http://www.answercoalition.org/national/assets/images/israeli-airstrikes-syria.jpg
Harsh economic sanctions have been imposed on Syria. The United States
and its allies have waged a worldwide campaign to isolate and demonize
the Syrian government.
Outside support has sustained the opposition, but not brought it
victory. Thus, the leaders of the U.S.-organized "National Coalition
of Opposition and Revolutionary Forces" and the "Free Syrian Army"
have been making repeated and urgent appeals for more direct
imperialist intervention, including an air war against their own
country. Those appeals have become even more urgent due to losses
suffered by the splintered opposition forces in recent weeks.
"Friends of Syria": another face of imperialism
Stepping up the imperialist-led campaign, on May 22, the so-called
"Friends of Syria" met in Amman, Jordan. Led by U.S. Secretary of
State John Kerry, the other "Friends" at the meeting were the foreign
ministers of Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan,
the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.
The open aim of the "Friends" is the overthrow of existing government
in Syria. Its concluding statement speaks of "supporting the
legitimate rights of the Syrian people" and "a new Syrian constitution
with equal rights for all".
This supposed concern for "human rights" in Syria is nothing but the
crassest cynicism.
Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE and Jordan are all police-state, absolute
monarchies, sustained in power by U.S. support. Saudi Arabia has never
had an election, women are forbidden to drive cars and public
beheadings are a frequent occurrence. Britain and France are the
former colonizing powers in the region, striving to retain their
influence today. Germany and Italy shared in the colonial division of
Africa; half the population of Libya died under Italian rule during
World War II. Turkey has long repressed the Kurdish population inside
its borders, as well as unions, leftist parties and other progressive
organizations. The Egyptian government is suppressing the opposition
as it seeks to consolidate its power.
As the dominant world power over the past 70 years, the United States
has carried out genocidal wars from Korea to Vietnam to Iraq, leaving
tens of millions dead, wounded and displaced. In addition,
U.S. military and intelligence forces have intervened hundreds of
times in countries around the world, and today the United States
maintains more than 900 military bases on every continent. Death by
U.S. drone is today a regular and terrorizing feature of life for
people in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen.
The "Friends" are in reality a criminal gang who have no concern
whatsoever for the interests of the people of Syria - or any people
anywhere, for that matter.
Say no to U.S./NATO and Israeli intervention
An international peace conference on Syria has been jointly proposed
by Russia and the United States, and is tentatively set to take place
in Geneva, Switzerland, in June. It is not clear yet whether it will
actually take place.
Regarding the proposed conference, the "Friends of Syria" statement
ended by threatening, "[U]ntil such a time as the Geneva meeting
produces a transitional government, they [the "Friends"] will further
increase their support for the opposition and take all other steps as
necessary. By "transitional government", the "Friends" mean one
absent the present leadership. In other words, until there is "regime
change", they will escalate the war.
The anti-war movement in the United States has a duty to unequivocally
oppose all forms of intervention by the United States, the other
imperialists and their clients, and to support the right of the Syrian
people to determine their own future, free from imperialist
intervention.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
My original response to ahonkan's:
Subject: All terrorists, big and small, are subhuman; ergo Obama's
subhuman. Re: Subhuman terrorist scum kill soldier in machete attack
in London!
In article <6b686176-e1c7-4269...@googlegroups.com>,
ahonkan <aho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I am shocked you'd let your Obama-hatred get the better of your sense of
>right and wrong
>and defend these nutcases. Exactly what country did India invade that
>has resulted in tens
>of thousands of deaths in India due to terror attacks? How about the
>nightclub bombing
>in Bali? Massacre of Russian children by Chechen rebels?
>Don't be silly. The nut cases need to be sent pronto to the heaven they
>wish to attain by killing innocents of other religions.
I don't know about Dave; but what is just and what is not in a killing
has become a matter of who is doing the talking.
All killing is wrong, especially of innocent people; and Dave is right
about quoting Jesus of Nazareth in many occasions.
Actually, Siddhartha Gautama also preached the same kind of thing and
he preceded Jesus by perhaps half a millennium.
And they were not saying something deep or mythical in nature. It's
just simple truth. Can we honestly believe that if we harm somebody
else deeply, we will simply be ignored?
