Menchise

No, they're both terrorists, and stop putting words in my mouth.

Bush and his staff drive me nuts because they're so inhumane. If it wasn't for the separation of powers, everyone would be yelling "Heil Bush!" by now. Clinton was no better, despite his insincere pouting, and Gore doesn't even sound human. Do you honestly think that any of these sickos are that different from each other? If Gore were president, he would have done the same things that Bush did post-9/11, except that his speeches wouldn't have been as inflammatory. quote:You have to do something to deter those who would fly planes into buildings.The belief that you either do nothing or raze an entire country to the ground is a false dilemma. The US government did the latter in its campaign in Afghanistan and it failed miserably. It resulted in millions of Afghan civilians dying from starvation, the replacement of one brutal regime with another brutal regime, and no sign of Bin Laden. The most successful attacks on his terrorist organization have been through criminal investigations (the most recent example in the USA, and another in Germany). The US government should have pushed for extradition instead of risking the lives of millions of people dependent on humanitarian aid. It may not have succeeded, but at least it wouldn't have had the side effect of mass murder. The bombings were not only disastrous, they were hypocritical. The Haitian government has been trying for seven years to get the US government to hand over Emmanuel Constant. Should Haiti bomb the USA? Additionally, the US government is doing nothing substantial about the fact that the Saudi royal family is the largest contributor to terrorist organizations. They're not even mentioned, let alone bombed out of existence. After all this and more, Bush and Blair are still using the same old tactics. Makes you wonder if this really is a 'war on terrorism' and not a 'mass murder spree'. quote:Did anyone notice the lull in suicide bombings when Israel started demolishing the homes of people who's family members attacked Israel?Did anyone notice how these retribution tactics are remarkably similar to those of the Mafia, the Nazis, and similar brands of thugs? Israel has every right to defend itself, but this is not self-defense. Sharon is a terrorist.

quote:And perhaps what Rumsfeld knows is best not known by the public. They want support, not a bunch of crazies screaming for Saddams head on a platter, and trying to tell them how to do the job.Excuse me? Is that supposed to be a point or a neo-fascist platitude? If Rumsfeld is going to be responsible for risking 200,000 American lives in war, he had better convince them and their families that HE is not crazy. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is a totally lame excuse for death and destruction. If he is not burdened with a public demand for evidence then he can avoid accountability at his leisure. So much for the republic. Hello to US fascism.

quote:Mr. Ritters credibility is totally gone. He is NOT objective. He was given over $400,000 for a documentary film he is doing. Where did he get the money? Saudi Arabia, but the money actually came from Saddam himself. Ritter was saying the exact opposite of what he is saying now 3 years ago, and he changed his tune RIGHT after he got the money.He did not change his tune. Ritter has always been for the continuation of weapons inspections rather than military action, and the money did NOT come from Saddam; it came from one of his sympathizers. Ritter openly acknowledged that the source of the funds was not independent, and that he tried to get an independent source beforehand. If you want to talk about lack of objectivity, try looking into the backgrounds of the Bush administration, particularly their ties with big oil and the big arms dealers like Lockheed-Martin. They would be the ultimate beneficiaries of a war with Iraq. quote:He also has NOT had any intelligence briefings since he was an inspectorAnd yet he seems to know more than the government does. He's the only one who's presenting facts. All I get from Rumsfeld is that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

Don't get your hopes up: I'm just passing through. Threat that Iraq poses to the United States [ 09-19-2002, 08:33 AM: Message edited by: Menchise ]

quote:And I found Menchise personal beliefs very interesting, look at hinduism or Pagan Menchise, they are pretty close to what you are saying are your beliefs.Those two religions seem quite different to me, especially Hinduism, because they involve worship of deities. I don't believe in such worship. I'm not saying there's no god or goddess or that nature wasn't created by such beings; I just believe that it's irrelevant. The health of nature is in human hands now, and it's up to us to take care of it.

I read some newswire in February that claimed an accident occurred on set during production that nearly killed Lucy Liu (something about a mis-cued explosion) and that Banderas saved her life, though it seems to be nothing more than a rumour.

