babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » national news   » Shouldn't we be scared?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Shouldn't we be scared?
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 19 September 2001 07:36 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I have already posted the note below as a reply to "awaaaaay we go" but I think it needs a post of its own - it is a very basic question that we all (including our leaders) should ponder very seriously. So here it goes...

We were surprised how intelligently the terrorists organized the attack. We couldn't believe how smart, imaginative and creative they were.

Now we know this. This is a fact. Have we learnt from it?

Is it possible that people that intelligent and creative could not anticipate what is shaping up as the most predictable reaction from the US? Surely they could. Probably they were counting on it.

If this is the case, what will their next move be?

They surely made plans for the next move?

They could hit us very hard once.

Anyone in their right mind imagines that what could be done once, will never be possible again?

What will it be next time? An when? and where? How many dead? What devestation?

Suitcase nukes? Biological agents in our water supply, food, drugs? The possibilities are limitless.

While we are prancing around with our totally useless hi-tech gadgetry (there is nothing more to destroy in Afghanistan and the mountains don't care) they are organizing, preparing, carrying out the next one.

Anyone scared? I sure am.

Zatamon


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 19 September 2001 08:42 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes. I feel a real impending sense of doom and I wish to hell Canada would stay out of it (the war part) and try to be a voice of reason in this big hawk-fest.

Of course, I wish Santa was real too.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pimji
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 228

posted 19 September 2001 09:47 PM      Profile for Pimji   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
We here in Canada are in far more danger of getting smoked on the highway by a speeding car crash or getting struck by lightning than by a terrorist attack. This is not to diminish the extensive damage done by a movement of zealots.
Canada is a peaceful nation, however we are not helping to further human rights by producing weapons or parts for weapons to be used in violent conflict.
There are vast amounts of people from generations who have come to Canada to whom bombings and killing where considered "normal".
War is bug business. There are billions of (tax) dollars to be made as well as careers and history. The military industrial complex is the largest business on the planet. The lobby groups are well funded and have politicians in their pocket. However
we do have power. Most choose not to exercise this power to not buy into the demands placed on us by those we perceive as being in power. This is what I find scary.
We do have the ability to dismantle and disarm terrorists and to try those irregardless of nationality who commit murder. The military of any nation is not about peace. They themselves are a self fulfilling prophecy. It will never be perfect but at the very least there can be progress.
The status quo has failed. If the mass population can't figure this out by the latest display of non political violence then yes we have perfect right to be scared shitless.

From: South of Ottawa | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 19 September 2001 09:49 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
War is bug business.

Excellent Freudian slip, considering that Bush is the cockroach who is going to benefit the most from this "war".


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pimji
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 228

posted 19 September 2001 10:01 PM      Profile for Pimji   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oooo this is where spell checkers aren't as good as a good ol' fashined proof read. Congrats on the 1000 mark!
From: South of Ottawa | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Wide Eyes
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1414

posted 19 September 2001 10:02 PM      Profile for Wide Eyes        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes, we should be afraid (see Inifinte Farce)
I know I am

From: a lofty perch in my basement | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ian the second
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 732

posted 19 September 2001 10:04 PM      Profile for Ian the second   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Osama bin Laden, and many other terrorist groups, quite likely have weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear bombs, biological and chemical weapons, etc. according to a UN report.

There have in the past decade been hundreds of incidents (recorded incidents) of nuclear trafficking.

In a word, YES, we should be extremely scared! I'm frankly terrified at how everyone's suddenly so in love with George Bush. This is George "Dubya" Bush, remember, everybody?!!?? The moron who was elected by the Supreme Court!? Now he's dragging the country into a potential Dubya Dubya Three!

On the other hand, terrorism experts have been well aware of the possibilities of the events of last Tuesday for years, but airline security was simply never adequately prepared for them.


..?
<
=

Ian


From: Toronto City, Toronto | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
R. J. Dunnill
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1148

posted 19 September 2001 10:33 PM      Profile for R. J. Dunnill   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm more scared of what we're going to lose in the way of civil liberties than any more terror attacks. The bloodthirsty fanatics who planned and backed the WTC attacks have more pressing matters to attend to right now, such as scurrying (like their vermin counterparts in the insect world) into the deepest, darkest holes and crevices they can find.

RD


From: Surrey, B.C. | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pimji
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 228

posted 19 September 2001 11:11 PM      Profile for Pimji   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This sounds kinda wierd living in the land of milk and honey, Canada, but giving in to fear and terror is to alter ones business as usual. this is not to say that one, myself is ignorant to the facts of daily saftey. I.e. driving safley and looking both ways before crossing the street.
If I had a vacation (taking into account the daily circumstances of the destination) or business trip planned and was to travel by jet I wouldn't change my plans. This is what terror is supposed to do. Fuck it. Show some courage.
The fear I have is for the civilian populations that will be uprooted in a war to preserve our way of life.
The greatly enhanced fear and uneasiness of being a pawn in a game of "we will justify our military expendature at the cost of truth".
A war implies there will be a winner and a loser. I am fearful of how would I live with immense guilt brought on by the (potential) death of millions by our government, media and our war machine. There is already guilt and shame for my privlaged position here in the Golden Mountain.

From: South of Ottawa | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
agent007
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1189

posted 19 September 2001 11:38 PM      Profile for agent007     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
This is George "Dubya" Bush, remember, everybody?!!?? The moron who was elected by the Supreme Court!?

Ian the second, if you have proof that he is a moron, why not cash in? The Guinness Book of Records would dearly love to have an entry certifying that a moron is a fighter pilot with an MBA.

(Surely, you can find a better way to criticize him without debasing your argument.)


From: Niagara Falls ON | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 19 September 2001 11:48 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
A fighter pilot who deliberately chose to fly a plane model for which the US military was phasing out and which only the Texas National Guard used, and furthermore, who placed near the 25th percentile, which was the bare minimum required to qualify - all so he wouldn't be sent to Vietnam.

An MBA-degree-holder who squeaked through Yale with a 2.4 - 2.6 GPA and who didn't get turfed out because daddy was bum-buddies with the big honchos over there - all so he could get jobs with businesses with no prior skills or experience and run them into the ground.

Puh-fucking-leeze.

[ September 19, 2001: Message edited by: DrConway ]


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625

posted 20 September 2001 12:20 AM      Profile for meades     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Not sure if anyone else addressed this, but, NO, we should not be afraid.

Scared people act irrationally, often targetting the innocent, or they may stop thinking before (re)acting. They may not look at the big picture, or the abstract picture, or even the real picture.

It is for those reasons that me must not be afraid. We must be smart, composed, thorough, just, and we must be true to our principles.

No more blood, no more tears, no more death, no more fears.


From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 20 September 2001 12:21 AM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
meades, did you get to this part yet?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4185997,00.html

From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625

posted 20 September 2001 12:25 AM      Profile for meades     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
HOLY SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!
From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
JCL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1387

posted 20 September 2001 12:43 AM      Profile for JCL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
DrConway, morons don't fly multimillion dollar aircrafts. Nor do morons have the brains to run a business nor do morons can hold office in any political level.