I think the reason why we as individuals act peaceably most of the
time is because we don't want to draw people's ire that would bring us
The problem is rulers never pay attention to this kind of ethic when
it does not serve them and they - the succesful kind like Obama - know
how to manipulate the public to believe their nonsense.
Today, the BBC News headlines:
US President Barack Obama says his country "stands resolute with the
United Kingdom, our ally and friend, against violent extremism and
terror"
Barack Obama defends 'just war' using drones
on Terror alive for years and years to come, ignoring the toll it is
exerting on those who are gravely affected.
It would be indeed naive to think that Gitmo, drone strikes, the air
raids in Afghan villages, and the active engagement in regime change
in other countries (including the deployment of US troops withdrawn
from Iraq to Jordan to help out the logistics in tearing down the
exerting on those who are gravely affected.
It would be indeed naive to think that Gitmo, drone strikes, the air
raids in Afghan villages, and the active engagement in regime change
in other countries (including the deployment of US troops withdrawn
current government in Syria) have not been sowing the seed of doubts
and resentment among the many Muslims who feel powerless to stop this
evil.
Don't say that peaceful protest would stop the killing of Muslims in
Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia because there is no evidence
that it would.
>
> Honestly, would you pay attention to 1,000 muslims protesting
> Western military action in Pakistan?
Without a doubt, YES.
> Would it even get front page
> attention? Not likely.
>
It would get coverage in the U.S.
Such an assertion is easily contradicted by what actually happened!
Thousands of Pakistanis rally against US drone strikes
Nine-mile convoy led by Imran Khan heads towards South Waziristan as
local officials say it will not be allowed to proceed
Associated Press in Islamabad
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 7 October 2012 05.59 EDT
Of course, we can't expect Muslims in the U.S. to organize protests to
express their grievances against these wars that kill Muslims far away
- knowing damn well what Homeland Security and the FBI would do to
them.
While all the individuals (who can't take it anymore) can do is to
seek revenge by doing retailed killing, rulers continue to kill with
impunity and in large numbers - from hundreds during biblical times to
and bullets. Nothing is new.
But people who jump out and condemn a domestic incident of murder
often forget or ignore two things: causality and proportionality.
Causality is exactly what Dave was talking about when he said he
understood why.
It is ridiculous to be taking three full years to withdraw from
Afghanistan (begin of 2012 - end of 2014) - it is a joke. As we are
inching forward with our withdrawals, suicide bombers or IED were
killing US-led NATO personnels as well as foreign "civilians" - who
are nothing but spies or mercenaries. Remember the young American
State Department employee named Anne Smedinghoff who was killed
But people who jump out and condemn a domestic incident of murder
often forget or ignore two things: causality and proportionality.
Causality is exactly what Dave was talking about when he said he
understood why.
It is ridiculous to be taking three full years to withdraw from
Afghanistan (begin of 2012 - end of 2014) - it is a joke. As we are
inching forward with our withdrawals, suicide bombers or IED were
killing US-led NATO personnels as well as foreign "civilians" - who
are nothing but spies or mercenaries. Remember the young American
recently in Afghanistan?
Afghanistan bomb kills Nato personnel in Zabul
6 April 2013 Last updated at 15:12 ET
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22051858
A bomb in Afghanistan's southern Zabul province has killed five
Americans - three soldiers and two civilians serving with the
Nato-led forces - and an Afghan doctor.
One of the two "civilians" is Anne Smedinghoff, 25 of the State
Department.
. . .
US Secretary of State John Kerry paid special tribute to a state
department foreign service officer, who was one of those killed.
He said he had met the officer when she was assigned to support him
on his recent visit to Afghanistan.
And the next day, the news from Afghanistan was our turn of killing -
it was a familiar pattern of revenge killing and a form of retribution
meant to warn the Afghan people not to mess with the people who we
sent there to occupy their country.
Afghanistan bomb kills Nato personnel in Zabul
6 April 2013 Last updated at 15:12 ET
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22051858
A bomb in Afghanistan's southern Zabul province has killed five
Americans - three soldiers and two civilians serving with the
Nato-led forces - and an Afghan doctor.
