Welcome to the THE WRITERS FORUM brought to you by 12ozPROPHET...
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access to view our discussions, photos and other forum features. By joining THE WRITERS FORUM community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access other member only features. Registration is fast, simple and free, so join THE WRITERS FORUM today and be a part of the largest and longest running graffiti, street arts and popular culture forum online!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Originally posted by alder No offense to all the peaceful protestors but I think at a certain point if want someone to listen to you, you're gonna have to light something on fire. All the protest that I've been to in the US have been peaceful and some of them quite large but none of them had alot of press coverage and not that many people outside of those directly affected knew about them. I'm not for all out anarchy, but I'm not saying I couldn't use some new home furnishings and a nice jacket for those cold nights.
Might I suggest you look at the ties between gov't, big business and big media? You might be shocked at how much CNN doesn't report.
Check some alternative news sources if you want to see coverage of activist stuff. www.rabble.ca (more for Canucks) www.motherjones.com www.adbusters.org www.alternet.org
the manchester guardian or the bbc are good reliable sources too though with much more of a European focus
Also about using violence to attract attention-Ghandi conducted a huge mass protest against British occupation of India using strictly peaceful methods. His methods were immensely successful. Granted different period, different sitch but violent methods generally blow up in your face in terms of pr. Media usually dismiss your message and concentrate on the number hurt or amount of property damaged if you use violence.Check Seattle, Quebec, Genoa protests.
5:45 am est phila. pa. usa,
im wasted out of mind, bimb iraq. just to mke you dweebs sad. i hope millions of innocent people die. word to the gods an shit.
Originally posted by alleniverson To Europe and the other anti-war people..
at what point do you feel war is necessary?
do you feel we should be attacked first?
if so, why?
[1] At the point were your 'secret' sources are shown to the UN and after inspection they prove to be reliable and true...if the US is so sure saddam has all those weapons and the inspectors still havent found them, why not let'em check the data???
I think its common sense that you cant convice the whole world just because you say so...
[2] inspectors are satisfyied with the corporation from the iraqis right now, and they say the investigation is moving correct, if they werent willing to corporate, that would be a reason...anyway, war is the final move and i think we have a long way till that.
As far as US being attacked, theres no way iraq, can threaten US soil with a military attack, you know that very well. The only attack you could take would be a terrorist attack...thats unpredictable, and it has nothing to do with who attacks first.
Originally posted by alder No offense to all the peaceful protestors but I think at a certain point if want someone to listen to you, you're gonna have to light something on fire. All the protest that I've been to in the US have been peaceful and some of them quite large but none of them had alot of press coverage and not that many people outside of those directly affected knew about them. I'm not for all out anarchy, but I'm not saying I couldn't use some new home furnishings and a nice jacket for those cold nights.
I totally disagree with that, heres what a small example of what happened here yesterday:
Breaking stuff is sure more fun, and you get to feel more active...but its a total illussion, the only thing you achieve is pass the wrong message, these protests were ANTI-WAR, and thats why they should remain peacefull, practise what you preach and keep your actions in context...
As far as media coverage, my impression is that the whole world saw what happened yesterday, the message was sent clearly to the US, its up to you guys to think about it or not.
alea jacta est.
Thoughts from a few others ... -
02-16-2003, 05:48 PM
I e-mailed an ex-girlfriend to ask her what she thought about the impending war. This was her response:
Quote:
I am utterly against it. And if there was anything I could do to stop it, I would. I personally think that Bush is the AntiChrist who will lead us into the 3rd world war that will destroy life as we know it. Look in the Bible sometime. The signs are there. (I really dont know, but Mom made us watch Left Behind and some of the signs were in there.) Any time a president who was not even elected by the majority can start a war for oil and say it is to "stop evil", not a good idea. And what is with the religious bullshit about this being about an "evil axis?" What place does the word "evil" have in politics?
Also, since my friends are in the armed forces, I think it is scary. Richie just got engaged, and sent to Kuwait in one week. If one of my friends is killed overseas, I will go crazy and personally bomb the White House.
Plus Bush is dumb. And ugly.
My current girlfriend had this to say after going to a mass that was mostly about the war:
Quote:
yesterday, mass was about the war too. the priest was saying how he was conflicted b/c he wants to have pride in america and protect us against terrorism, but at the same time, we're going to be killing thousands of innocent people and who are we to just go and do this without international approval.
the gospel was about being unclean and he was saying that we as a nation are unclean by going to war. then he said that it's scary that the president has gone this far in the movement to start a war when the american people arent even behind him. it's like bush doesnt care what america is saying, he's going to do what he wants
uhhhh, i wasn't really serious about what i said last night. i was under the *ahem* influence. im not gonna discuss this anymore, you guys are all cool w/ me, we just don't see eye to eye.
i seen some slimeball republican on a debate show,
the independant he was debating against referenced a mid 90's think tank memo from the republican conserivitives that basically outlined taking over iraq to disrupt opec and provide military supremecy for israel.
this was years before the 9/11 attacks.
which leads me to conclude that in my opinion the 9/11 attacks were allowed to happen in order to further the republican agenda of taking over iraq.
iraq is one broke ass ho of a country. the only threat the could pose is to their neighbors, most of which are not to keen on a war.
and again, if you look at whats behind al quida, its the israel palestine thing.
solve that shit, and i bet money youll rid the world of the majority of islamic extremist terror.
did anyone see the time photo essay of the chechyn rebels and the theatre in moscow?
brutal shots of passed out women rebels -passed out from gas- that were shot and killed while they were passed out.
the administration has ran our country into the dirt in the last two years. we have a fucked economy, less civil rights, a goverment that failed to protect its citizens when it had warnings of terrorist attacks, unsolved case of anthrax attacks, huge deficit, social programs are slashed while the rich are proposed to get huge tax cuts and state goverments are going broke.
i dont give two fucks about iraq. george bush has done more harm to the country i live in than the terrorists could hope to.
Originally posted by ******** i seen some slimeball republican on a debate show,
the independant he was debating against referenced a mid 90's think tank memo from the republican conserivitives that basically outlined taking over iraq to disrupt opec and provide military supremecy for israel.
this was years before the 9/11 attacks.
which leads me to conclude that in my opinion the 9/11 attacks were allowed to happen in order to further the republican agenda of taking over iraq.
iraq is one broke ass ho of a country. the only threat the could pose is to their neighbors, most of which are not to keen on a war.
and again, if you look at whats behind al quida, its the israel palestine thing.
solve that shit, and i bet money youll rid the world of the majority of islamic extremist terror.
did anyone see the time photo essay of the chechyn rebels and the theatre in moscow?
brutal shots of passed out women rebels -passed out from gas- that were shot and killed while they were passed out.
the administration has ran our country into the dirt in the last two years. we have a fucked economy, less civil rights, a goverment that failed to protect its citizens when it had warnings of terrorist attacks, unsolved case of anthrax attacks, huge deficit, social programs are slashed while the rich are proposed to get huge tax cuts and state goverments are going broke.
i dont give two fucks about iraq. george bush has done more harm the country i live in than the terrorists could hope to.
infoshop.org helps with a good amount of unbiased straight news, and always anarchist comments on the juicy stuff.
i personally wont get involved in a diatribe against war as a last resort, tho war is a necessary evil due to greed consumption etc on both sides i dont think blowing the hell out of another country should be used as a threat and/or a consequence. everyone knows my opinions to be extremely anti-US, and have defended myself on numerous occasions... yet just a little hint at who to believe:
"Major duct tape manufacturers came out this week to the tune of: DUCT TAPE IS gaspermeable and wont do a damn thing against biowar/infectwar you are better using clear packing tape which happens to be impermeable to gas and air yet not very temperature resistant"
Thanks senor ashcroft because millions of gunjumping americans would have died just like the Jews who took showers to be clean... hmmm more parallels to Nazi America 2003.
rant.
jbc.sbm.bo
stonecutters#zero
[i]Le coeur a ses raisons, que la raison ne connaît point.[/i]
blaise pascal.
By William Rivers Pitt, TruthOut.com
February 12, 2003
Osama bin Laden rose from the dead yet again on Tuesday to prophesy doom and death for America. This is nothing new; he has been clawing his way out of various burial holes for seventeen months now, and always manages to strike fear into the American heart by way of the American media and the Bush administration at exactly the moment when incredibly important shifts in history are in the offing.