Are we to surmise that you have flown a CF-18, a one time CEO of Petro Canada and a federal leader of a party? Nope. I guess you haven't. So you tell me who's the moron.


From: Winnipeg. 35 days to Christmas yet no snow here. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 20 September 2001 12:44 AM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
meades, there's one more even scarier detail in this article posted by Ian 2 on another thread:
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/Archive-2001/ss-terror-05-17.html

From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 20 September 2001 12:48 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
DrConway, morons don't fly multimillion dollar aircrafts. Nor do morons have the brains to run a business nor do morons can hold office in any political level.

Dubya is a moron. He has done all of that. Of course, we really do not know the value of the aircraft. But we do know his business interests were helped along greatly by daddy's pals in the oil industry. We also know morons hold political office all over the planet. Heck, they have a monopoly on them here in Canada. And you know what else? Apparently they are also capable of posting on Electronic Bulletin Boards.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Kelly
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1416

posted 20 September 2001 06:58 AM      Profile for Kelly     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Here is what you "need" to be elected into office:

- money.

I don't see "brains" up there, do you?


From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 20 September 2001 08:41 AM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Pimji and meades have a point. We shouldn't be scared - eventually. But being scared of danger is the natural FIRST reaction (adrenalin rush, palpitation, etc, typical fight-or-flight reaction.) Whoever is not scared of perceived danger has probably not perceived it. And that is exactly what my initial post was about.

This is not a video, not a simulation, this may be the real thing: may escalate and get completely out of control and result in what Chomsky called "we are considering the possibility of a war that may destroy much of human society" (Sep 18/2001 Interview with Radio B92, Belgrade)

The question "shouldn't we be scared" was addressed to those who have not realized it and have not responded with a healthy dose of fear. Once you have, then Pimji and meades is right: fear will not help, rather the contrary - you have to control it and act intelligently, rationally, purposefully and efficiently.

The purpose of action should be obvious as many who responded pointed out: we have to stop this war! It is easy for you to say, you might respond, how do you stop a war?

The answer is simple. Work from the ground up towards the top, towards the gentlemen who think it is in their interest to start it. It will take time, work, intelligence, perseverence and - because the shortness of time - it may fail. But giving up before trying is the really cowardly act.

This is a potential calamity of immense proportions and nobody can afford to sit back and watch it unfold. Not if you love your life, and the lives of those most of us could not imagine living without.

Please, act now - in whatever way you can think of: write, phone, email, fax, argue, convince, to anyone you can reach. Every bit counts and it will build up momentum (it is already doing it - have you listened to "Town Hall" yesterday on CBC? Do you remember which speeches got the most applause? Clearly, people's hearts are at the right place).

Build on it!

Zatamon


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
agent007
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1189

posted 20 September 2001 11:09 AM      Profile for agent007     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
meades, r_r; those two articles only prove that the Russians found a lot of rich, gullible clients. There is nothing about, first, if any of the 100 terrorist groups have actually built a nuclear device; second, if they have actually tested their creation; and third -- most important from our point of view -- if they have the capability of delivering their deadly bomb.

DrC, George W. Bush is not my kind of politician, and I have had the pleasure of joining my American friends in their electoral campaign for both Clinton and Gore. But that does not make Bush a moron, at least not according to my copy of the Canadian Oxford Dictionary.
Also, your own argument proves, without a doubt, that the man is NOT a moron. And can't possibly be one.
Flying an airplane -- any airplane -- requires skills that are beyond the type of individual depicted by Bush's critics. Passing the airforce's Pre-Flight School curriculum, and then graduating as a fighter pilot is an achievement that is way beyond the grasp of most persons, including the brightest.
One last note: Pilots must be 100% precise everytime they fly. Those who aren't -- even by a tiny margin -- are now flying with the angels.
Our criticism of Mr. Bush needs a better foundation than merely labelling him "moron." He isn't.

edited for misspelling.

[ September 20, 2001: Message edited by: relogged ]


From: Niagara Falls ON | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
wagepeace
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 114

posted 20 September 2001 11:12 AM      Profile for wagepeace     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Did anyone see my thread on starting a rabble think tank in your area. If not, I started a website on creating rabble think tanks here
From: In a fog and on anti-psychotics | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 20 September 2001 12:02 PM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Point taken, relogged, though it is also possible that devices have been sold. And even without assembling a device, there is a lot of potential for destructive uses of the radioactive matter. Unfortunately it is probably not in any government's interest to allow this type of information to get to the public, so we will have to settle for these unverifiable rumours.
From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 20 September 2001 02:10 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Also DrC by condemning Bush as a moron, and assuming yourself not as one. you become an elitist. Basically your saying that not everyone should be able to run for office. That there should be some type of I.Q. test given before you run for political office.

Is that what you want. Talk about elimination of a democracy. In a perfect world supported by yourself. Even those who graduated from Yale do not meet your qualifications for public office.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 20 September 2001 04:07 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
P.S. what Bush may or may not lack in intelligence, Cheney makes up for tenfold.

Listening to that guy is incredibly refreshing. He knows whats going on, he's probably the most honest politician I ever saw, he genuinely cares about people.

Even the vice presidential debate every reasoneable person admired both Lieberman and Cheney, I would love it if they were both President, vice president. In any order.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 20 September 2001 04:42 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Particularly cares for these people:


And as for honest, oh yes:

Cheney's Multi-Million Dollar Revolving Door

Sigh, it just won't take my pic.

[ September 20, 2001: Message edited by: WingNut ]


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 20 September 2001 04:52 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
There is nothing about, first, if any of the 100 terrorist groups have actually built a nuclear device; second, if they have actually tested their creation; and third -- most important from our point of view -- if they have the capability of delivering their deadly bomb.

Relogged, have I mentioned that I love you? You just added about 7 1/2 hours to my night's sleep tonight.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ian the second
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 732

posted 20 September 2001 06:53 PM      Profile for Ian the second   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Try googling "George Bush Gaffes".

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm


"The great thing about America is everybody should vote." —George W.
Bush

"As far as the legal hassling and wrangling and posturing in Florida, I would
suggest you talk to our team in Florida led by Jim Baker." —George W.
Bush

"The legislature's job is to write law. It's the executive branch's job to
interpret law." —George W. Bush, Nov. 2000

"They misunderestimated me." —George W. Bush, Nov. 2000

"One of the great things about books is sometimes there are some fantastic
pictures." —George W. Bush

"They want the federal government controlling Social Security like it's some
kind of federal program." —George W. Bush

"Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream."
—George W. Bush

"If affirmative action means what I just described, what I'm for, then I'm for
it." —George W. Bush, during the third presidential debate

"The idea of putting subliminable messages into ads is ridiculous."
—George W. Bush

"One of the common denominators I have found is that expectations rise
above that which is expected." —George W. Bush

"I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." —George W.
Bush

"I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family." —George W.
Bush

"We ought to make the pie higher." —George W. Bush

"Mr. Vice President, in all due respect, it is — I'm not sure 80 percent of
the people get the death tax. I know this: 100 percent will get it if I'm the
president." —George W. Bush, during the third presidential debate, Oct.
2000