One of the two "civilians" is Anne Smedinghoff, 25 of the State
Department.
. . .
US Secretary of State John Kerry paid special tribute to a state
department foreign service officer, who was one of those killed.
He said he had met the officer when she was assigned to support him
on his recent visit to Afghanistan.
And the next day, the news from Afghanistan was our turn of killing -
it was a familiar pattern of revenge killing and a form of retribution
meant to warn the Afghan people not to mess with the people who we
Afghan children 'killed by Nato air strike in Shigal'
7 April 2013 Last updated at 16:30 ET
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22058455
Eleven children have been killed in a Nato air strike in eastern
Afghanistan, officials and witnesses say.
So, the cycle of violence just turns while western governments
continue to strain to defend the indefensible.
Why is it ok for Obama and G W Bush to view the women and children
they killed in the stealth of night in Afghanistan regularly as mere
collateral damage while it is not ok for Muslims and people who are
soldier the same way?
Why shouldn't we start realizing that the observation that violence
begets more violence is a universal process, as the wise men have
taught us a long time ago?
But these wise men didn't even realize the shock'n awe aspect of
violence. We even resorted to mass deception to justify our massive
Why shouldn't we start realizing that the observation that violence
begets more violence is a universal process, as the wise men have
taught us a long time ago?
But these wise men didn't even realize the shock'n awe aspect of
violence against the weak.
So, whatever wrong some ragtag Muslim groups have done to us in one
day and without any prospect of repeating the act, we are exacting
decades of devastation and killing against all those innocent men and
women and children in the Middle East in the name of a "Just War"!
That is not proportionality.
And it has never been a question of achieving the stated goal of
defeating terrorism since you cannot defeat terrorism by wielding
terrorism, not to mention wielding a ten zillion ton terrorism against
your enemies who you cannot even identify.
Of course fighting terrorism has always been a joke! Even if the FBI
or other domestic defense agencies were asleep when the WTC attacks
happened, the perpetrators were dead. They were as the FBI told us,
cells.
I don't know what school our leaders went to that tell them that they
could defeat terrorism this way!
This brings to the terrorism Mr. "ahonkan" apparently was referring to
that has cost untold number of lives in India. India has had a long
history of sectarian strife between Muslims and Hindus. Not even the
So, whatever wrong some ragtag Muslim groups have done to us in one
day and without any prospect of repeating the act, we are exacting
decades of devastation and killing against all those innocent men and
women and children in the Middle East in the name of a "Just War"!
That is not proportionality.
And it has never been a question of achieving the stated goal of
defeating terrorism since you cannot defeat terrorism by wielding
terrorism, not to mention wielding a ten zillion ton terrorism against
your enemies who you cannot even identify.
Of course fighting terrorism has always been a joke! Even if the FBI
or other domestic defense agencies were asleep when the WTC attacks
happened, the perpetrators were dead. They were as the FBI told us,
cells.
I don't know what school our leaders went to that tell them that they
could defeat terrorism this way!
This brings to the terrorism Mr. "ahonkan" apparently was referring to
that has cost untold number of lives in India. India has had a long
greatly revered Mahatma Gandhi was able to brought peace between them.
And they continue to fight over Kashmir.
So, while I think India has been smart enough not to get into the "War
on Terror" adventure of the West, India does have a history of violent
engagements with Pakistan that does not require her to have "invaded"
another country to incur the terrorism she suffered.
I'm very sorry about the deep-seated conflict between Pakistan and
India. But cycle of violence turns and turns between these two
countries - and it does not require India to invade a country far away
like the U.S. to see blood flowing on her own soil.
And it is not fair to simply single out the Muslims either, just
because there is a long standing conflict between Pakistan and India.
I am thinking of the fact that India has also suffered much bloodshed
from the conflict between the Buddhists who have held power in Sri
Lanka and India's own support of the Tamils in Sri Lanka and southern
India. Isn't it true?
Therefore, the terrorism India has unfortunately suffered has little
to do with the "War on Terror" U.S. presidents have been bandying
around to justify their wars in the Middle East.
Neither does Chechnya's war with Russia have anything to do with our
And they continue to fight over Kashmir.