At this moment, George W. Bush stands almost completely alone in his desire to make pre-emptive war on the nation of Iraq. Several key NATO allies – France, Germany and Belgium among them – have thrown sand into the gears of battle by refusing to prepare Turkey for an immediate war they do not support nor deem necessary. As this incredible state of affairs unfolded, Americans found their ears ringing with orange-hued warnings of imminent death. Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge went so far as to tell people to load up on plastic sheeting and duct tape so as to bar their windows from chemical attack, but the administration he calls home made sure to tell people to live their lives normally and continue shopping.
And so it goes. This is fairly standard stuff within the American echo chamber. Let there be one important piece of legislation, or one highly embarrassing turn of events for the administration, and the word goes forth that the sky is falling. We have been dealing with this politically manufactured low-grade hysteria for many months now. Most Americans have reached a suspended state of disbelief about it all, and won't be taking these warnings seriously unless they see Osama bin Laden on their doorstep in a black cassock with scythe in hand. Bush and Ashcroft will soon run out of colors on the warning chart if this keeps up; the shade after red likely exists somewhere in the fourth dimension, visible only to ultraconservative war-hawks and media talking heads.
When the voice of Osama comes out of the television, however, things suddenly become much more serious. The Bush administration may have forgotten him entirely, but every single American still sleeps with visions of burning towers and plummeting bodies projected on the backs of their eyelids. Peter Bergen, noted terrorism expert, stated on CNN that such messages from bin Laden usually herald new attacks. If the Orange Alert was dubious on Monday, it was given new importance on Tuesday.
Secretary of State Colin Powell set the stage for this new bin Laden statement early on Tuesday, much to the surprise of CIA Director George Tenet. Powell, during testimony at a Senate Budget Committee meeting, let it drop that the Middle East news network Al Jazeera had in hand a tape of Osama bin Laden. Tenet, seated with the Intelligence Committee, had not heard of this tape. One is left wondering at Powell's sources, especially after the story unfolded.
Powell used the existence of this tape, and the words he claimed bin Laden had said on it, to further tie Saddam Hussein to international terrorism. He claimed bin Laden was clearly establishing a connection between himself and Hussein on the tape, beyond all question. "This nexus between terrorists and states that are developing weapons of mass destruction," said Powell, "can no longer be looked away from and ignored."
The actual tape, played and translated live on every major cable news channel, told a very different story. Osama bin Laden swore vengeance against America if Iraq was attacked, and demanded that the Muslim world stand in solidarity with the Muslim people of Iraq. In very clear words, Osama bin Laden told the people of Iraq to rise up against both American aggression and against "socialist" Saddam Hussein. If the translations that were provided were reliable, there is no ambiguity in bin Laden's words on the matter. So much, it seems, for Powell's case that Hussein and bin Laden are working together.
And this is where it gets interesting.
An MSNBC.com report on the bin Laden tape carried the following sentence: "At the same time, the message also called on Iraqis to rise up and oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, who is a secular leader." This clearly confirms the clarity of mind Osama bin Laden displayed in regard to Saddam Hussein, and conforms to the recorded message heard by millions and millions of people around the world.
Less than twenty minutes after this report appeared on MSNBC, that sentence was deleted from the report. A few intrepid Internet news junkies, including myself, preserved what is called a 'screen-grab' of the original article before it was scrubbed. The version of the article currently in existence has replaced the text above with this far more benign text: "The taped statement reflected Saddam, a secular leader, but made it clear that Saddam was not the immediate target." A similar story line, bereft of the portions describing bin Laden's wish that Hussein be killed, has appeared in virtually every mainstream news media report on the matter.
The manner in which this story unfolded brings forth a number of serious questions.
First of all, questions must be asked regarding Colin Powell's motives in this. The recording heard by the world diverged significantly from the spin Powell put on it before the Budget Committee. Osama bin Laden did not state an alliance with Saddam Hussein, but with the Muslim civilians in Iraq who will bear the bloody brunt of any American attack. In fact, bin Laden told the Iraqi people to rise up against Hussein. This is not the way allies deal with each other.
Why would Powell go to such lengths to stretch the glaringly obvious truth in this matter? He is already suffering from a deficit of credibility in the aftermath of the plagiarism scandal that is currently rocking Tony Blair's administration. Powell stood before the UN last week and praised a British intelligence dossier that contained cut-and-pasted pages and pages of an essay, with all spelling and grammatical errors intact, written by a postgraduate student from California. The data was years out of date, flat-out contradictory in several key areas, used without the student's awareness, and yet was offered as an up-to-the-minute assessment of Iraqi weapons capabilities.
This, in combination with Powell's obviously skewed interpretation of Tuesday's bin Laden recording, forces us to call into question every single word he and the Bush administration have said on the matter. The question of whether Saddam Hussein has ties to al Qaeda terrorism and Osama bin Laden can be put to bed now, it seems, alongside the tatters and shreds of honor and dignity formerly enjoyed by the Secretary of State.
More ominously, why would a news network like MSNBC so obviously haul water for the failed allegations of the Bush administration? Events happen in seconds on the internet, but merely scrubbing uncomfortable sentences from articles cannot stop the tens of thousands of readers who are wise enough now to save the evidence before it evaporates in a cloud of silicon.
These deletions display a manifest breach of faith on behalf of MSNBC, and call to mind issues surrounding the conflict of interest that are inherent in the ownership of this network. MSNBC, along with NBC and CNBC, are owned by the corporate giant General Electric. GE is one of the largest defense contractors on the face of the earth, and will, bluntly, be paid a king's ransom in the event of a war. Following this line of questioning leads to some dark corners, indeed. How often is the data being manipulated by the corporate-owned media? Are we to rely solely on the nimble fingers of keyboarded citizens to get to the heart of the matter?
A report appearing later on Tuesday on MSNBC.com served to refute the claims of collusion between bin Laden and Hussein. "Although Powell sought to characterize the tape as a concrete link between al-Qaida and the Iraqi government," the MSNBC.com report read, "White House officials acknowledged later to NBC News that it did not. Powell did not know it had not been broadcast when he spoke to the committee and was 'a little on the front of his skis,' a government source said." These lines were buried deep within the report.
By Wednesday morning, this text had been completely removed from the article.
Virtually the entire global community stands against us today on the subject of this war, with nations willing and able to destroy NATO before allowing it to take place. The Bush administration has cut billions of dollars from street-level homeland defenders like police forces and fire houses, yet has the eagle screaming for a war that will be fought simultaneously in downtown Baghdad and in your utterly undefended neighborhood. They have the gall, simultaneously, to speak of trillion dollar tax cuts for rich people that will further debilitate our budgetary ability to defend ourselves. Links between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein have proven to be not only false, but laughable. The credibility of the Bush administration has been destroyed.
And yet we go, with the news media whistling 'Onward Christian Soldiers' all the while. The Bush administration is ecstatic, believing they can spin bin Laden's statement of support for Iraqi civilians into a connection between the terrorist and Hussein.
it may be possible for there to be some sort of link (bin laden...hussien). i mean they all have a common enemy. US. .
stupid isreal
if they werent so pushy
but they do have a right to be there...not to be as awful as they have been...i mean...we all know theyre just a pit stop for america...and now they think their some sort of country...cmon now
oh and just wondering...if any1 knows americas other aillies in the middle east and where we get oil from if you could post it that would be grand
and do you guys pro and anti war sides think they have a right to be there? is it their fault theyve been shitted on by all those people? just a thought
oh one more thing...about george bush being a piece of shit yadda yadda...hes just a talking head...you really think he knows what hes doing
i know if i grew up son of president super rich oil tycoon...id be dumb too
he just does what hes told...who tells him...who knows...ashcroft...hes new friend ridge...whoever else is on his cabinet...chances are...there is some hidden agenda
but
i can say im scared
maybe the war will bring more terror...maybe not
i personally feel since america hasnt done shit to get bin laden...all those other people think they can just do what ever...but if we show some balls...who knows...im rambling once again...sowwie
just finished writing my first letter to a friend shipped over to kuwait city -
02-17-2003, 04:31 AM
and shit is not sweet....
i had the toughest time in the world figuring out what to say to this kid, and he's been my friend for years.
everything i wrote seemed to be out of step... any common ground seemed trivial, and yet i didn't want to make the shit too heavy too read; i'm sure he's got enough shit on his mind and might want respite... fuck.
and it doesn't help matters that it will take at least 30 days to get there.
i thought it might be a good experience. it wasn't.
Originally posted by .:armr:. it may be possible for there to be some sort of link (bin laden...hussien). i mean they all have a common enemy. US. .
stupid isreal
if they werent so pushy
but they do have a right to be there...not to be as awful as they have been...i mean...we all know theyre just a pit stop for america...and now they think their some sort of country...cmon now
oh and just wondering...if any1 knows americas other aillies in the middle east and where we get oil from if you could post it that would be grand
and do you guys pro and anti war sides think they have a right to be there? is it their fault theyve been shitted on by all those people? just a thought
Saudia Arabia is a major US supplier and ally in the middle East. As a sidenote Osama bin Laden is actually a Saudi Arabian and Saudi Arabia funds numerous terrorist groups, possibly even his. They are also a dictatorial regime run by a royal family who rely heavily on the US's aid. Gorgeous country if you don't mind being put in jail and tortured for speaking against the gov't.
As for Israel-Israel as we now know it, is a creation of Britain after the SEcond World War. THe Zionist Movement, aka movement for a jewish homeland, started there late 19th century and Jews migrated to the British colony, living in harmony with Armenians and the Arabs. After the First World War, the BRitish gave control over to the Jewish people de facto. After the Second World War, they gave control over legally. Then shit started. Basically the British felt sorry for the Jewish people and decided to give them the territory that now is Israel without a thought for the people already living there. Imperialism at its best. The people who were living there already, the Palestinians, were understandably a little put out at their homeland being given away to the Jews. And so now you have 3 generations of Palestinians displaced and 3 generations of Jews entrenched. Complex sitch to say the least. Sins of the father being visited on the son.
Originally posted by ana Saudia Arabia is a major US supplier and ally in the middle East. As a sidenote Osama bin Laden is actually a Saudi Arabian and Saudi Arabia funds numerous terrorist groups, possibly even his. They are also a dictatorial regime run by a royal family who rely heavily on the US's aid. Gorgeous country if you don't mind being put in jail and tortured for speaking against the gov't.
As for Israel-Israel as we now know it, is a creation of Britain after the SEcond World War. THe Zionist Movement, aka movement for a jewish homeland, started there late 19th century and Jews migrated to the British colony, living in harmony with Armenians and the Arabs. After the First World War, the BRitish gave control over to the Jewish people de facto. After the Second World War, they gave control over legally. Then shit started. Basically the British felt sorry for the Jewish people and decided to give them the territory that now is Israel without a thought for the people already living there. Imperialism at its best. The people who were living there already, the Palestinians, were understandably a little put out at their homeland being given away to the Jews. And so now you have 3 generations of Palestinians displaced and 3 generations of Jews entrenched. Complex sitch to say the least. Sins of the father being visited on the son.
The Saudi Arabian goverment is not all bad though. They keep their citizens well stocked in good universitys, hospitals, schools and enjoy a very low violent crime rate. The royal family will pretty much give you a car or a few grand if you ask nicley for it. The culture can also be very upfront and friendly for the most part. It is not uncommon to see woman on the street asking for money to buy gold and getting it. Granted they do abuse human rights but most nations do, and at least they follow a fairly decent doctrine for the most part. It helps if your a devout muslim and male though. I think the reason that Saudi terrorists have such a problem with the United States is because they take religion very seriously, the city shuts down five times a day for prayer..shops close and tv shows are interrupted, and large amounts of United States troops whose goverment directly supports Israel on their land makes people a bit angry.
For example, if Hawaii was occupied and had been at war with China for some time, how would you feel if there were large amounts of Chinese troops in your city near the very things you hold most dear?
I am not in anyway sympathizing with terrorists nor advocating their views, but I really belive this to be the reason behind it.
As far as Israel, just a few years ago everything was looking up. The economy in Palestine was going up and the country was doing well. I think what people in the United States are not exposed to is the fact that Israelis enjoy a modern western standard of living while natives suffer in refugee camps since the 50's that to this day do not have sewage and plumbing in buildings nor electricity. And what I still cant comprehend is how the Israeli settlement issue with settlements being illegal under UN and international, can be such and underlying issue that is not being addressed at all in regards to all this bitching moaning and whining from the Bush administration about Iraq being in violation of UN resolution 1441. I took a look at Jenin via a Time photo essay (really cool website time has for photo essays ) and the destruction was so massive. It looked like ground zero in Manhattan but it was peoples homes and lives in rubble for as far as you can see in the photograph.
02-16-2003, 07:17 AM
.