"The woman who knew that I had dyslexia — I never interviewed her."
—George W. Bush, responding to a magazine article claiming he suffered
from dyslexia

"Laura and I are proud to call John and Michelle Engler our friends. I
know you're proud to call him governor. What a good man the Englers
are." —George W. Bush, Nov. 2000

"Well, I think if you say you're going to do something and
don't do it, that's trustworthiness." —George W. Bush, in a
CNN online chat, Aug. 2000

"We cannot let terrorists and rogue nations hold this nation
hostile or hold our allies hostile.'' —George W. Bush

"I'm gonna talk about the ideal world, Chris. I've read — I understand
reality. If you're asking me as the president, would I understand reality, I
do." —George W. Bush, on MSNBC's "Hardball"

"The fact that he relies on facts — says things that are not factual — are
going to undermine his campaign." —George W. Bush on Al Gore

"I think anybody who doesn't think I'm smart enough to handle the job is
underestimating." —George W. Bush

"This is Preservation Month. I appreciate preservation. It's what you do
when you run for president. You gotta preserve." —George W. Bush,
speaking during "Perseverance Month" at Fairgrounds Elementary School
in Nashua, New Hampshire

..?
<
=

Ian

[ September 20, 2001: Message edited by: Ian the second ]


From: Toronto City, Toronto | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625

posted 20 September 2001 07:28 PM      Profile for meades     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Markbo: What you descirbe is not élitism. élitism is primarily class discrimination, and I think we can all agree that judging someone on the basis of intelligence is not élitism. Isn't that, and the content of ones character how we are supposed to judge people? Now, I don't like passing judgement on people. I like them, or I don't (or I can be indifferent).

Now, if we look at Bush's intelligence on a rather large scale from "backwater slack-jawed yokel", to "Intelligentia guru", I think Bush would be closer to the "intelligentia guru". However, we must take into account that there are different kinds of intelligence. There's musical, linguistic (this is the one Bush has trouble with), corporal (sp?), interpersonal, intrapersonal, and I think there are a few others.

But anyway, like I said, Bush has trouble with Linguistic intelligence, and that is particularly important for someone in politics, and specifically, the presidential office. That doesn't mean Bush himself is a total idiot, he should just reherse (sp? I guess I'm not too good in linguistic intelligence either ) his speaches, and watch his mouth.

Linguistic intelligence has only become important for politicians in recent times (thanks to that vast wasteland TV). I heard commentary that Harry Truman would have been made fun of, despite his vast intelligence had he been president during the time of television. He had read every book in his town library, but he always read the words, and never heard them, so he made a lot of mispronunciations.

Anyway, I'm not saying "Bush is the smartest man on earth, we just don't know it" or anything. What I'm trying to get across is that we shouldn't judge his overall intelligence based on those "Bushisms".

[ September 20, 2001: Message edited by: meades ]


From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 20 September 2001 07:45 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I agree with you meades

quote:
he should just reherse (sp? I guess I'm not too good in linguistic intelligence either ) his speaches, and watch his mouth.

I just think its not as easy as you think. Just because the man is a poor speaker. (of which I'm happy to concede). I think its more important to look at his actions. Look at the people he surrounds himself.

It is impossible in this day and age for one man to understand everything about every issue. Thats why the best president is someone who surrounds himself with people who understand some issues. Then the integrity and character of that President will help him to decide what action to take based on the information those people give him.

Bush has surrounded himself with more experienced and intelligent staff than I think the presidency has ever seen. I think those people will act far more intelligently than anyone gives them credit for. We've already seen this by the lack of an instant retalliation that they could have done.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
VinceRoy
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1369

posted 20 September 2001 08:03 PM      Profile for VinceRoy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I have to agree with RD that my concern right now has to do with the coming retraction of civil rights rather than the thought of being a casuality of "America's New War" (thank CNN for keeping down the hyperbole). I can do little enough about Bush's military plans, and less still about some shadowy figure who leaves a suitcase full of explosives outside my door. It bears remembering that in Canada rights are not absolute -- they are subject to "reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society". When some political commentator uses the phrase "society has been drastically changed" by the events of September 11 it makes me cringe. When the phrase shows up in a Supreme Court of Canada decision, look out.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pimji
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 228

posted 20 September 2001 10:13 PM      Profile for Pimji   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes very good point. This idea about turning back the clock to restrict personal freedom is really the lazy mans way of dealing with the root problems of what [bold] we[/bold] are going through now.
I for one am not ready or willing to give up my freedom to do and say and travel in my country. They will not have my co operation. I will demonstrate and protest with my sign speaking freely, publicly displaying my voice within the charter of rights and freedoms. I would go to jail to defend these rights. Last year we were horrified by that asshole Liberal MP who wouldn't help a constituent who didn't vote for him now the same voices are talking about complying with that same ideal. Bin Ladin and his movement are laughing all the way to their graves. He is making us dance like fools. I will not dance to the tune of a freak of humanity. The right wing is now starting to show its true colours and are showing us who the real anti globalization forces really are. Restricting freedom in Canada? What kind of nation did we become? Curtailing freedom is not what this country is about but that is exactly what the right wing are proposing out of fear. Fear is a lack of courage.
The real enemy that is driving the true evil and sowing the seed for terror is global poverty, violence, corruption and lawlessness.

From: South of Ottawa | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 20 September 2001 10:30 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I will demonstrate and protest with my sign speaking freely, publicly displaying my voice within the charter of rights and freedoms.

Well Then you will still have more freedoms than you would in Afghanistan. They would still envy your "limited" freedom.

Its utterly amazing how you allocate blame for limitations on freedoms due to tighter security on the government rather than the terrorists who are trying to kill us.

[ September 20, 2001: Message edited by: Markbo ]


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 20 September 2001 11:12 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Well Then you will still have more freedoms than you would in Afghanistan. They would still envy your "limited" freedom.

When a person in Canada worries that civil liberties might be eroded by a panicky government that's not really committed to them in the first place, what's the relevance of Afghanistan?


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pimji
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 228

posted 20 September 2001 11:13 PM      Profile for Pimji   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 

[ September 20, 2001: Message edited by: Pimji ]


From: South of Ottawa | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 20 September 2001 11:14 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Not much. Just pointing out that someone is whining when the defeat of the taliban will bring about far more freedoms to far more people then he seems to appreciate.
From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pimji
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 228

posted 20 September 2001 11:19 PM      Profile for Pimji   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I guess my position on repression isn't clear enough. If I could export Canad's charter of rights and Freedoms I would. it would be far more healthy for the world than exporting arms.
From: South of Ottawa | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 20 September 2001 11:24 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Just pointing out that someone is whining when the defeat of the taliban will bring about far more freedoms to far more people then he seems to appreciate.

Interesting. So now the point is not just to catch these particular terrorists, and reduce terrorism generally, but defeat the Taliban.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 20 September 2001 11:25 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No argument here. Hopefully when it is all done people in Afghanistan won't be arrested if their beards aren't long enough. Women may even be allowed to attend school.