So, while I think India has been smart enough not to get into the "War
on Terror" adventure of the West, India does have a history of violent
engagements with Pakistan that does not require her to have "invaded"
another country to incur the terrorism she suffered.
I'm very sorry about the deep-seated conflict between Pakistan and
India. But cycle of violence turns and turns between these two
countries - and it does not require India to invade a country far away
like the U.S. to see blood flowing on her own soil.
And it is not fair to simply single out the Muslims either, just
because there is a long standing conflict between Pakistan and India.
I am thinking of the fact that India has also suffered much bloodshed
from the conflict between the Buddhists who have held power in Sri
Lanka and India's own support of the Tamils in Sri Lanka and southern
India. Isn't it true?
Therefore, the terrorism India has unfortunately suffered has little
to do with the "War on Terror" U.S. presidents have been bandying
around to justify their wars in the Middle East.
"War on Terror". Chechnya has quite a history of being oppressed by
the Russians from what I read from the Wikipedia.
The suffering of the Indian people and of the Chechens have simply
been expropriated by our government for its nefarious geopolitical
purposes.
As for Bali, who knows if it wasn't the same "black hand" which was
behind the WTC attacks? And I am talking about a possible role of
some foreign agents, exploiting a segment of the Muslim population.
As for bin Laden, our government could have easily bribed the Taliban
governemnt to shut down the camps run by bin Laden and got him handed
over to us, for a fraction of the bribe we've been spending on Karzai
from month to month, not to mention the money spent on the decade-long
war as well as the massive reconstruction money that has enriched some
American financiers like our Senator Dianne Feinstein's hubby Richard
Blum. Besides, it is not even clear by any means that the attacks on
9/11 weren't allowed to happened to stoke the public's support for G W
Bush's plan to invade Iraq.
No matter whether a war against Afghanistan is justified, an end of it
is long overdue. It is ridiculous to allow three full years to just
the Russians from what I read from the Wikipedia.
The suffering of the Indian people and of the Chechens have simply
been expropriated by our government for its nefarious geopolitical
purposes.
As for Bali, who knows if it wasn't the same "black hand" which was
behind the WTC attacks? And I am talking about a possible role of
some foreign agents, exploiting a segment of the Muslim population.
As for bin Laden, our government could have easily bribed the Taliban
governemnt to shut down the camps run by bin Laden and got him handed
over to us, for a fraction of the bribe we've been spending on Karzai
from month to month, not to mention the money spent on the decade-long
war as well as the massive reconstruction money that has enriched some
American financiers like our Senator Dianne Feinstein's hubby Richard
Blum. Besides, it is not even clear by any means that the attacks on
9/11 weren't allowed to happened to stoke the public's support for G W
Bush's plan to invade Iraq.
No matter whether a war against Afghanistan is justified, an end of it
draw down the troops to tens of thousands while keeping at least nine
huge FOBs, including Bagram, in the country, and paying over a hundred
thousand contractors to replace the NATO soldiers being withdrawn.
At first, the world, including me, was elated with Obama's election.
But after a while, we all realized that he was just a tool for the
neocons who wanted their "War on Terror" to last for decades more.
(I have never hated Obama. I used to admire him. Now I despise him
because of the Afghanistan war, Gitmo, and the extra-judicial killing
of people by drone strikes.)
transpired in response to our government's behavior toward Muslims?
*** 2012/09/11 in Benghazi, Libya
*** 2013/04/15 in Boston, U.S.A.
*** 2013/05/22 in Woolwich in the U.K
(Notice that Africa has now been radicalized since the NATO
destruction of Libya and the French invasion of Mali. So, not
surprisingly, the latest in Woolwich showed someone with African
features talking to a woman about "an eye for an eye". Do we even
have to ask what was done in Africa to cause the radicalization of
a few dark-skinned people in England today then?)
It is true that the Muslims collectively have a problem. Despite
being taken advantage of like this, they remain terribly divided and
*** 2012/09/11 in Benghazi, Libya
*** 2013/04/15 in Boston, U.S.A.
*** 2013/05/22 in Woolwich in the U.K
(Notice that Africa has now been radicalized since the NATO
destruction of Libya and the French invasion of Mali. So, not
surprisingly, the latest in Woolwich showed someone with African
features talking to a woman about "an eye for an eye". Do we even
have to ask what was done in Africa to cause the radicalization of
a few dark-skinned people in England today then?)
