MUMIA-"War Against Terror...."

[Guest Frank Zappa Mask]

Evening, my fellow citizens.  Here's a few more doses of the exact opposite of the status-quo.  Enjoy, and please try to think and discuss...

 

 

ADVERTISEMENT

My Groups | mumiacolumns Main Page

 

 

WAR AGAINST TERROR OR WAR TO GOVERN THE WORLD?

[Col. Writ. 2/6/02] Copyright 2002 Mumia Abu-Jamal

 

  It is helpful sometimes, in times of great and confusing events,

to consider simple things, which can shed light on things that

are far more complex.

 

  The events of 9/11, and in turn the resultant aerial bombardment

of Afghanistan by American military, is now the opening act of

what promises to be a global military campaign that threatens to

be waged in Iraq, perhaps Iran, Somalia, and even the far

Phillipines.

 

  We are told that this war will be waged for years, perhaps for

decades, in far-flung areas of the earth.  It is, in Bush

Administration terms, a 'war against terrorism,' a 'war against

evil,' and a 'clash of civilizations'. (Of course, the royal "we"

are the perfect good; "they" are the eternal evil).

 

  One wonders, when is a 'terrorist,' not a terrorist?

 

  The late Pakistani scholar, Eqbal Ahmad, points to how

history and circumstance can change characterizations:

 

      Until the 1930s and 1940s, the Jewish underground

     in Palestine was described as "terrorist."  Then

     something happened: around 1942, as news of the

     Holocaust was spreading, a certain liberal sympathy

     with the Jewish people began to emerge in the

     Western world.  By 1944, the terrorists of Palestine,

     who were Zionists, suddenly began being described

     as "freedom fighters."  If you look in history books

     you can find at least two Israeli prime ministers,

     including Menachem Begin, appearing in "Wanted"

     posters saying, TERRORISTS, REWARD [this

     much].  The highest reward I have seen offered

     was 100,000 British pounds for the head of Menachem

     Begin, the terrorist (Yitzhak Shamir is the other).

     [Eqbal Ahmad, Terrorism: Theirs &Ours, Seven

     Stories, 2001), p. 11]

 

  The terrorism of yesterday has become the nationalism of

today.

 

  The interests and objectives of the US, and its Western

partners, have less to do with terrorism, than with making the

world quiescent and calm in the face of a neo-colonialist,

corporate capitalism.

 

  What is at stake is not democracy, for if this was so why does

the West support regimes, like the Saudis or the Emirates, that

don't even have a pretense of a democratic form of government?

What is at stake is western control over resources, like oil, or

natural gas.

 

  What is at stake is hegemony, or the continued dominance

over the emerging world by the industrial, corporate West, under

the flag of globalism.

 

  What is globalized is the use of force to suppress local,

national and regional movements seeking liberation or autonomy.

What is globalized is the media machinery of the wealthy elites

to justify an inequitable status quo.  What is globalized is terror,

on a world scale, to protect the system.

 

Copyright '02 MAJ

 

==================================

 

CHECK www.mumia.org AND ITS LINKS FOR IMPORTANT ACTION ALERTS!

 

PLEASE CONTACT:

International Concerned Family &Friends of MAJ

P.O. Box 19709

Philadelphia, PA 19143

Phone - 215-476-8812/ Fax - 215-476-6180/ E-mail - [email protected]

AND OFFER YOUR SERVICES!

 

Send our brotha some LOVE and LIGHT at:

Mumia Abu-Jamal

AM 8335

SCI-Greene

175 Progress Drive

Waynesburg, PA 15370

 

WE SHALL NOT BE MOVED!!

 

******************************************************

This column may be reprinted and/or distributed by

electronic means, but only for non-commercial use, and

only with the inclusion of the following copyright

information:

 

Text © copyright 2001 by Mumia Abu-Jamal. All rights

reserved. Reprinted by permission of the author.

******************************************************

 

Mumia Abu-Jamal is the author of three books: 'Live

from Death Row', 'Death Blossoms', and 'All Things

Censored'.