Sorry it has to be at the cost of inconveniencing you Pimji.

[ September 20, 2001: Message edited by: Markbo ]


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 20 September 2001 11:26 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If the Taliban shelter and support terrorists then they will share their fate.

Now you have a problem with that.

Besides ridding the world of the Taliban is a good thing. Do you have one reason why the Taliban should be allowed to continue oppressing people.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 20 September 2001 11:29 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Don't worry about inconveniencing me. If you want to try liberate the Afghans, using your laser-guided methods, I suspect you'll liberate a bunch of them into even earlier graves that they might otherwise have expected.

And were you preaching this democratic jihad prior to Sept. 11, pray?

quote:
If the Taliban shelter and support terrorists then they will share their fate.

Indeed. So they'll face trial under international law as well? Or what do you mean by "fate"?

[ September 20, 2001: Message edited by: 'lance ]


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pimji
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 228

posted 20 September 2001 11:35 PM      Profile for Pimji   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm not going to waste my time explianing my thoughts and ideals in a sound byte war of words on a message board. We are way off topic. I sense you have an axe to grind. Read my other posts throughout rabble and you will have the ansewers to all your questions. By now you must know where i stand on the issues. Good Night my good friend Markbo!
From: South of Ottawa | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 20 September 2001 11:44 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I know Pimji, just razzing you. Goodnight and may you sleep safe.
From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 21 September 2001 12:18 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I stand by my statement that Dubya is a moron who coasted to success on his daddy's coat-tails. Is there any evidence to suggest that he even flew the fighter jet that he signed up to train on? Apparently he was cited a couple times for going AWOL and didn't get bounced hard on his ass the way a non-rich recruit would have been.

Don't believe me?

Check it.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 21 September 2001 12:23 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
there any evidence to suggest that he even flew the fighter jet that he signed up to train on?

quite the conspiracy theory promoter. Are you sure your not really a robot sent from outer space.

Bush was pretty smart to surround himself with the experienced intelligent team that he has. Bush was pretty smart to pick a Vice president as talented a Cheney. Bush was pretty smart to have Colin Powell as secretary of state. Lot of smart things that Bush guy does, isn't there?

P.S. Pretty smart of Bush to get the support of a huge coalition before acting against terrorism. The list just goes on and on.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 21 September 2001 01:16 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It's not a conspiracy theory about the fighter jet. I'm questioning how lazy he is.

And it's not exactly flattering to Dubya when he surrounds himself with his daddy's old crew. A lot of political animals in the states that I know crack jokes about how Dubya is one heart attack away from being the real President (hint - that means that Penis Cheney - uh, DICK Cheney, sorry - is running the show while Dubya does his gee-aw-shucks routine).

[ September 21, 2001: Message edited by: DrConway ]


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 21 September 2001 10:12 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
How many hours do you figure he has to work a week?

Yeah, Clinton put in more hours. He worked 10 times harder on the Mideast peace agreements. Look at the results.

Your calling a guy who probably puts in 55-60 hours a week lazy because he doesn't put in 75 hours per week. Doesn't make sense.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
vaudree
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1331

posted 21 September 2001 10:26 AM      Profile for vaudree     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
If I could export Canad's charter of rights and Freedoms I would. it would be far more healthy for the world than exporting arms.

I think that is a good idea along with the idea that we live by example and not expect anything from a foreign country that we do not also expect from ourselves.

On the topic of GWB - I agree with both the good Dr. and Rick Mercer that Bush is the mouth peice for others.
-------
Another related point, as babblers we tend to assume that people feal more safe and secure the more information they have. I just found out from someone is that the reason she has no interest in politics whatsoever is BECAUSE she has family in the military. I guess knowing more about the stupidity of who ever is in power there does not make her feel more safe and secure that her familiy member won`t come back in bodybags. Wishful thinking makes her feel more safe and secure than fact.


From: Just outside St. Boniface | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 21 September 2001 01:35 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I posted the original piece for this topic hoping that we will dicuss:

1. Why we should be scared
2. What we could do about it
3. What we can hope to accomplish

Unfortunately it did not happen. When discussions go on and on about Bush's IQ and whether he is a moron or only an idiot, it reminds me of the old one: "How many angels can dance on the tip of a pin?"

Or the "Life of Brian" and the "Liberation Front of Judea".

Lets face it people, our roof is on fire over our head. This may escalate into the Thirld World War with the potential of destroying much of humanity.

What is it that we can do?

First, give hope, encouragement, ntellectual ammunition to those who are on the right side (and I arbitrarily define the right side as the one fighting against any kind, form and shape of induced suffering, be it physical or psychological).

Second, try to convince those who are honests, decent people but have fallen prey to propaganda, emotional manipulation, lack of facts in the mainstream media.

Are we doing it?

I hope we are.

[ October 04, 2001: Message edited by: Zatamon ]


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 21 September 2001 01:53 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
1. Why we should be scared
2. What we could do about it
3. What we can hope to accomplish

1. We all should be scared because the war on terrorist will undoubtedly put Canadians in the front lines regarding terrorist retalliation. We should also be afraid because our current laws, policies and security dont go far enough to protect us.

2. We can all be aware of our surroundings. That alone could prevent many possible attacks. We could ask our government to ensure they write laws to protect us. Today I read an article about how the Supreme court ruled we cannot deport Terrorists if they face harsh punishment or death back home. Rulings like that mean that those people can remain here free to commit acts such as tuesdays.

3. Thats a vague question which I think lead to the off topic comments. However I think we can accomplish creating a society that is more secure and not have to sacrifice our freedoms. We can look at Israel (even if you don't like them) as a role model as they are under attack but still allow freedom for their citizens.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 21 September 2001 03:09 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Markbo, you misunderstood the questions. When I used the "we" pronoun I did not mean Canada as a nation or the Canadian people. I meant "we" the participants in this (or many other similar) Forums.

What is it we are trying to accomplish other than socialize, sound off, let off steam, go on ego trips, etc., etc.

Is what we are saying here contributing to the world becoming a better place?

If yes, how???

If not, why not???

Is there any realistic chance to do that in a Forum like this?

What (if any) effect we have anywhere and in what way we could increase this effect?

Just curious if anyone has given any thought to this.

Zatamon


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 21 September 2001 03:31 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
My reason for being here is to be able to have an intelligent discussion with many people who are like-minded (and a few who aren't - let's not forget that they're very important too) and able to debate these issues in a long, involved way.

My reason also for being here is for comfort, because often people who feel the need to talk and talk and talk about this stuff (like me) don't have an outlet in the people they know. Not only that, but in social, real life relationships, you aren't going to be a popular person if you're constantly debating and arguing with them. When you do that in person, the people around you tend to want to make you drink hemlock. (Speaking of which, here's a place where you can argue with Socrates - the point being to go as long as possible before making him drink the hemlock.)