It is true that the Muslims collectively have a problem. Despite
impotent to do anything to defend themselves. So, the frustrated
individuals resorted to retail violence. It is futile!
The Sheiks and Princes and Kings from the Gulf States are exactly what
the U.S. and U.K. want - not secular states like Libya, Syria, and the
former Iraq! Those secular states were too disobedient while the oil
individuals resorted to retail violence. It is futile!
The Sheiks and Princes and Kings from the Gulf States are exactly what
the U.S. and U.K. want - not secular states like Libya, Syria, and the
Sheiks always need our protection! The losers are then the people of
those states - the Muslims.
But don't say that nothing caused them to do what they did. In every
death they have directly caused, the countries in the West like the
U.S. and the U.K. have a bloody hand behind it. Violence begets more
violence. A country with our might could easily break the cycle of
violence. But it does not. It continues to resort to lying - massive
those states - the Muslims.
But don't say that nothing caused them to do what they did. In every
death they have directly caused, the countries in the West like the
U.S. and the U.K. have a bloody hand behind it. Violence begets more
violence. A country with our might could easily break the cycle of
lying - to keep the "War on Terror" going and to keep the wound we
lo yeeOn
May 26, 2013, 3:41:56 AM5/26/13
to
In article <e2fd90ba-15f5-427b...@hc4g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
trr <jsm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On May 24, 6:46�am, Dave Hazelwood <fedna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> MILLIONS !
>
>No Christians haven't. They don't kill someone and say it is in the
>name of Jesus. (Jesus Akbar or something like that)
Errrh, maybe. But I haven't heard the press report that Muslims say
"Muhammed Akbar" either - just "Allahu Akbar". There is probably a
reason. In Islam, they put Jesus as one of the prophets - not even as
great a prophet as Muhammed. But the comparison would be more apt if
we talk about the presence or absence of "Muhammed Akbar" on the
Muslim side and "Jesus Akbar" on the Christian side.
On the other hand, wars continue to be waged in Christ's name through
the centuries, no matter who the enemies are. Have you heard
"Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition"?
According to the Wikipedia:
"Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition" is an American patriotic
song written by Frank Loesser and published as sheet music in 1942
by Famous Music Corp. The song was a response to the attack on Pearl
Harbor that marked United States involvement in World War II.
The song describes a chaplain ("sky pilot") being with some fighting
men who are under attack from an enemy. He is asked to say a prayer
for the men who were engaged in firing at the oncoming planes. The
chaplain puts down his Bible, mans one of the ship's gun turrets and
begins firing back, saying, "Praise the Lord and pass the
ammunition".
Like Dave said, wars have been fought by "Christians" and they would
say "Hallelujah" in unison when a target is struck - that is just the
nature of war: you want to kill all your enemies and go home. To me,
"Allahu Akbar" or "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition" all mean
death for somebody in war-like circumstances.
War has no winners; but our rulers do not have to drag this out.
Without Obama/Cameron/Hollande's African Pivot, the people of Africa
would not have been so badly affected and, in turn, there would not be
so much blowback in the West.
lo yeeOn
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Terrorism knows no religious boundary Re: All terrorists, big
and small, are subhuman; ergo Obama's subhuman... Re: Subhuman
>> Why? Because of POLITICIANS !
>
>Yes, they say kill for Black gold (but don't say that right out).
>
>>
>> The same is true of Islam !
>>
>> I remember afte 911 lots of media were asking "why do they hate us so
>> much" ?
>>
>> All I could do was LAUGH !!!!- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
trr <jsm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On May 24, 6:46�am, Dave Hazelwood <fedna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 May 2013 23:01:35 -0700 (PDT), ahonkan <ahon...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On May 24, 7:58�am, acous...@panix.com (lo yeeOn) wrote:
>>
>> ><lengthy reply deleted>
>>
>> > � �My point was to indicate that in each country I mentioned,
>> > � �the terrorists belonged to 'the religion of peace'. You just
>> > � �can't ignore that every single country in the world that has
>> > � �more than 10% of people practising 'the religion of peace'
>> > � �has suffered from instability and violence caused by them.