I'm surprised that there hasn't been a thread like this before in the forum. Then again, it's not the easiest topic to discuss. Anyway... My spiritual beliefs have changed a lot in past years, including a period of time during which I didn't have any. These days, I believe in reincarnation. Not in the traditional sense of past lives and such, but the idea of constant reincarnation: an iterative process that occurs both during and after our lifetimes. The matter that formed our bodies in the distant past is long gone, replaced by new matter, and yet we have a conscious connection with the experiences we had in the bodies that we have shed, which have since become the 'building blocks' for new life. From this point of view, life is a synergy of nature's matter, both self-identified (as an individual) and connected with the common synergy of nature, which motivates us to interact with other people, sharing and joining our synergies, hence the sadness that comes from being lonely or solitary. When conventional death occurs, the individual synergy ends, and the matter spreads out to form new synergies. Therefore, as self-contained forms of life, we're dying all the time, but as part of the common synergy of nature, we live forever in some form or another. From this point of view, the purpose of life in a spiritual sense is to nurture the common synergy, and ensure that it grows healthy. In my opinion, the question of who or what created nature is irrelevant. What matters is that nature continues in a positive direction. From an interpersonal point of view, this includes developing a full appreciation of one's friendships, which tend to be overlooked to some extent as one is distracted by 'bigger' things...

quote:Note that the Massacre resulted in just that, a MASSACRE. If all of the citizens were armed, the outcome may have been vastly different, and the democratic movement may have gained more power than it did, even IF the protesters were massacred.If all of the citizens were armed, the military would have sent in more hardware. The entire square would have turned into a war zone, and the massacre would have been far worse. The age of redcoats with muskets has passed. Government forces (assuming that they stay with the government) have massive technical advantages that can bring any armed citizenry to its knees. You got your pistols, they got their tanks; you got your rifles, they got their choppers; you got your Molotov cocktails, they got their nerve gas; you got the numbers, they got the nukes. It's a no-win situation. quote:Sure, the National Guard might support the citizens if the government goes off the deep end, but so would the military (since it is a volunteer army made up of citizens, they would never start KILLING US CIVILIANS because of "orders", it just wouldn't happen). Regardless, it is still better if the protestors had 500,000 people with guns + the national guard as opposed to no one with guns + the national guard. In revolutions and wars that are employing oppressive forces with weapons, it all comes down to numbers, and when one side is using weapons and the other side isn't, the revolution stands no chance.Without the National Guard, local police, or the military, the government has nothing, so the point is moot. This was demonstrated by the fall of the Marcos regime in the Phillipines. The people were unarmed, yet Marcos fled, because the army turned against him.

quote:Each and every member of the armed forces is required to take an oath to the constitution of the United States. They are also required NOT to obey an ILLEGAL order. We also have what is called the Posse commitus act, which allowed the US military to be created in the first place. It states that the US military CANNOT be used on US soil against US citizens. If the Federal government ever decided to write off the constitution, we, the citizens would not only be able to overthrow that government, but the military would help us do it!!If the military is always going to be on your side, then the argument for bearing arms to keep the government accountable is pointless, because the government can't survive if the military is against it. quote:Our weapons are Important, not because they give us a chance against the military, but because it gives us a chance against the politicians themselves and any police force etc that they might have protecting them. A few thousand police, will NOT stop 1 million heavily armed citizens, nor would it stop the military backing that we would receive.The local police and National Guard units are more likely to be on your side than the military, because they live in closer proximity to the people, hence they have a better understanding of the community. That's why, whenever there is a riot or some mass demonstration, the government calls in National Guard units from other states. Another example of this tactic was during the Tiananmen Square Massacre. The local police and Red Army units refused to intervene in the mass demonstrations, so the government had to call in Red Army units from the countryside. quote:Our weapons are also important for our own security, the government in this country cannot be held liable for a persons safety. Only the citizens themselves are responsible for our safety. The police are ther to enforce the law and bring justice to those who have already broken that law. It is an individuals right and responsibility to protect themselves against criminals that wish to break that law. The police will take care of it After the law has been broken, it is the citizens duty to stop it before or while it is occurring.That's a different argument altogether. I'm not debating about gun control. I'm simply pointing out that the argument that an armed citizenry keeps the government accountable is false. Direct action and civil disobedience has done far more good for the people in recent history than armed conflict.

quote:The lucky thing for us is that the people who make up the military and the government are citizens, and are highly unlikely to allow the constitution to be scrapped for any meaningful length of timeWhy? quote:not to mention that the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS really stops that threatNo, it doesn't. The military has the tanks, the aircraft, the ships, and years of training, not to mention the chemical and biological weapons. A civilian armed conflict with such forces would be suicidal.

quote:...I don't believe in taking rights away from American citizens unless it is a dangerous and immediate threat to the lives of Americans, and those rights should be given back immediately.Be afraid, be very afraid. Since the Reagan administration, all it takes for those liberties to disappear is for the President to declare a national emergency, and the President is not required to justify the declaration, so it can be done at any time for any reason. Such a declaration would suspend the constitution indefinitely, and grant control of just about everything to the federal government. What's worse is that there is no procedure for declaring the end of a national emergency, or for the restoration of the constitution, so the USA is only two words away from becoming a permanently full-blown police state.

quote:That's because he was right.Whether he was right or not doesn't explain why those celebrities were talking like parrots instead of expressing their own opinions in their own words.

quote:Dont start giving me that PC ****. Sure, you can be a Quaker and be a terrorist, but the threats to American civilians are going to come, and would be percieved as coming, from MUSLIM terrorists. The whole point of this thread, I thought, was that the government is going to start violating peoples rights, like under Mcarthy, under the guise of war on terror. My example just proved how it wont be able to work today like it did then, mainly because the population knows and has information stating that the major threat to America IS muslim terrorists, and not people like Tom Cruise.The HUAC hearings under McCarthy did not merely prosecute members of the Communist Party; it prosecuted almost anyone who openly criticized the government, especially about HUAC. Anyone of those defendants who weren't a party member were branded as sympathizers and marginalized. quote:You say that Tom Cruise is a bad example because you dont have to be muslim to be a terrorist. I say that due to the current ease of access to information by Americans, no one would believe Tom Cruise is a terrorist because of: 1. All of the info available about him saying he's not. 2. He's not muslim, and the terrorists that are threatening the US are majority muslim. Thus any sort of movement to arrest non-muslims would quickly be discounted as oppressive and ended.If he was openly critical of the Bush administration's war platform, he could be branded as a sympathizer. Of course, it wouldn't happen today because things have calmed down a bit, but think back to the mass hysteria after 9/11. For the first couple of months, any public figure who linked the cause of the attacks to US foreign policy - or anything that the US did - ran the risk of demonization and marginalization (this was happening in Australia too). I remember watching the interviews of celebrities on Leno and Conan in the first few weeks. What struck me about it was that they were all saying the exact same thing, and I mean exact: a verbatim recital of what the Bush administration was saying. His words became theirs. [ 08-12-2002, 07:14 PM: Message edited by: Menchise ]

quote:Hollywood actors were targetted, and people believed that they were commies.Not many people know Hollywood actors personally, and fearmongering was much more intense during the McCarthy era. quote:With the information age, people know more about others in general, thus no one would believe Tom Cruise is a muslim terrorist.That's a bad example because you don't have to be Moslem to be a terrorist.

Whatever that writer was smoking, I don't want it.

quote: Terrorist activity will one day be defined as political speech in the United States. The next time a Democrat takes the white house or a super majority in the Senate.Apart from their rhetoric, I don't see any significant differences between the Democratic and Republican parties. They're both enemies of freedom as far as I'm concerned.

quote:Yes, but that makes people much more critical of *any* news they get, thus are much less likely to believe any information saying that their 20 year old white friend that attends a baptist church, has 3 children, and served in the military for 5 years is a terrorist. The information age makes people more cynical, regardless of the disinformation.That example is irrelevant because people wouldn't have believed it before the information age either, especially if they knew the person. quote:christ everyones a conspiracy theorist now... careful they might turn the hubble the right way. gimme a breakYou can take your own breaks.

No. quote:and who really cares what the point of this thread is??? someone wanted to post about something so they did... dont like it? then dont replyI was just wondering. [ 08-10-2002, 07:31 PM: Message edited by: Menchise ]

I wonder what the point of this thread is...

quote:The only problem with your idea that we're all going to be oppressed by the government is that today people have much easier access to information (we're in the information age now, remember?), so it'd be much harder to make people disappear, and even harder to make most citizens think that their neighbor is a terrorist.The information age has also made the spreading of disinformation and misinformation easier, which can offset the positive effect. [ 08-10-2002, 05:43 AM: Message edited by: Menchise ]

Did you have to bring Iraq into this?

It has been scaled back considerably, but it's not dead.

Here's another article from that paper... quote: AshcroftÔÇÖs Big Brother spy plan A SNITCH on every block. ThatÔÇÖs what Attorney General John Ashcroft wants. The pilot phase of his Terrorism Information and Prevention System--known as Operation TIPS--is due to be launched this month. The Justice Department wants to recruit 1 million people in 10 cities--and give them "a formal way to report suspicious terrorist activity," as the TIPS Web site puts it. In other words, be a spy. The 1 million would amount to one out of every 24 people in the 10 largest cities in the U.S.--a higher percentage of informants than even the former Stalinist dictatorship of East Germany had, with its infamous Stasi secret police. TIPS is an open invitation to racial profiling and scapegoating--against everyone from Arab immigrants to political activists. The programÔÇÖs echoes of George OrwellÔÇÖs 1984 are so obvious that many mainstream newspapers opposed it. Even House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas)--as right wing a Republican as they come--tried to put the brakes on the citizen spy scheme with a provision in legislation forming the new Department of Homeland Security, which passed the House last week. But Ashcroft isnÔÇÖt giving up. Last week, he tried to calm the uproar with claims that reported information wouldnÔÇÖt be stored in long-term databases. And Homeland Security czar Tom Ridge declared that "the last thing we want is Americans spying on Americans." But thatÔÇÖs exactly what they want. TIPS is part of the Bush gangÔÇÖs agenda for returning to the days when the governmentÔÇÖs security apparatus had free reign to target anyone they wanted to. Of course, the Feds donÔÇÖt need to recruit racist snoops. TheyÔÇÖve got plenty of their own. Like the Detroit Secret Service goon who was recently suspended for writing "Islam is Evil, Christ is King" on a calendar posted on the refrigerator of a Muslim immigrant whose house was raided. Ashcroft and the Bush gang exploited September 11 to carry out a witch-hunt. More than 1,000 people, mostly young Arab men, were detained as part of the investigation, and an untold number remain behind bars--but not a single one has been charged with a crime connected to September 11. With TIPS, the witch-hunters in Washington want to take their attack on our rights to a new level. But the angry response to this latest scheme shows growing numbers of people are starting to question the crackdown. They will come to realize that Ashcroft and his thugs are the real threat--especially if you happen to be of Arab descent. We have to speak out--and show the Bush gang that we wonÔÇÖt let them take away our rights. Still think they're crying wolf?

quote: A return to McCarthyism? by Sue Sandlin Socialist Worker Online 2 August 2002 SINCE SEPTEMBER 11, the Bush administrationÔÇÖs attacks on civil liberties have come at a dizzying speed. Thousands of immigrants were rounded up and deported or detained without appeal. The Feds got increased powers to spy under the USA-PATRIOT Act. And now the Terrorism Information and Prevention System, or "TIPS," is supposed to recruit people to snitch on their neighbors and coworkers. All of this is leading many people to wonder whether the bad old days of McCarthyism have returned. Named for Sen. Joe McCarthy (R-Wis.) who led the witch-hunt in Congress, McCarthyism refers to the wave of political repression during the late 1940s and early 1950s that targeted the Communist Party, people in the partyÔÇÖs orbit and left-wing activists in general. This was the period following the Second World War, when the U.S. had emerged as a world superpower, with the USSR as its main rival. The U.S.- USSR rivalry was called the Cold War, and it produced the biggest arms race in history, the proliferation of nuclear weapons and proxy wars around the world between forces supported by the two superpowers. At home, McCarthy and his fellow witch-hunters claimed that they were rooting out "communist infiltrators." The House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) was launched in the 1940s during the Roosevelt administration, and in 1947, it began its notorious investigation of Hollywood. But the blacklists went far beyond Hollywood, reaching into practically every section of society and having a chilling effect on those who dared to speak out. Lawyers who represented clients before HUAC were themselves questioned, leftists were driven out of trade unions, and teachers were blacklisted from schools. People not only lost their jobs, but some had their marriages wrecked and their kids beaten up at school. The most horrific case was that of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, rank-and-file members of the Communist Party who were executed in 1953 for supposedly being "atomic spies." Afterward, McCarthy would threaten witnesses called before HUAC with the same fate. The message was clear: "If you stand up and fight back, we can kill you." The Communist Party in the U.S. was essentially destroyed through this period, and radicals of any kind were driven from the labor movement. The governmentÔÇÖs repressive apparatus grew beyond official government bodies-- and came to include social and business organizations and neighbors turning in neighbors. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SO IS this what weÔÇÖre facing now? Are we experiencing a new McCarthyism? With each dirty trick that Bush pulls out of his sleeve, it seems like we might be headed in that direction. But can something as awful and so recently regarded as an embarrassment be re-legitimized? The first question to ask is why the government is doing this. During every war that the U.S. has entered since the beginning of the 20th century, political leaders claimed that they were protecting freedom and democracy. Yet nothing could be further than the truth. The reality is that the U.S. goes to war to protect the profits and power of the people at the top, expand its influence and domination around the world and show its "enemies" and "allies" whoÔÇÖs the boss. Of course, the U.S. government canÔÇÖt just say that theyÔÇÖre waging war to protect the rich. The politicians have to whip up patriotism and convince people that the government is fighting for them. The real war aims canÔÇÖt be exposed. ThatÔÇÖs why itÔÇÖs so important, from the standpoint of the ruling class, to suppress dissent. So every imperialist war launched abroad has been accompanied by a war at home. All this has been true about WashingtonÔÇÖs "war on terrorism" since September 11. The Bush administration has exploited the tragedy to push ahead on its imperial aims abroad. Plus, the war has provided the perfect pretext to pursue an anti-worker agenda at home--from giving airline bosses the cover for mass layoffs with cost-cutting "restrictions" on bailout money, to the latest attempt to ban unions from the new Department of Homeland Security. During McCarthyism, U.S. leaders used the "war on communism" to justify their attack. The hysteria whipped up about "reds" meant that few people questioned U.S. military adventures abroad, like the Korean War. And it meant that U.S. rulers could squash the left wing of the powerful workers movement of the 1930s. McCarthyismÔÇÖs impact was huge, but it didnÔÇÖt last forever. Growing numbers of people eventually saw the terrible contradiction of "protecting our freedom and democracy" by taking away the right to speak out. Today, McCarthyism is viewed as a horrible chapter in U.S. history. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ASHCROFT AND Co. have been relatively successful in exploiting the September 11 tragedy and whipping up fear of new "terrorist threats" to push through repressive measures. But there are factors that constrain them. For one, memories of the governmentÔÇÖs past abuses, such as McCarthyism in the 1950s and Watergate in the 1970s, havenÔÇÖt completely faded. And new reasons to distrust the government arise all the time--especially the recent wave of corporate scandals, which politicians are up to their eyeballs in. Even more important, the U.S. today faces an increasingly unstable economy and an increasing gap between rich and poor--the opposite of the McCarthy era of the 1950s, which was underpinned by a period of unprecedented economic expansion. In the 1950s, most workers could expect to enjoy a better standard of living with each passing year. This was the era of the American Dream. But today, U.S. bosses are demanding that workers tighten their belts at the same time as they give away their rights. So, for example, when Minnesota state workers threatened to strike in September, Gov. Jesse Ventura denounced them for "playing into the hands of terrorists" and threatened them with jail time. These contradictions all contribute to brewing anger from below--anger that could undermine support for BushÔÇÖs war at home. Plus, all of the conditions that gave rise to developing social movements before September 11--the monstrous criminal justice system and the ravages of globalization, for example--are still there. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - THE GREATEST lesson to be learned from McCarthyism is the importance of standing up and fighting back. While the antiwar movement remains small today, there have been important fightbacks and successes--for example, the activists who defeated the University of CaliforniaÔÇÖs attempts to sanction Students for Justice in Palestine, or the academics who organized petitions protesting a blacklist of antiwar professors. And there are signs that growing numbers of people are becoming disgusted with the blatant attacks on civil liberties. One of the most important things that we can do now is tell the truth--by putting a human face on the innocent people targeted by BushÔÇÖs phony war on terrorism and pointing out the real aims of the U.S. government. This wonÔÇÖt be an easy fight. The government has powerful weapons in its arsenal. For instance, Homeland Security tsar Tom Ridge recently told the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) that a work stoppage on the West Coast would be a "national security risk"--and issued a vague threat of sending in troops as scabs. Sadly, the threat had an effect--with ILWU leaders shying away from action because of fears of government intervention. But history tells us that now isnÔÇÖt the time to hide. HUAC did wreak havoc on peopleÔÇÖs lives for a period of years. But these goons were eventually sent packing by the growing civil rights movement--and the free speech and antiwar movements that followed. What the Bush gang gets away with today depends in part on the organizing we do now. We have the power to stop Bush and AshcroftÔÇÖs crackdown. [ 08-09-2002, 11:57 PM: Message edited by: Menchise ]