I love a good, spirited debate on these topics. Not only that, but I think it's a great way to stay informed. If only people were more informed and less reactionary (on both sides of the political spectrum) I think there would be a lot more hope for this world. That's what's good about babble - people from both sides having spirited debates and learning from each other. I know I've learned a lot from people who don't necessarily share my views. I can appreciate their viewpoints a lot better when I see that they reason out their ideas the way I do. There's a lot to be said for that, even if it doesn't directly change the world.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 21 September 2001 05:27 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
What is it we are trying to accomplish other than socialize, sound off, let off steam, go on ego trips, etc., etc.

I believe using these discussion forums helps you understand the otherside of the argument without having to agree. Most people on these threads may not like my views. I am here to show that I have rational, good intentions behind my views so that even if you don't agree with my views you at least don't make me out as a monster. Sometimes I accomplish that and sometimes I don't

Just like I listen to others views so I can sit back and say "ah, thats why they believe that, In theory they have good reasons. They may not be as dumb as I thought."

And in the rare occasion, I find fault in my views and I learn and grow as a person. My object here isn't to win arguments. If I win, I haven't learned anything new, simply reaffirmed an existing belief. But thats also why I fight so hard. When I do change my beliefs I want that change to occur with no regrets and permanently.

I think thats an important part of showing respect for other beliefs. We may not agree with many muslim cultures but we should learn to understand them. And after striving to understand them, then we can make the judgements such as the ones I make on the Taleban. This is the type of place where you can learn that the Taleban isn't a part of Islam its a perversion of it. Then you don't have to be scared of all Muslams.

quote:

What (if any) effect we have anywhere and in what way we could increase this effect?

By taking actions, small and large. Write your MP like proposed.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625

posted 21 September 2001 05:43 PM      Profile for meades     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Just one point on one of Markbo's earlier posts: I believe you said something like "you would still have more freedoms than the Afghans" to Pimji. What a silly statement! It's like saying "It could be worse". Yes, OF COURSE it could be worse! It could be worse for the Afghani's too! Saying "It could be worse" is like saying "well, we haven't stooped to their level yet, so it's okay if we lower our standards a bit". NO! IT IS NOT OKAY! This hawkish mentality is purely disgusting! Saying we can stand to lose a bit of freedom is like conceding to those terrorists! It's like spitting on the very principles our country stands for (or should stand for)! Do we really need to limit freedom to persue Bin Laden the way it looks like we'll be doing? No, I see nothing that would point in that direction. How will limiting our freedoms really help? It won't! Personally, I think it would be the exact opposite!

I'm not saying that's what you implied, Markbo, but Bill Maher made this very point on "Politically Incorrect" last night. Adopting an "It could be worse" mentality doesn't help anything, or anyone.


From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 21 September 2001 05:49 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Actually meades that wasn't my point, I do agree with you on this as well for the most part.

However...

quote:
How will limiting our freedoms really help? It won't! Personally, I think it would be the exact opposite!

By tightening up our security we will probably find more terrorists. (imagine the side effects we're also having on the drug trade). Finding and eliminating terrorist is good. Letting them wander all about is bad. Simple stuff. Also defeating these tyrants like the Taleban will mean a great deal of freedom for the people of Afghanistan. (Women being allowed to go to school and work stuff) Isn't that worth fighting for just by itself? What is your opinion, meades, what should be done to the taleban simply for their human rights abuses. Should we continue to let them abuse people. Sure its not the main motive here but stopping the oppression of an entire country is a helluva great side effect.


I do not think we should sacrifice freedom for this. I think we should look to how the Israeli people have been handling this to see if we can find ways to tighten security without sacrificing freedoms.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625

posted 21 September 2001 06:01 PM      Profile for meades     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well I don't think more thorough border checks can be considered restricting our rights. They take time, yes, and they're an inconvenience, true. But it's not like the border is closed. Should we do a whole lot beyond that? I'm doubtful. I will not give up any of my rights. As soon as the media started talking about "restricting civil liberties", I thought back to when they had records of who to arrest in case of war with the soviet union. Ed Broadbent was on the list for goodness sakes!!! That is not the kind of country I want, and if we do become like that, I will not persue a profesional career anywhere in this country.
From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 21 September 2001 06:02 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Markbo, after the Gulf war, do you really believe that a US-led military force is going to give a damn about liberating Afghans from their tyrants?

During the hysteria leading up to the Gulf war, I heard papa Bush repeating ad nauseum that Sadam Hussein was worse than Hitler. He was inciting the Shiites and the Kurds to rise up against Sadam.

Once he chased Hussein out of Kuwait (so the continued flow of oil was assured) and was within a day's march from Baghdad, he yanked the leash tight on his generals (Swartzkopf was furious!) and walked right out of Iraq, leaving Hussein in power. Can you see the allies doing it: leaving Hitler in power at the end of WW-II?

Not only that, but he denied access to the Shiites and the Kurds to captured Iraqi weapons and provided intelligence information to Sadam to help him destroy the uprising that followed. He also lifted restrictions on helicopter flights by Saddam, so he could more efficiently destroy his internal enemies.

This is all historical records. (I have Iraqui friends who actually lived through this, so I know at least second hand).

You still think that the US will free the Afghans from their despots?

Please let me know if you do and I will admire your faith.

Zatamon


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 21 September 2001 06:12 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I agree with your post about the U.S. mistakes in Iraq. But remember back then their hands were tied by that stupid executive order preventing the assassination of leaders. I believe they will now revoke that executive order.

More importantly I think the U.S. realizes those mistakes and will try not to repeat them in this military action.

I think they will help the Afghan people with installing a far more just government because of their failures in Iraq of letting Saddam Hussein remain.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 21 September 2001 06:33 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Markbo, you made so many interesting statements in your previous post that I don't know which to reply first. However, I will try, but it is really a challange to keep it short.

1."I agree with your post about the U.S. mistakes in Iraq."

Mistakes??? Mistakes??? Have they ever admitted it was a mistake??? They thought it was a good idea to keep Hussein in power. They still think.


2. "But remember back then their hands were tied by that stupid executive order preventing the assassination of leaders".

Stupid??? You mean it is clever to set yourself above the law and feel free to march into any land, any house and shoot whoever you don't like? Isn't what all the worst butchers in History always did? Hitler, Stalin, Sadam Hussein, the Taliban? Oh, they all have their justifications, they are all fighting one form of evil or another. Just read "Mein Kampf" for an example.

3. "I believe they will now revoke that executive order".

Hallelujah!!! When can I expect them on my door step? after all, I am - by definition - a terrorist, since I am definitely not on baby Bush's side.


4. "More importantly I think the U.S. realizes those mistakes and will try not to repeat them in this military action."

After Napoleon was defeated at Waterloo and the Bourbons restored, there was one way to described what followed: They never forgot and they never learned. I think this usually applies to rulers everywhere, every time.

5. "I think they will help the Afghan people with installing a far more just government because of their failures in Iraq of letting Saddam Hussein remain."

As I promised in my earlier note, I have to salute your faith in Santa Claus!