>> > � �What is it that causes the practitioners to be so totally
>> > � �brainwashed by well-paid, irrational, firebrand 'priests'
>> > � �that they want to kill large numbers of complete strangers
>> > � �in the name of their allegedly oppressed brethren living
>> > � �halfway across the world?
>> > � �The moment your religion starts ruling your life and not
>> > � �your conscience nor loyalty to the land where you live,
>> > � �you are going to have incidents like these. And there is
>> > � �exactly one religion that demands absolute, ritualistic,
>> > � �loyalty from its adherents - 'The religion of peace'.
>> > � �It is time for the moderate, liberal majority of adherents
>> > � �to reclaim their way of life from the radical clergy.
>>
>> Christianity is also a Religion of peace and we have killed fucking
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On May 24, 7:58�am, acous...@panix.com (lo yeeOn) wrote:
>>
>> ><lengthy reply deleted>
>>
>> > � �My point was to indicate that in each country I mentioned,
>> > � �the terrorists belonged to 'the religion of peace'. You just
>> > � �can't ignore that every single country in the world that has
>> > � �more than 10% of people practising 'the religion of peace'
>> > � �has suffered from instability and violence caused by them.
>> > � �What is it that causes the practitioners to be so totally
>> > � �brainwashed by well-paid, irrational, firebrand 'priests'
>> > � �that they want to kill large numbers of complete strangers
>> > � �in the name of their allegedly oppressed brethren living
>> > � �halfway across the world?
>> > � �The moment your religion starts ruling your life and not
>> > � �your conscience nor loyalty to the land where you live,
>> > � �you are going to have incidents like these. And there is
>> > � �exactly one religion that demands absolute, ritualistic,
>> > � �loyalty from its adherents - 'The religion of peace'.
>> > � �It is time for the moderate, liberal majority of adherents
>> > � �to reclaim their way of life from the radical clergy.
>>
>> MILLIONS !
>
>No Christians haven't. They don't kill someone and say it is in the
>name of Jesus. (Jesus Akbar or something like that)
Errrh, maybe. But I haven't heard the press report that Muslims say
"Muhammed Akbar" either - just "Allahu Akbar". There is probably a
reason. In Islam, they put Jesus as one of the prophets - not even as
great a prophet as Muhammed. But the comparison would be more apt if
we talk about the presence or absence of "Muhammed Akbar" on the
Muslim side and "Jesus Akbar" on the Christian side.
On the other hand, wars continue to be waged in Christ's name through
the centuries, no matter who the enemies are. Have you heard
"Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition"?
According to the Wikipedia:
"Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition" is an American patriotic
song written by Frank Loesser and published as sheet music in 1942
by Famous Music Corp. The song was a response to the attack on Pearl
Harbor that marked United States involvement in World War II.
The song describes a chaplain ("sky pilot") being with some fighting
men who are under attack from an enemy. He is asked to say a prayer
for the men who were engaged in firing at the oncoming planes. The
chaplain puts down his Bible, mans one of the ship's gun turrets and
begins firing back, saying, "Praise the Lord and pass the
ammunition".
Like Dave said, wars have been fought by "Christians" and they would
say "Hallelujah" in unison when a target is struck - that is just the
nature of war: you want to kill all your enemies and go home. To me,
"Allahu Akbar" or "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition" all mean
death for somebody in war-like circumstances.
War has no winners; but our rulers do not have to drag this out.
Without Obama/Cameron/Hollande's African Pivot, the people of Africa
would not have been so badly affected and, in turn, there would not be
so much blowback in the West.
lo yeeOn
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Terrorism knows no religious boundary Re: All terrorists, big
and small, are subhuman; ergo Obama's subhuman... Re: Subhuman
>
>Yes, they say kill for Black gold (but don't say that right out).
>
>>
>> The same is true of Islam !
>>
>> I remember afte 911 lots of media were asking "why do they hate us so
>> much" ?
>>
>> All I could do was LAUGH !!!!- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
0 new messages