 

Write to Mumia directly at:

Mumia Abu-Jamal AM 8335

SCI-Greene

175 Progress Drive

Waynesburg, PA 15370

 

 

 

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

[email protected]

 

 

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[Guest Vyce]

Mumia seems to be a fairly intelligent guy.  He's certainly charismatic enough to have many followers, and he's bright enough to put out his own opinion / philosophy of the world, even if most of it is just rhetoric.

 

It's a shame that he spent his free time , you know, KILLING COPS.  Otherwise he might have made something of his life.

 

Oh well.

[Guest TJH]

Sure, flying planes into buildings is nationalism.......

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

If he's so smart, how come he got caught murdering an officer of the law? God what I wouldn't give to see him sliced open like the pig that he is.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

<<WAR AGAINST TERROR OR WAR TO GOVERN THE WORLD?

[Col. Writ. 2/6/02] Copyright 2002 Mumia Abu-Jamal

 

It is helpful sometimes, in times of great and confusing events, to consider simple things, which can shed light on things that are far more complex.

 

The events of 9/11, and in turn the resultant aerial bombardment of Afghanistan by American military, is now the opening act of what promises to be a global military campaign that threatens to be waged in Iraq, perhaps Iran, Somalia, and even the far Phillipines.

 

We are told that this war will be waged for years, perhaps for

decades, in far-flung areas of the earth.  It is, in Bush

Administration terms, a 'war against terrorism,' a 'war against

evil,' and a 'clash of civilizations'. (Of course, the royal "we"

are the perfect good; "they" are the eternal evil). >>

 

We didn't plow planes into towers. And we've never claimed to be "perfect"---just better than the sub-humans who launched this campaign.

 

<<One wonders, when is a 'terrorist,' not a terrorist?

 

 The late Pakistani scholar, Eqbal Ahmad, points to how

history and circumstance can change characterizations:

 

     Until the 1930s and 1940s, the Jewish underground

    in Palestine was described as "terrorist."  Then

    something happened: around 1942, as news of the

    Holocaust was spreading, a certain liberal sympathy

    with the Jewish people began to emerge in the

    Western world.  By 1944, the terrorists of Palestine,

    who were Zionists, suddenly began being described

    as "freedom fighters."  If you look in history books

    you can find at least two Israeli prime ministers,

    including Menachem Begin, appearing in "Wanted"

    posters saying, TERRORISTS, REWARD [this

    much].  The highest reward I have seen offered

    was 100,000 British pounds for the head of Menachem

    Begin, the terrorist (Yitzhak Shamir is the other).

    [Eqbal Ahmad, Terrorism: Theirs &Ours, Seven

    Stories, 2001), p. 11]

 

 The terrorism of yesterday has become the nationalism of

today.

 

 The interests and objectives of the US, and its Western

partners, have less to do with terrorism, than with making the

world quiescent and calm in the face of a neo-colonialist,

corporate capitalism.

 

What is at stake is not democracy, for if this was so why does the West support regimes, like the Saudis or the Emirates, that don't even have a pretense of a democratic form of government? >>

 

Our support of the Saudis IS questionable, as they are hardly an ally.

 

He SHOULD notice that we get a lot of heat for supporting the only democracy in the region.

 

<<What is at stake is western control over resources, like oil, or natural gas.

 

 What is at stake is hegemony, or the continued dominance

over the emerging world by the industrial, corporate West, under the flag of globalism.

 

What is globalized is the use of force to suppress local,

national and regional movements seeking liberation or autonomy. What is globalized is the media machinery of the wealthy elites to justify an inequitable status quo.  What is globalized is terror, on a world scale, to protect the system. >>

 

No, what is globalized is that the world won't allow a bunch of sub-humans attack people randomly.

                    -=Mike

 

...Amazed that he would view police as being more evil than the terrorists

[Guest Frank Zappa Mask]

<<What is at stake is western control over resources, like oil, or natural gas.

 

What is at stake is hegemony, or the continued dominance

over the emerging world by the industrial, corporate West, under the flag of globalism.