Zatamon


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 21 September 2001 06:37 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I do admire your faith, Markbo. However misplaced it is. That executive order applies to the CIA, not military activities. (And by the way, if the CIA engages in the assasination of world leaders with whom they disagree, is that not terrorism?). But prior to the gulf war, Saddam was a useful friend of the U.S. Remember the "naked aggression" against Iran resulting in a 10 year war and the loss of millions of lives?
The truth is, Saddam is a strong man who, however much they might dislike him, provides a useful purpose in maintaining stability within the region. The U.S. did not want him removed. They still don't. When evidence, such as the alleged meeting between one of the alleged terrorists and an Iraqi ambassador and intelligence chief arises, the U.S. is quick to point out it does not mean Iraq was involved. Yet, the possible connection between an alleged terrorist and bin Laden's organization is enough to convict.

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 21 September 2001 07:13 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Mistakes??? Mistakes??? Have they ever admitted it was a mistake??? They thought it was a good idea to keep Hussein in power. They still think.

I heard many U.S. military leaders say it was a mistake

quote:
Stupid??? You mean it is clever to set yourself above the law and feel free to march into any land, any house and shoot whoever you don't like? Isn't what all the worst butchers in History always did? Hitler, Stalin, Sadam Hussein, the Taliban?

Wait which is it do you support saddams remaining or do you want him eliminated? Cant have it both ways


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 21 September 2001 08:34 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Wait which is it do you support saddams remaining or do you want him eliminated? Cant have it both ways

Markbo, I will try to answer that. Here it comes:

1. I agree with you in the broader sense that bad people should not be allowed to do bad things to others who are just minding their own business.

2. In any one country that is what the police is for: stopping bad people before they do bad things or trying to prevent them doing it again after.

3. Policemen don't just decide themselves who is bad and who isn't. If they did, we would have tribal wars between groups who have different definitions about what is bad and what isn't.

4. For the sake of avoiding it, laws are passed by whatever process and mechanism is in place for that very purpose and then policemen don't have to guess, just see who broke the law.

5. This scheme works better or worse within each country (it is never perfect) but usually provides some form of stability.

6. Now the tricky part. What do you do when leaders in one country decide that leaders in another are bad people and they passed bad laws (most dictators from Stalin to Saddam were always law-abiding citizens in their own country, since they passed whatever laws were convenient for them). Hitler, for example was the "supreme leader" who - by definition - could not be wrong.

7. Point 3. still applies - you can not have a number of different countries arbitrarily decide what is bad and what isn't - or you have, again, total anarchy and lawless tribal wars. That is why INTERNATIONAL LAW was invented and the UN created.

8. The US has regularly, consistently, blatantly disregarded international law for most of the last fifty years. She has consistently vetoed resolutions, shruggedd off condemnations, ignored decisions. The examples are too numerous to quote here, if you don't know them, I will be glad to refer you to historical source documents.

9. To the best of my knowledge, nobody on Earth (or heaven either) appointed the US as the world's policemen. If they see themselves in that light, that is their megalomania, not an international agreement.

10. Suppose, by example, you and I are neighbors and I disagree with the way you are raising your children. Suppose also that I am much bigger and stronger than you are. How would you like me marching into your home and "eliminate" you from the position of parenthood, just because I can? I bet you would not like it.

11. However, I can contact the appropriate authorities and report you as a child abuser and then an "objective" impartial process starts based on the consensus of the population and with due process (giving you every opportunity to present your case) the conflict is resolved according to the moral and legal standards of the society we are all part of.

12. Now lets amplify the analogy to real life. You seem to be advocating the following: A strong superpower has the right (nay, moral obligation) to shoot its way into any country, grab whoever they don't like and cut his throat. This without consulting anyone, informing anyone, considering international law and due process, not even bothering to make sure they have the right person and make sure they have sufficient evidence for his alleged crimes. (Remember, we are talking about clandestine, CIA assassinations here).

13. What prevents anyone else to follow the example? Isn't this exactly what the terrorists did in New York and Washington? I see only a quantitative difference. They were convinced that their cause was right. They regarded - in their twisted mind - all americans es devils that they had to "eliminate" from the planet (at least as many as they could). They appointed themselves as policemen, judges, jury and executioners. Did we like it?

14. Again, I must repeat, there is only quantitative difference, qualitatively they used the same principle as the CIA when they decide to remove someone in a foreign country with total disregard of international law and due process.

15. I can't believe you advocate all that, but maybe you did not think it through with all the implications. In an earlier note you said that you are open to being convinced, learn and grow as a human being. That is why I went into all those details (believe me, I could have been a lot more thorough with lots of historical data to support my arguments with).

16. Please think it over very carefully before you reply, and when you do, please answer every point in my argument.

Zatamon


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
machiavellian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1365

posted 21 September 2001 11:23 PM      Profile for machiavellian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
To answer the question about why I post here...first, it's kind of like whistling in the dark, I guess. And like Michelle I don't necessarily have anyone around who I can sit and debate about things with, living in the boonies in Northern Canada as I do. Personally, I had no knowledge of nor interest in the alternative media until 9-11. I had my own opinions and that was fine. But when I started flicking through 400 channels of the same opinions rehashed over and over, I became kind of desperate to find someone in the world who had some conscientious objections to the propaganda. Hence, my joining here, and also starting to check out the village voice, counterpunch, AlterNet, etc. By talking to the people here I have learned to better organize my thoughts, acknowledge my own prejudices and assumptions, and learn to practice more thorough critical thinking. And I have found a kind of community of peers to listen to and learn from. Education is the antithesis of indoctrination, remember. I think a site like this is infinitely important in terms of providing a network of people to discuss important issues with, people who on the most part practice critical thinking skills, people who encourage me and everyone here to remain informed and to be accountable for their opinions without resorting to simply trying to crush them. Trust me, I tried to discuss this issue elsewhere and was SWORN at repeatedly, called anti-American, evil, and a terrorist - no lie, all just for suggesting that the States' foreign policy was less than pristine when someone asked "Why America?". So it's nice to have the freedom to express opinions, a freedom which seems to be a little in jeopardy these days.

As rabble gains more members, more people will have the chance to learn from us and each other, and will be challenged to maintain the same rigorous standards of critical thinking. That can only be a good thing. Minds can be changed. But OTOH, it is still important to take our views elsewhere, to places where we may be hissed at, booed, in order to present informed opinions to more people and let the more open-minded ones know that there are others out there. Maybe change a few minds for the better, or at least help them open a crack. It's harder, but I think that it's our responsibility. And activism should extend further than discussions, into signing petitions, protesting, writing letters, etc.

Here's to spreading the word. I'd be a lot more demoralized, alone and helpless without you guys *sheds a tear* I love you all, man!


From: Peace River (no, not actually in the river, silly) | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
flatland
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 556

posted 21 September 2001 11:43 PM      Profile for flatland     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And while we sit here and count angels on pin heads the looneys are running around with Nuclear bombs and loaded aircraft.....

News Flash......ever since we crawled form the primodial ooze , might is right...

Get used to it, read a little history and don't bother repeating that nonsense about how evolved we have become.....

If it comes down to kill or be killed I dare you to deny you would fight for life.....

And if you do deny it you are either lying or Mother Theresa.


From: Winnipeg, MB, Canada | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
machiavellian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1365

posted 22 September 2001 12:53 AM      Profile for machiavellian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Get used to it, read a little history and don't bother repeating that nonsense about how evolved we have become.....

So just sit back and give up on the human race. That's a pretty convenient excuse to justify remaining apathetic and complacent. God forbid that we try to work for something better - then things might actually improve! (*gasp*)

quote:
If it comes down to kill or be killed I dare you to deny you would fight for life.....

Fight for life how? By continuing the violence? I AM fighting for life - just without guns. I'm fighting for the lives of the innocent people in Afghanistan, for the innocent people in AMerica, and for my own country and my own kids, by advocating non-violence, which by the way, tends to have a lot fewer casualties than something like, oh, maybe WAR.

Besides, terrorists tend to think they're fighting for their lives and the lives of their countrymen too.


From: Peace River (no, not actually in the river, silly) | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 22 September 2001 12:41 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Once he chased Hussein out of Kuwait (so the continued flow of oil was assured) and was within a day's march from Baghdad, he yanked the leash tight on his generals (Swartzkopf was furious!) and walked right out of Iraq, leaving Hussein in power. Can you see the allies doing it: leaving Hitler in power at the end of WW-II?

Not only that, but he denied access to the Shiites and the Kurds to captured Iraqi weapons and provided intelligence information to Sadam to help him destroy the uprising that followed. He also lifted restrictions on helicopter flights by Saddam, so he could more efficiently destroy his internal enemies.

This is all historical records. (I have Iraqui friends who actually lived through this, so I know at least second hand).

You still think that the US will free the Afghans from their despots?


So your happy that all you just quoted happened? I still don't understand your contradictory posts. Your glad Saddam was left in power? You want Afghans enslaved under the Taleban despots indefinitely? You don't want the Americans to provide the Northern Alliance with effective assisstence?

You next quote says that the U.S. has no business doing anything above. I appreciate you trying to explain your stance, now please explain why you wrote the quote above.

I think that the U.S. clearly knows that the point of a terrorist attack is to provoke a response that will escalate this into a holy war. Everything the U.S. has done so far is to prevent that from happening. I still believe their response if military will be focused on Taleban and terrorist targets that will not provoke the Islamic world into escalated violence.

So far I have been proven right 100%. Lets see if it continues.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 22 September 2001 01:00 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Markbo, you exasperate me! I am close to giving up on you.

The answer to your question is simple. I will make it short:

Just because I don't think it is right to appoint myself cop, jury, judge and executioner, it does not mean that I like crime. Since I have respect for my fellow human beings, I try to fight crime according to the agreements we all made (International Law!).

This is so obvious that I don't understand why it is necessaty to point it out.

This was all implied in my last detailed post on the subject.

Zatamon


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 22 September 2001 01:05 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What international law would be effective in removing Saddam Hussein or the Taleban from power?
From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 22 September 2001 01:14 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sorry Markbo, you are getting off topic. Remember, we are discussing your condoning assassination and my moral objection to it.

I think I made my point abundantly why I abhor the idea.

If you need help finding the appropriate UN charter documents, I will make suggestions.

Whether any one particular law is effective enough or not, is irrelevent. What we are talking about here is the choice we make: human family or jungle.

In a human family you try to defend yourself in honourable ways. In a jungle you rip throats out.

Zatamon


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 22 September 2001 01:19 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
My point is that if one member of our "human family" is killing and oppressing the masses then we "rip throats out" of that member to defend ourselves and save the masses.
From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 22 September 2001 01:31 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Markbo, your suggestion of "ripping throats out" is certainly one of the possible reactions. It has been done through human History pretty consistently.

Of course you do not intend to do the ripping out yourself, you propose to hire a hitman (CIA) to do it for you.

If your neighbor is, in your opinion, a child abuser, do you also intend to hire a killer to get rid of him? I doubt it. (It would have been quite unfortunate for G.P. Moran)

If we adopt your method of self-defense, then we will be a horde of wild animals ripping each others' throats out.


Zatamon

[ October 04, 2001: Message edited by: Zatamon ]


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 22 September 2001 02:50 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sorry Markbo, I have no more time right now to continue this exchange. I have some chores to attend to (rip my neighbour’s throat out because I saw him beating up his kid the other day).

I will be back later tonight.

In the meantime – anyone out there who has an opinion on this? Markbo is wearing me down.

Zatamon


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
flatland
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 556

posted 22 September 2001 06:05 PM      Profile for flatland     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
With all due respect Zatamon you seem to enjoy tacking the literal simplistic view of the chattering classes, i do not beleive anyone advocate "ripping the throat" out of a child molester, "even though our justice system is lacking in spine", we mearly advocate standing up and being counted, you cannot talk to people who have a grade 3 education and are commited to KILLING you.....

Wake up, you dishonour ALL war dead and those veterens living.

Without them you would never have this venue to practice your mental masterbation.

G


From: Winnipeg, MB, Canada | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 22 September 2001 06:30 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
flatland, if you read the exchange between Markbo and me (just a few posts above), you will see what I was referring to.

Markbo, in priciple, did advocate "ripping the throats" of those that he finds guilty of some crime (Killing, suppressing, etc.) unacceptable to him.

I was being sarcastic to highlight the absurdity of his stand.

Please try to be polite in future notes, there is no need to be rude.

Zatamon


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 22 September 2001 10:08 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Whose words did I use? Who gave me the options? I was given two options. I chose from them only.

I am in full support of peacibly arresting Osama Bin Laden. If he resists arrest however then I condone using whatever force necessary to put him in custody, just like I do any other suspected murderer who makes death threats.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 22 September 2001 10:31 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Welcome back Markbo!

In a very well documented (with references to historical facts and documents) essay Noam Chomsky says (roughly) "if the principles applied at the Nurnberg War-crimes-trial were used today, all the US presidents since WW2 would have been found guilty of war crimes."

Suppose Osama Bin Laden (or Arafat or whoever on the middle east) said "I am in full support of peacibly arresting George W. Bush. If he resists arrest however then I condone using whatever force necessary to put him in custody, just like I do any other suspected murderer who makes death threats".

Why is this unthinkable? What makes Bush's (or JFK's or Johnson's or Nixon's, or... )war crimes less hyenous than Osama Bin Laden's? Just because he is a white man? American? President of a superpower?

I suggest you read up on post-WW2 history, use clear logic and consistent moral principles and then you will se what I mean.

Think Man, Think!!! Lets not have double standards here. If some principle is allowed for one human being, it is allowed for every other.

Zatamon


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 23 September 2001 02:24 AM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
for Markbo, a thought-experiment

Suppose you are a wise and just national leader.
The present law of your country (or international body) is inadequate to a situation that arises during your term of office. You have no moral qualms about circumventing the law in order to achieve a worthy purpose. (Naturally, you extend the same prerogative to other heads of state.)
You are convinced that the world would be improved by the absence of certain individuals. I, as your Foreign Minister, concur. Machiavellian is Minister of Finance; you choose a Minister of the Interior. We each propose 10 names we want to see on tombstones. At the end of the meeting, we have consensus on 5, (and up to 20 names on which we totally disagree). We contract a hit-man; arrange for his expenses, freedom of movement, legal immunity.