 

What is globalized is the use of force to suppress local,

national and regional movements seeking liberation or autonomy. What is globalized is the media machinery of the wealthy elites to justify an inequitable status quo.  What is globalized is terror, on a world scale, to protect the system.>>

 

<<No, what is globalized is that the world won't allow a bunch of sub-humans to attack people randomly.>>

                   -=Mike

 

-To be perfectly honest with you, I really think Mumia hits it on the nail right there. This is all a big game; controlled by those who seek to maintain and increase their own advantage at the expense of others, if need be (and they usually need to).  It's not a secret how we as a country are addicted to oil.  We're practically junkies. You have to be naive to not realize that at a good deal of the motivation of any U.S military intervention in the Middle East in the past 50 years has at least something to do with oil and natural resources.  Same goes for money and material items.  It's this addiction to the "good life" that is the key that allows our government to do practically whatever the hell they want. The fact that "the system" makes your life so comfortable is the reason you don't raise a finger.  You may not have a problem with the status quo, but to me, that status quo means having to wake up and read about the latest suicide bomb in Israel, or realizing that we are supposed to be the greatest country in the world and we can't even afford or don't have the time to take care of each other.  Instead, we sit in front of the TV all day, transfixed by the suffering of everyone but ourselves, entertained into numbness.  If that's what the status quo is, and if you want to support it, I say bring on the Apocalypse as quickly as possible....

 

And Mike, those "sub-humans" (again, careful with that rhetoric.  Calling someone less than human is the first step towards fascist thought) don't do things randomly.  They have political and religious motivations.  I don't know why that isn't obvious to you.  There's nothing random about terrorism....

[Guest TheMikeSC]

<<What is at stake is western control over resources, like oil, or natural gas.

 

What is at stake is hegemony, or the continued dominance

over the emerging world by the industrial, corporate West, under the flag of globalism.

 

What is globalized is the use of force to suppress local,

national and regional movements seeking liberation or autonomy. What is globalized is the media machinery of the wealthy elites to justify an inequitable status quo.  What is globalized is terror, on a world scale, to protect the system.>>

 

<<No, what is globalized is that the world won't allow a bunch of sub-humans to attack people randomly.>>

                  -=Mike

 

<<-To be perfectly honest with you, I really think Mumia hits it on the nail right there. This is all a big game; controlled by those who seek to maintain and increase their own advantage at the expense of others, if need be (and they usually need to).  It's not a secret how we as a country are addicted to oil.  We're practically junkies.>>

 

No argument whatsoever.

 

<<You have to be naive to not realize that at a good deal of the motivation of any U.S military intervention in the Middle East in the past 50 years has at least something to do with oil and natural resources.>>

 

Desire for oil is better than the justification Middle Eastern states have for their attacks against Israel over the past 50 years----virulent, Hitler-esque anti-Semitism.

 

<<Same goes for money and material items.  It's this addiction to the "good life" that is the key that allows our government to do practically whatever the hell they want. The fact that "the system" makes your life so comfortable is the reason you don't raise a finger.  You may not have a problem with the status quo, but to me, that status quo means having to wake up and read about the latest suicide bomb in Israel, or realizing that we are supposed to be the greatest country in the world and we can't even afford or don't have the time to take care of each other.>>

 

Guess what? At any point in history, sub-humans did idiotic things.

 

If the status quo leads to sub-humans killing themselves in suicide bombings, then good. Fewer sub-humans in the world.

 

This is also why I fully support Israel doing whatever in the world they choose to do to stop these attacks.

 

<<Instead, we sit in front of the TV all day, transfixed by the suffering of everyone but ourselves, entertained into numbness.  If that's what the status quo is, and if you want to support it, I say bring on the Apocalypse as quickly as possible....>>

 

Nobody is forcing you to either live or stay in this country.

 

I'll remind you, once again---WE DID NOT ATTACK THESE SUB-HUMANS. THEY ATTACKED US.

 

They are no different than the Axis of World War II.

 

<<And Mike, those "sub-humans" (again, careful with that rhetoric.  Calling someone less than human is the first step towards fascist thought) don't do things randomly.>>

 

Anybody who kills innocents with no real justification are sub-human. The terrorists are sub-humans.

 

<<They have political and religious motivations.  I don't know why that isn't obvious to you.  There's nothing random about terrorism.... >>

 

Amazing that my calling them "sub-humans" is a step towards facism and America "exerting its influence" are basically fascist---but the terrorists' motives aren't.

[Guest Frank Zappa Mask]

<<Desire for oil is better than the justification Middle Eastern states have for their attacks against Israel over the past 50 years----virulent, Hitler-esque anti-Semitism.>>

 

-Again, I'm not as familiar as I should be on the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict, but it's not that hard to understand why the reaction has been as extreme as it has been.  What would you expect these people to do when the country of Israel lands on them and their homeland without their permission?  As for the anti-Semitism, I'm not doubting that rhetoric exists amongst some of the more extreme factions on the Arab side, but that's a bit of a stretch to compare the motivations of Hitler to the motivations of your average Intifada convert.  Last time I checked my WWII history, I never saw anything where the Jews attacked Hitler and told him to leave his homeland or face extermination.  Many of these people are fighting for their very survival.  Things get very ugly when that happens....

 

<<Guess what? At any point in history, sub-humans did idiotic things.>>

 

-Here's an idea.  Let's get rid of idiocy.  It we actually sat down and tried, it might work...

 

<<I'll remind you, once again---WE DID NOT ATTACK THESE SUB-HUMANS. THEY ATTACKED US.>>

 

-Mike, please tell me exactly, in your humble opinion, why 9/11 happened?  You seem really convinced that the U.S was just some innocent victim in all of this, and that we've done nothing to bring any type of violent reaction against us.  9/11 didn't happen out of the blue.  It happened for very specific reasons that shed a proper light on the truth of America's influence worldwide if looked at in an objective manner.  I'm not excusing 9/11 at all, but to claim that we shoudln't have expected this to happen is very naive.

 

<<They are no different than the Axis of World War II.>>

 

-Whoa?  Is this Dubya?  Mike, you might be the only one who actually believes Bush's "Axis of Evil" crap. A basic knowledge of history will reveal that the current state of the world has changed quite drastically since WWII, and that little tidy drawers labeled "Allies" and "Axis" are best left in the history books where they can act as lessons to all of us. But, if you want WWIII, be my guest...

 

<<Amazing that my calling them "sub-humans" is a step towards facism and America "exerting its influence" are basically fascist---but the terrorists' motives aren't.>>

 

-I'm pretty sure the terrorists consider us sub-human.  Echoing their rhetoric doesn't help in any way, right?  We are supposed to be the greatest nation on Earth?  We are supposed to be the bastion of free and enlightened thought, which should lead us to the understanding that no one is sub-human and considering them as so is the first step down a very dark road?  Your continued use of the term "sub-human" doesn't make you any better than any other person in history who has used that term to justify any type of atrocity....

[Guest TheMikeSC]

<<Desire for oil is better than the justification Middle Eastern states have for their attacks against Israel over the past 50 years----virulent, Hitler-esque anti-Semitism.>>

 

<<-Again, I'm not as familiar as I should be on the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict, but it's not that hard to understand why the reaction has been as extreme as it has been.  What would you expect these people to do when the country of Israel lands on them and their homeland without their permission?>>

 

Again, WHY is Israel where they are?

 

Because they were attacked but still WON those wars.

 

Israel is as large as they are because their neighbors attacked them and lost---Israel is there because their neighbors are too weak and dumb to know better.

 

<<As for the anti-Semitism, I'm not doubting that rhetoric exists amongst some of the more extreme factions on the Arab side, but that's a bit of a stretch to compare the motivations of Hitler to the motivations of your average Intifada convert.>>

 

Their goal is the elimination of Israel and the death to all Jews.

 

The only difference is that Germany actually had the capacity to commit their atrocities. The Muslim extremists don't have the capacity and that's the only thing preventing them from doing it.

 

<<Last time I checked my WWII history, I never saw anything where the Jews attacked Hitler and told him to leave his homeland or face extermination.>>

 

Then you missed most of Middle Eastern history since the 1940's where Israel was attacked repeatedly and repelled their enemies.

 

Again, the only reason the Muslim extremists DON'T exterminate Israel is because they are unable to do so.

 

<< Many of these people are fighting for their very survival.  Things get very ugly when that happens....>>

 

Israel is the one fighting for its survival.

 

When you're stuck in a region where EVERY country around you has stated, REPEATEDLY, that they desire the total elimination of your state, you take attacks against you seriously.

 

<<Guess what? At any point in history, sub-humans did idiotic things.>>

 

<<-Here's an idea.  Let's get rid of idiocy.  It we actually sat down and tried, it might work...>>

 

Again, tried negotiation and diplomacy in the 30's with Hitler and under Clinton with the current collection of yahoos in the Middle East.

 

Wasn't exactly a roaring success in either case.

 

<<I'll remind you, once again---WE DID NOT ATTACK THESE SUB-HUMANS. THEY ATTACKED US.>>

 

<<-Mike, please tell me exactly, in your humble opinion, why 9/11 happened?  You seem really convinced that the U.S was just some innocent victim in all of this, and that we've done nothing to bring any type of violent reaction against us.>>

 

I'm convinced it's the case because IT IS THE CASE.

 

We FED Afghanistan for YEARS. We give MONEY to the assorted yahoos in the Middle East and have done so for YEARS. We did NOT attack the sub-humans who ran the Taliban.

 

They attacked us.

 

Do you also think we were to blame for Pearl Harbor?

 

<<9/11 didn't happen out of the blue.  It happened for very specific reasons that shed a proper light on the truth of America's influence worldwide if looked at in an objective manner.  I'm not excusing 9/11 at all, but to claim that we shoudln't have expected this to happen is very naive.>>

 

Yes, it is.

 

It's expecting the subhumans who support such bilge to actually attempt to behave like humans.

 

A mistake we should never make again.

 

<<They are no different than the Axis of World War II.>>

 

<<--Whoa?  Is this Dubya?  Mike, you might be the only one who actually believes Bush's "Axis of Evil" crap. A basic knowledge of history will reveal that the current state of the world has changed quite drastically since WWII, and that little tidy drawers labeled "Allies" and "Axis" are best left in the history books where they can act as lessons to all of us. But, if you want WWIII, be my guest...>>

 

We might not have a choice.

 

You can sit back and say "Well, it's partially our fault". "Well, we should negotiate". "Well, we need to understand their position".

 

Screw that.

 

They attacked us. We are morally correct in eliminating their capacity to ever launch another attack upon us again.

 

The only problem I had with Bush's "Axis of Evil" comment is that he left out quite a few other countries that are no better than the current group he has listed.

 

<<Amazing that my calling them "sub-humans" is a step towards facism and America "exerting its influence" are basically fascist---but the terrorists' motives aren't.>>

 

<<-I'm pretty sure the terrorists consider us sub-human.>>

 

And they can feel that way.

 

What a sub-human considers doesn't mean a heck of a lot to me. They already showed that they view us as less than human with their successful slaughter of thousands of innocents for no reason back on 9/11.

 

<< Echoing their rhetoric doesn't help in any way, right?>>

 

No---exterminating their ability to attack again helps a lot.

 

<<We are supposed to be the greatest nation on Earth?>>

 

We are.

 

<<We are supposed to be the bastion of free and enlightened thought, which should lead us to the understanding that no one is sub-human and considering them as so is the first step down a very dark road?>>

 

Nope. If somebody is a subhuman, they should be labelled as such.

 

Anybody who will kill innocents for no good reason and then cause the death of scores of THEIR OWN PEOPLE by not following the Geneva Conventions (yet expecting us to follow them in kind in regards to them) is subhuman, plain and simple.

 

<<Your continued use of the term "sub-human" doesn't make you any better than any other person in history who has used that term to justify any type of atrocity.... >>

 

Except that, in this case, we're completely on the side of right---one of the few times in history that anybody can make that claim.

               -=Mike

 

...Few things are as dangerous as moral relativism.

[Guest Vyce]

As for the anti-Semitism, I'm not doubting that rhetoric exists amongst some of the more extreme factions on the Arab side, but that's a bit of a stretch to compare the motivations of Hitler to the motivations of your average Intifada convert.

 

Anti-Semitism is RAMPANT in the Arab world.  Do you not believe the recent poll gathered?  If you put any validity in it at all, it shows that a majority of Arabs not only don't believe that Arabic people were responsible for the 9-11 atrocities - regardless of the proof to the contrary - but that this is some sort of conspiracy by the JEWS to make the Arabs look like the enemy.  It's delusional thinking.  The hatred for the Israeli people has blinded just about everyone over there.

 

Try as I might to give the Muslim religion the benefit of the doubt, the one constant that I've seen with it is that most of them seem to take anti-Semitism to be one of the major tenents of their faith.

 

9/11 didn't happen out of the blue. It happened for very specific reasons that shed a proper light on the truth of America's influence worldwide if looked at in an objective manner. I'm not excusing 9/11 at all, but to claim that we shoudln't have expected this to happen is very naive.

 

In my opinion, that IS excusing 9-11, or at least you're on the road to doing so.  "Yeah, it was horrible, BUT..."  No.  There is no but, dot dot dot.  NOTHING we have done to these people justifies killing thousands of innocents.  If they had attacked a military target, for example, like the U.S.S. Cole....well, honestly I would still argue over whether or not it was justified, but under those circumstances I would be understanding of your line of thinking.  If they had a beef with our country, our government, and they attacked a military target, I could, on some level, buy into your argument.  

 

But they didn't do that - they killed thousands of innocents, and if it wasn't for the heroes who helped crash the 4th plane, God knows how many others would have died.

 

So sit back, and bitch and moan all you want to (it's the best country in the world, which means even petty, bitter rabble-rousers like Mumia can freely voice their opinions), but there is absolutely NO justification for 9-11, so don't even start the train of thought that we deserved it in the least.

[Guest DrTom]

The war against terrorism has nothing to do with our desire to exert our Western will on the rest of the world.  This isn't the machinations of an empire; it's a concerted effort to eliminate the capabilities of certain cowardly enemies to attack us unawares.  It's as simple as guarding our backs, but this wouldn't be Mumia if it didn't have the Hidden Evil Empire Agenda (he should copyright that, too) in it.

 

" It's not a secret how we as a country are addicted to oil.  We're practically junkies."

 

I'll admit that our need for it is troubling, but I don't know if your analogy is really precise.  Junkies, at some point, will do whatever they can to acquire their drug of choice.  If this were the case, we would have exterminated a few smaller countries in the Middle East and taken all their oil for ourselves.  Believe me, I'm not a fan of our dependence on foreign oil.

 

"They [terrorists] have political and religious motivations.  I don't know why that isn't obvious to you."

 

It is obvious; it just doesn't matter.  Having political and religious motivations doesn't make your cause holy, justified, or in any way above scrutiny.  September 11th wasn't a random attack: it was a well-coordinated effort by several groups of people who wanted to strike at a common foe.  

 

It's really easy to say, "Well, we do bad things, too," and "Well, we've killed a bunch of people in the past," etc etc.  The fact remains that you're just shifting blame at that point.  You can't use the actions committed by one group as an excuse for the actions of another.  To use a modern example, it'd be akin to excusing any Republican involvement in Enron because there were Democrats tied up in Global Crossing.  It IS moral relativism, and while I'm not sure it's as dangerous as Mike claims it to be, it's certainly not a good thing to be engaging in.

[Guest J*ingus]

"It's not a secret how we as a country are addicted to oil.  We're practically junkies. You have to be naive to not realize that at a good deal of the motivation of any U.S military intervention in the Middle East in the past 50 years has at least something to do with oil and natural resources."  

 

Oil junkies?  Absolutely.  I live in an upper-class neighborhood that is almost entirely populated by huge minivans and SUV's, most of which have pretty poor gas mileage.  (In case you're wondering, I drive a Toyota Corolla.)  

 

However, the United States doesn't get the majority of its oil from the Middle East.  In fact, the U.S. and Canada combined produce more oil than the entire Middle East.  

 

"You seem really convinced that the U.S was just some innocent victim in all of this, and that we've done nothing to bring any type of violent reaction against us."  

 

The 9-11 attacks were brought upon by fanatics' extremist reactions to our government's foreign policies, some of which were admittedly not too great.  That makes the Pentagon a more or less valid target, assuming of course that they'd declared their violent intentions ahead of time, as per the Geneva Convention that everyone's been mentioning recently.  However, the passengers on the planes and the people in NYC certainly had nothing to do with this.  They were innocent victims.  

 

"The interests and objectives of the US, and its Western

partners, have less to do with terrorism, than with making

the world quiescent and calm in the face of a neo-colonialist,

corporate capitalism."

 

Bullshit.  My reasoning:

 

1. The United States already is the most powerful nation on the earth, especially in the economic sense.  

 

2. Military actions in foreign countries have outcomes which are unpredictable at best.  Our involvement in Vietnam and Somalia, and the USSR's attempted invasion of Afghanistan (in which American provided funding to the Taliban "freedom fighters") proved that.  Why bomb someone and blow them up, with all the repercussions that brings, when economic sanctions and trade blockades do the same job with higher succes rates and much less expense?  

 

3. If America simply wanted to control these countries for imperialistic purposes, we would've already done so.  Our government is not shy, and pretty much does what it wants, when it wants.  These military actions only began after Al-Quaida's extensive network was exposed.  

 

4. I don't think our president is intelligent enough to come up with such a wide-sweeping conspiracy plan.  Calling any other country "evil" in this day and age, especially countries which have nuclear capabilities, is not a discreet move.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

<<The war against terrorism has nothing to do with our desire to exert our Western will on the rest of the world.  This isn't the machinations of an empire; it's a concerted effort to eliminate the capabilities of certain cowardly enemies to attack us unawares.  It's as simple as guarding our backs, but this wouldn't be Mumia if it didn't have the Hidden Evil Empire Agenda (he should copyright that, too) in it.

 

" It's not a secret how we as a country are addicted to oil.  We're practically junkies."

 

I'll admit that our need for it is troubling, but I don't know if your analogy is really precise.  Junkies, at some point, will do whatever they can to acquire their drug of choice.  If this were the case, we would have exterminated a few smaller countries in the Middle East and taken all their oil for ourselves.  Believe me, I'm not a fan of our dependence on foreign oil.>>

 

Nor am I. I'm actually becoming a proponent of alternative energy now simply because I hate the idea of us being even remotely dependant on a region of the Earth that is so friggin' unstable. I'd rather us have the ability to pull all of our troops out of there, support Israel, and let all of them fight one another to the death---they seem hell-bent on doing that.

 

However, I am somewhat baffled by the left's continued refusal to open up ANWR for drilling. ANWR is nothing but ice and is, to be generous, a God-forsaken hellhole. We can drill there and generate almost no negative impact upon the environment. This would allow us to, in a few years, produce more of our own oil and flood the world's market, ending the undue influence of OPEC.

 

<<"They [terrorists] have political and religious motivations.  I don't know why that isn't obvious to you."

 

It is obvious; it just doesn't matter.  Having political and religious motivations doesn't make your cause holy, justified, or in any way above scrutiny.  September 11th wasn't a random attack: it was a well-coordinated effort by several groups of people who wanted to strike at a common foe.  

 

It's really easy to say, "Well, we do bad things, too," and "Well, we've killed a bunch of people in the past," etc etc.  The fact remains that you're just shifting blame at that point.  You can't use the actions committed by one group as an excuse for the actions of another.  To use a modern example, it'd be akin to excusing any Republican involvement in Enron because there were Democrats tied up in Global Crossing.  It IS moral relativism, and while I'm not sure it's as dangerous as Mike claims it to be, it's certainly not a good thing to be engaging in. >>

 

I think moral relativism is unspeakably dangerous and will end up being a huge problem in this country. Children keep on being taught that we are no better than anybody else---heck, we're are probably worse.

 

Since the 1960's, education in public schools have given undue focus on all of the negative that America has ever done, but given little attention to the positive.

 

I remember my school days from the '80's where I was taught that, basically, all of the arocities we committed in Vietnam but hurt nary a mention of the atrocities committed by the Viet Cong.

 

I remember being taught that the West was big into slavery and how bad we were for owning slaves, but not a single mention that the West ENDED slavery while it still is practiced in Africa to this very day.

 

I remember hearing how bad racism was in the old days, but then was taught that things were STILL terrible, which clearly is not the case (things aren't perfect, but they are WORLDS better).

 

Fact is, education (with colleges being the worst offenders) has decided that America is evi. America is this never ending hell-hole of oppression and unfair treatment. And this is why so many minority student groups have such barely-disguised hostility towards this country.

 

It's time for the campuses in the country to actually teach the assorted children on campus that this country has, in addition to the bad, done an awful lot of GOOD as well.

               -=Mike

[MrRant 0]

Fuck Mumia.

[BUTT 0]

Fuck Mumia.

I'm pretty sure there's a rule against bumping old threads like this, but I agree. It's really a shame that so many people are dedicated to this man's cause when there are people in jail out there who really are innocent and could benefit from even 1/10th of the publicity Mumia gets.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Fuck Mumia.

I've heard that Mumia hate is timeless, but didn't think it would result in a two year thread bump.

[MrRant 0]

I really don't like him. And I was doing a search and came across this thread from way back when.. Twas a good thread.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

What's up with bumping all the threads tonight?

[Guest MD2020]

I really don't like him. And I was doing a search and came across this thread from way back when.. Twas a good thread.

That's cool and all--I can't stand Mumia myself--but why this thread? I think we had a much more recent Mumia thread a few months ago.

 

 

We actually stayed on topic for that one.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

I could also live the rest of my life without thinking about Zappa level stupidity as well.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

What is at stake is not democracy, for if this was so why does

the West support regimes, like the Saudis or the Emirates, that

don't even have a pretense of a democratic form of government?

What is at stake is western control over resources, like oil, or

natural gas.

 

Can't say I disagree with this paragraph. The Saudis are the biggest supporters of terrorism in the world. It's really a shame they have an invincible shield of black gold protecting them. Perhaps if the President researched alternative fuels or some such to reduce this country's dependancy on the assets of the enemy then we could begin to tear away at the Saudi goverment.

[BX 0]

Perhaps if the President researched alternative fuels

[Vern Gagne 0]

Notices there's plenty of Oil in Alaska.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Notices there's plenty of Oil in Alaska.

And in the Gulf.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

And in the fuel tanks of the Kennedy's private jets.

 

Oh yeah, why the bump? For a second I thought Mumia got France's Person of the Year Award or something...

[EricMM 0]

Please tell me what the Kennedy's gas has to do with Alternative fuels.

 

I'm sick of this "You're not perfect so we don't have to be" BS.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I'm sick of this "You're not perfect so we don't have to be" BS.

 

Me too.

 

That does it -- I'm taking my Eclipse 500 out for a spin tomorrow...

[EricMM 0]

You'd save gas by taking the bus...

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

But I'm more important than you, like the Kennedys...

[EricMM 0]

AND, I would be SO thrilled to see the Kennedys taking Greyhound from town to town for their next political tour.

 

I can't effect the kennedys. I laughed when on Hannity and Colmes Hannity asked a Kennedy who was all for CAFE standards about his private jet. It's FUNNY. But two things:

 

One, one or one hundred jets don't effect gas usage as much as cars, trucks, etc.

 

Two, whether or not one politician does something good should have nothing to do with whether or not you do.