So, then –

What is to stop the hit-man from approaching each of us privately and offering to sanction the individuals we proposed who didn’t make the short list?

What is to stop each of us offering the hit-man a bonus to take out someone who didn’t make the list? Or a political rival, a rich uncle, an obstacle to our ambition, a voluble critic, a personal grudge, a fellow cabinet member?

What is to stop the hit-man from making his own list? In fact, since our main source of information is the hit-man himself, how can we ascertain that all our nominees for death are deserving?

What is to stop the hit-man from moonlighting - say, doing odd jobs for senate committees, kings, business cartels, anywhere in the world?

What if the hit-man farms out the work? Who vets the sub-contractors? To whom do they report; who controls them? When our five targets have been eliminated, how do we lay off the sub-contractors? Indeed, what’s the mechanism for terminating the original contract, given that our hit-man has other sources of revenue?

Now, suppose you are not the head honcho; suppose you didn’t even make Minister in Charge of Circuses. Maybe you are not even consulted: the hit-man is hired by a committee which is appointed by a cabinet which is chosen by people who are chosen by people you never met and might not approve of. Suppose you live in a whole other country, and didn’t even get to vote for the people who pick the people who pick the people who appoint the committee.
Still in favour of assassination?

As if you had a choice…


From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 23 September 2001 02:45 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Robert Fisk: Bombing a Tragic People

(You'll have to pardon me - I retyped the headline from memory)


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 23 September 2001 09:09 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And we are here as on a darkling plain
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
Where ignorant armies clash by night.
-- Matthew Arnold, Dover Beach

From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 23 September 2001 09:13 AM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Beautiful quote!
From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 23 September 2001 09:56 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
In a very well documented (with references to historical facts and documents) essay Noam Chomsky says (roughly) "if the principles applied at the Nurnberg War-crimes-trial were used today, all the US presidents since WW2 would have been found guilty of war crimes."

I don't accept that. What war Crimes would presidents be guilty of. I think that just because Noam Chomsky says something it doesn't make it true.

quote:

Suppose Osama Bin Laden (or Arafat or whoever on the middle east) said "I am in full support of peacibly arresting George W. Bush. If he resists arrest however then I condone using whatever force necessary to put him in custody, just like I do any other suspected murderer who makes death threats".

The fact that 190 out of 191 countries support handing over Bin Laden would be one slight difference. The fact that 188 out of 191 countries never even recognized that the Taleban were a legitimate government. The fact that Bin Laden is making death threats against the american people while Bush is not making death threats against the Afghanistan people.
The fact that the Taleban are one of the most oppressive regimes to ever have control in the history of the world oppressing and killing women and children.

The fact that the force that I talk about using doesn't include crashing planes into civillian targets that have nothing to do with the target.

These subtle differences (note:sarcasm) prevent your comparisons from having any reason.

Look there's no double standard here unless you can find some type of parrallel between the Taleban and a civilized country.

The point is that my point was in response to people saying we shouldn't kill him and I responded that I was quite satisfied with him being tried and jailed. Now you are arguing again that even that is an unacceptable response.

"How do you spell perfection - p a r a l y s i s"

If we had to respond in a perfect way that would satisfy you Zatamon. A lot more buildings will fall and people will die before we get it right. THat is unacceptable. The U.S. is accomplishing the best possible alternative, a vast coalition of the rest of the world who will judge the U.S. actions to ensure they are not unilateral. More responsible of a military action than the world has ever seen. The perfect solution, no (there isn't one). But the best solution.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 23 September 2001 10:19 AM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Markbo, I will dig up the Chomsky essay for you and then you can decide for yourself.

As far as the rest of your post is concerned, you miss my point: I am not defending the Telaban, but arguing aginst the principle you want to apply and the precedent you want to establish.

I answered in detail in a new thread I started: "Problems and Solutions"

See you there.

Zatamon


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 23 September 2001 11:04 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
aginst the principle you want to apply and the precedent you want to establish.

The principle that is being applied here and the precedent established is that you need the support of the majority of the countries of the world before taking action. OR that you need broad coalitions before taking actions. If the Principles and precedents being established are that oppressive regimes that are condemned by the vast majority of the world, will not be able to hide behind borders.

Then I am for it 100%


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
freedom2002
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1309

posted 23 September 2001 01:24 PM      Profile for freedom2002     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
good questions Zatamon. I've been wondering how long babblers would continue to intellectualize and pontificate. this site seems to be more of the " circuses and bread " that keeps our minds and time occupied...but at least we're not glued to the t.v. , that other great enslaver of mankind , turning our brains to mush ? in terms of effective activism , however , well , it sounds like you've already drawn your own conclusions.
From: calgary , alberta , canada | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
freedom2002
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1309

posted 23 September 2001 01:49 PM      Profile for freedom2002     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
good questions Zatamon. I've been wondering how long babblers would continue to intellectualize and pontificate. this site seems to be more of the " circuses and bread " that keeps our minds and time occupied...but at least we're not glued to the t.v. , that other great enslaver of mankind , turning our brains to mush ? in terms of effective activism , however , well , it sounds like you've already drawn your own conclusions.
sorry for the double post

From: calgary , alberta , canada | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Croesus_Krept
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 964

posted 24 September 2001 02:02 AM      Profile for Croesus_Krept   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The question is: shouldn't we be scared?

Yes, but not really... When forgiveness seems incongruous, what can you do? Shrug? Can positive thinking really save your sold soul? I wonder...

What am I afraid of? Like all of you - death. But three times in my life, already,
I have come very close to death:

1. The first time: a bus struck me from behind while I was riding a bicyle, but I landed on my back, uninjured.

2. The next time I nearly fell off a cliff in Yunnan while walking my bicycle over the Yangtze River gorge; my quick reflexes saved my life and I was able to grasp a rock until a young fellow came along and helped me scramble up before I could slip down over 300 meters of sharp 85-degree-steep rock to the water...

3. The third time, a tremendous earthquake seemed nearly to shake my apartment down... Clinging to my lover girl, who was whimpering like a puppy, I was terrified. Curiously, of my three near-death experiences, only the earthquake scared me...

To you in North America, a war in central Asia is merely a nightmare. Unless they use the nukes - you have nothing to fear...

cr..s.s


From: Taiwan | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ian the second
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 732

posted 24 September 2001 08:42 AM      Profile for Ian the second   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Unfortunately it did not happen. When discussions go on and on about Bush's IQ and whether he is a
moron or only an idiot, it reminds me of the old one: "How many angels can dance on the tip of a pin?"
quote:


George W. Bush is arguably the most powerful man in the world. I put this foreward as a reason to be somewhat afraid.

^^
00?
<
.


Ian


From: Toronto City, Toronto | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
judym
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 29

posted 24 September 2001 10:10 PM      Profile for judym   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
"Russia is no longer our enemy and therefore we shouldn't be locked into a Cold War mentality that says we keep the peace by blowing each other up. In my attitude, that's old, that's tired, that's stale."—Des Moines, Iowa, June 8, 2001

from Slate magazine,
The Complete Bushisms


From: earth | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca