Issues
Are We Too Political?

{Issues.28.1}: Elizabeth Zipper {zipper} Tue, 13 Nov 2001 12:57:05 CST (8 lines)

When talking about political activism and students people
automatically assume that the 'kids' in San Francisco and Berkeley are
going to be pissed off about something. The joke is, there's a rally
everyday at the school's by the bay. Do you think this is true? Can we
be too politically aware, too quick to call out about injustice? Are
we too sensitive? Should we just shrug our shoulders and take in the
bad with the good, or should we fight the system, even if it's a new
fight everyday, even if yours is the only voice?

{Issues.28.2}: Patrick Barry {r3volv3r} Sat, 17 Nov 2001 21:45:28 CST (6 lines)

I think it really drives the point further if those political
activists are relently and protest everyday. Its MUCH less likely to
promote change if they didn't show that kind of zeal for the cause.
They can't really call themselves political activists if they don't
do the protests as often as possible, that would kind of make them
political semi-activists....hehehe

{Issues.28.3}: li'l bit {quasimodo} Sun, 18 Nov 2001 06:53:58 CST (9 lines)

Funny, I think the exact opposite is true.  If you protest too much,
people get tired and start ignoring you.  Look at Paris.  They have
strikes and protests there every week, and nobody pays attention
anymore.  It doesn't make the newspapers or anything.  Geneva, on the
other hand, has virtually no civil unrest, so when someone does start
protesting (as with the anti-WTO protests last week), people actually
notice.  If you're going to protest, you need to choose your battles
carefully and only make a big stink over the ones that are really
important; otherwise, you devalue your protests.

{Issues.28.4}: interesting {twilight} Wed, 21 Nov 2001 17:28:24 CST (4 lines)

It seems like what you might kind of be getting at is this way that
being "politically active" can become just another social category
sometimes, like those are the jocks, those and the kids in the band,
and those are the activist kids... Is that what you mean?

{Issues.28.5}: li'l bit {quasimodo} Thu, 22 Nov 2001 04:58:00 CST (10 lines)

In a way, yes, but there's also the issue of making political
activism mundane by overdoing it.  This doesn't have to be a group
phenomenon.  In fact, it happens with people all over the political
spectrum.  At my university there was a preacher who'd stand on the
street corner every day telling us that we were all sinners and
fornicators and that we were all going to hell.  The freshmen were
always a bit surprised by him at first, but most people just ignored
him.  And the same thing happened with the environmental group on
campus.  They harassed people to the point where most people just
ignored them.  Does that clarify my point?

{Issues.28.6}: Patrick Barry {r3volv3r} Thu, 22 Nov 2001 19:43:34 CST (24 lines)

I think theres a reason people would begin ignoring them. As with the
priest, preaching to college students, the students aren't going to
say "oh wow, hes so right, I'm going to change my life around because
of some crazy ranting prienst on the corner". Political activists are
NOT harrassing the general public, so I think you confuse them with
what your talking about. The idea in activism is to spark change by
supressive action.

The effect of the movement is determined by the inconvinience it
causes your opponents. I'm not sure exactly what that
environmentalist group was doing, but if it just brought a couple
posters and was shouting whoever, that is pointless, regardless of
the frequency. Lets say they were protesting the cutting down of
trees (just for example). The more inconvenience they cause, the more
effect it has right? So if they actually took action and did
something thats maybe a little crazy or a little dangerous, they
would get results.

Now going back to the political activism. Holding up a few posters
and shouting obsceneties and phrases for however frequent you want
will not bring results. The degree of obstruction of the opponents
actions which are being protested is directly related to the
effectiveness of the activism, not the in-frequency of the protests.
Thats what I've come up with anyway...

{Issues.28.7}: Ken Nostratis {kenknows} Sat, 24 Nov 2001 19:46:48 CST (8 lines)

quasimodo was right to say that you have to pick your battles to be
most effective. Patrick disagreed saying that you have to be a little
crazy and a little dangerous and inconvenience people to be
effective. That is wrong for many reasons. If you follow his advice
you could ruin your future and also alienate the people who you could
have persuaded to be on your side. Making the world lousier is a bad
idea in itself. It could also cause a reaction where other people
make the world lousier for you.

{Issues.28.8}: Patrick Barry {r3volv3r} Sat, 24 Nov 2001 20:34:46 CST (28 lines)

Remember guys 'n gals, we're talking about POLITICAL activism. Its
synonimous with doctrinal democracy that those with power ignore
those they govern. All across the United States protests are being
held. Its extremely naive to actually think that politicians will
actually be persuaded by a small crowd that shows up just once. What
we've seen so far in activism against this war has been frequent but
uneffective, but if it only happened a few times are you really
thinking it would actually accomplish anything? It just makes the
ideas behind the protest easier to ignore. I don't think your keeping
in mind who would be protested against, its certainly not the masses,
and certainly not people who like being persuaded by those with less
authority. I don't think either way political activism is carried
out, whether frequent or not, will it work. So far it hasn't, and so
far there hasn't been any real opposition to war mongering
politicians.

You guys remember that big g8 protest in Genoa? That only happened
once, and it ended in the beating and death of protesters by a US
trained Italian police unit. The point behind the protest was
certainly seen, but nothing was accomplished. Now sure there could be
big bloody protests at every g8 summit, and that would make it more
uncomfortable for g8 members, but they won't be persuaded by any
frequency of opposition. And remember, this was no small protest if
special trained riot police were called in. It very clearly
demonstrated opposition, and it was noticed. The people who protested
KNEW that the g8 couldn't be persuaded to all of a sudden develop
morals and stop everything that they do. Why would you think that
politicians are interested in hearing your opinion?

{Issues.28.9}: li'l bit {quasimodo} Mon, 26 Nov 2001 08:06:19 CST (11 lines)

Ditto on Ken's alienation point.  Pissing people off is not the way
to win them over.  Also, we're talking about two different things
now.  Some people are talking about protesting a bunch of different
things, whilst others are talking about intensively protesting one
particular thing.  The two are very different, and I think people
should clarify which one they're talking about.  Maybe if the
original poster could let us know which one she was talking
about...?  I read it as the former, but the discussion seems to be
veering towards the latter.

Just my 42.76 Italian lire...

{Issues.28.10}: Ken Nostratis {kenknows} Tue, 27 Nov 2001 10:25:57 CST (24 lines)

In my earlier message I was talking in general about not doing
anything that would alienate people from your cause. Patrick became
more specific and said that small protests against the war were
uneffective. They were not effective because they were trying to
persuade people to do something suicidal: to tolerate the mass murder
of Americans and people of many other nationalities in New York and
two other places on September 11th. This was only the latest attack
on Americans by Osama Bin Laden's terrorist organization. In an
earlier attack on two American embassies in Africa, many Africans
were murdered along with some Americans. America had to fight back
against the continuous murder of our citizens and we are having
success in Afghanistan. Millions of women in Afghanistan suffered for
years under what amounts to house arrest. Now, with the help of the
American military, they are being freed and they are loving their new
freedom. They can now dress as they wish and they can work instead of
being forced to beg for money needed to survive. Girls can receive an
education again and men can shave without being punished for it.
There is no type of protest that would persuade many Americans that
it is okay to allow the continuous mass murder of Americans or that
Afghan women were better off when they were being brutally oppressed.
When you try to sell a lousy product, people will not buy it no
matter what attempts you make to sell it. It was a great writer named
Pete Hamill who said "Do nothing to make the world a lousier place."
That was very good advice.

{Issues.28.11}: Elizabeth Zipper {zipper} Tue, 27 Nov 2001 18:02:28 CST (12 lines)

I agree that pissing people off is not always the way to go, but it
does sometimes get you noticed. My school too had a ranting priest and
as a freshman i thought it was the strangest thing, within a month, I
hardly noticed him anymore.

Part of what I was originally asking is about protesting lots of
stuff. do we (as americans) protest too much about too many things.
should we be throwing all of our support into one corner and ignoring
the smaller stuff for the greater good? And when is too far? Does is
work to piss people off? Do we have to be nice to be noticed, have to
be peaceful and popular with the people we are protesting against? How
does that work?

{Issues.28.12}: Michael Balonek {mikebalonek} Wed, 28 Nov 2001 12:31:20 CST (14 lines)

Henry David Thoreau says (in his famous essay "Resistance to
Civil Government" aka "Civil Disobedience," the Bible of activism)
and I agree, "If the injustice is part of the necessary friction of the
machine of government, let it go, let it go:  perchance it will wear
smooth,--certainly the machine will wear out.  If the injustice has
a spring, or a pulley, or a rope, or a crank, exclusively for itself,
then perhaps you may consider whether the remedy will not be
worse than the evil; but if it is of such a nature that it requires you
to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law.
Let your life be the counter friction to stop the machine.  What I
have to do is to see, at any rate, that I do not lend myself to the
wrong which I condemn."

- Mike

{Issues.28.13}: Patrick Barry {r3volv3r} Wed, 28 Nov 2001 19:36:16 CST (46 lines)

My point was never to encourage violence to get what you want, that
is not the way to go, and I agree. It really depends on the focus of
the protest, whether its to encourage schepticism of the status quo
or to loudly voice an opinion to politicians. In the case of
encouraging supporters for your cause, use logic and insight, and
don't piss them off (I wasn't talking about this kind before).

I think Ken has to get his story straight here. The idea of
protesting the war is not to ignore terrorism and allow it to happen
again. Its not to protest the *ahem* liberation of Afganistan. Look
back at the history of the Northern Alliance, formerly the Mujadeen.
Afganistan prayed for its removal in FAVOR of the Taliban in '96
because they had been just as horrible as the Taliban is now. Every
time there has been a power vacuum in Afganistan theres always
another government the US thinks it can use as a political tool that
ends up treating Afganis like dirt. The Northern Alliance has
actually been condemned by the womens rights group in Afganistan
called RAWA. This is because of the Northern Alliance's history of
rape and treatment of women as sex-slaves, now do you think Afgani
woman are going to rejoice now that their rapists are the new
GOVERNMENT???

Isn't it also very ironic that the Taliban refused the United States'
request to build a massive oil pipeline through it? With the Taliban
gone and the Mujadeen re-instituted, yes, the United States
government will most likely have permission to go and build, build,
build away.

Don't confuse protesters of the government with terrorists, and don't
think that protesters advocate tolerance of the 9/11 trajedy. The
main idea behind protesting this war would be for the United States
to focus on eliminating terrorism. Right now, the United States is
doing more to encourage it, and has done nothing to eliminate it. 7.5
million Afgani people are at risk of starving or freezing this
winter, and they can't get the supplies they so desperately need
because of this great heroic "War on Terrorism". Certainly there are
other ways to go about this. Also, keep in mind that killing Osama
bin Laden will spark MORE terrorism. The reason there was no attempt
to assassinate Hitler was for fear that the Nazi party would fight
even harder.

If you don't preach violence, but you preach mass murder without
reason, isn't that a littly hypocritical? If Bush is trying to even
the score, which seems like whats happening, then hes doing a great
job of it. Who would be the real terrorists if Bush continues on his
war path? Al-Qaeda or the American government?

{Issues.28.14}: Ken Nostratis {kenknows} Sun, 02 Dec 2001 15:03:42 CST (40 lines)

No government of Afghanistan was ever worse than the Taliban in its
brutal mistreatment of Afghan women. Afghan women are enjoying
freedom in the newly liberated parts of their country where they are
again being allowed to attend universities. Previous Afghan
governments treated Afghan women badly? That was then, this is now.
The anti-war, anti-America crowd hopes that things are bad for the
women of Afghanistan now but there are enough Western reporters in
that nation today to give a clear picture of the improvement in their
lives that women in Afghanistan now enjoy. Afghan men are no longer
punished for not having long enough beards and all Afghan people can
once more enjoy pleasures that we take for granted, such as music.

Patrick also wrote about his concerns about an oil pipeline in
Afghanistan. Could this be a war for oil? No, it is a war to stop
terrorists from being able to continue to attack the USA by hitting
the terrorists where they live. If this was a war for oil, we would
be attacking Saudi Arabia (the home of bin Laden) instead of
Afghanistan because Saudi Arabia has much more oil and would be a
much easier nation to defeat militarily. Invading Afghanistan for its
oil or for a place to put a pipeline makes as much sense as breaking
into a police station to steal the money from the wallets of the
policemen. It would be much safer to rob a bank because you would
find a lot more money there and a lot fewer armed defenders, just
like Saudi Arabia is a much richer and much softer target than
Afghanistan is.

The attack on Afghanistan's Taliban and bin Laden's organization is
to stop future terrorism by hunting down the terrorists before they
can strike again. The fact that America's victories there are also
freeing Afghans from the oppression of the Taliban prove that we are
not at war with the many Afghans who are cheering us on and enjoying
their new freedom.

By the way, there were attempts to assassinate Hitler. Hitler wound
up killing himself and Osama bin Laden could also kill himself. After
the governments of Germany, Italy and Japan were defeated in World
War II, the governments of those nations were among America's closest
allies during all of the decades since then. This could also be true
of Afghanistan after its liberation by our military fighting
alongside Afghan soldiers of the Northern Alliance.

{Issues.28.15}: Patrick Barry {r3volv3r} Tue, 04 Dec 2001 18:23:51 CST (53 lines)

If we're still continuing the war debate then I guess I'll go on too.
And since analogies seem to be popular, heres another.

Lets look at this on a level we can probably all relate to. Lets say
theres a teacher or professor (The Mujahadeen, spelled right this
time) in a school that gets fired for raping and beating a few
students (The Mujadeen mistreats women too, and killed 50,000
innocents in its short time in power). Another teacher/professor (The
Taliban) is brought in to replace the former one. However, this
teacher also oppresses his students severely and inhumanely, so he is
also removed from his job (which seems to be what will happen soon to
the Taliban). It just so happens that the former teacher (The
Mujahadeen) had been raping, murdering and pillaging during the time
he wasn't teaching. Now, regardless of which teacher was worse (The
Taliban or Mujahadeen), are you really going to advocate either of
them for the job?

The point of that was to demonstrate that support for the Northern
Alliance is support for terrorists too, a real irony in this
precious "War on Terrorism". I don't support either The Taliban or
the Mujahadeen (much like I'm not taking Bush's side or Osama's
side), I just don't imagine replacing one oppressive government with
another as profoundly virtuous. Although it sounds outragious, what
about a democratic election?

Ken, its very very important to recognize exactly what this
means: "Previous Afghan governments treated Afghan women badly? That
was then, this is now."

To say that was then and this is now is burying history, and history
DOES matter. The Northern Alliance and Taliban are easily condemned
as terrorists, just as much as the Al-Qaeda network. Those 50,000
innocents that were murdered should be considered no more important
or less important than those murdered on September 11. Theres a
little media tool called "propoganda" too that could influence how
one views the current events, and I've noticed CNN portraying the
Northern Alliance as heroes, but they're terrorists too!

And yes, oil does have a small role in this war. Saudi Arabia is an
ally of the United States, and we already get plenty of oil from
them. If this war had nothing to do with oil then its a real
coincidence that Bush didn't approach diplomacy with Taliban, a
government that may or may not be harboring the terrorists at all.

If the United States truly wanted to liberate Afganistan, it has the
ability to do so, but that would require money to be used to help
Afganis rather than kill them. I think this would be a much more
honorable approach if liberation was ever an issue in this war. But,
if you say this is a War On Terrorism, why are we using terrorists to
get rid of other terrorists? Or what has been done to fight the
Al-Qaeda network so far? And even if we did eliminate the Al-Qaeda
network, wouldn't that just help prove Osama bin Laden right to will-
be-terrorists that America is against Muslims?

{Issues.28.16}: Ken Nostratis {kenknows} Wed, 05 Dec 2001 19:35:12 CST (35 lines)

Patrick asked "Why are we using terrorists to get rid of other
terrorists?" The answer is that we are not doing that. The proof of
this is all of the Western reporters from many nations who are
risking their lives to tell the truth, and they are not reporting
terrorism from the Afghans who are allied with the United States.
Western reporters write of women overjoyed with their new freedom
after several years under the Taliban where, at best, they were under
house arrest, and at worst they were slaves. The people of the
Northern Alliance are heroes because they freed Afghanistan's women
from the brutal oppression of the Taliban, at the risk of their own
lives. The regime that was in charge of Afghanistan before the
Taliban was not good but it was led by a different person than is in
charge of Afghanistan's pro-Western forces now. Afghanistan's new
Cabinet will include a few women and they were not terrorists.

Eventually there could be democratic elections in Afghanistan but
first the Taliban must be defeated and the Afghan people must have
the security and food that they would need to survive. Later, if most
of the people of Afghanistan want democracy, they can have democracy.
But first they need more basic things to survive the Winter.
Afghanistan does not have a long tradition as a democracy and
reporters are not reporting from Afghanistan that there is a
widespread popular demand for democracy now. Let them be governed by
the government that they want to have for themselves, not the
government that any of us want them to have.

The only alternative to this war to kill Osama bin Laden and his
terrorist Al-Qaeda network would be to allow bin Laden's terrorists
to continue to kill as many Americans as possible. They killed
thousands of Americans and they also killed many people from dozens
of other nations. Bin Laden's terrorists have to be killed or we have
to let them kill us - there is no other choice. Our government is in
the process of killing those terrorists. If it inspires anyone else
to become a terrorist, he will also be killed because killing
terrorists who target Americans is necessary for our survival.

{Issues.28.17}: Ken Nostratis {kenknows} Thu, 06 Dec 2001 09:55:48 CST (28 lines)

Here is proof of what I wrote, that the USA is killing terrorists, not
supporting other terrorists, in Afghanistan. Today's Washington Post
includes an article by two of their reporters that is titled "New
Generation Of Afghan Leaders Prepares to Govern Key Players Vow to
Avoid Past Errors". The article says "In place of Rabbani and Massoud
will rise a new generation of fortyish leaders with less baggage from
the tragic past. Hamid Karzai, the Pashtun tribal leader who will
become chairman of the interim government on Dec. 22, and top Northern
Alliance officials who will retain their posts, such as Foreign
Minister Abdullah, Interior Minister Yonus Qanooni and Defense
Minister Gen. Mohammed Fahim, were not central players in the Rabbani
administration of 1992 to 1996, when civil war left tens of thousands
dead in Kabul and the city in ruins. "This is about the future,"
Abdullah said at a news conference here today. These new leaders take
pains to emphasize to anyone who will listen that they have learned
the lessons of the fractious past and will dedicate themselves to
assuring it is not repeated." You can see for yourselves that I quoted
this accurately by reading this article online at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64615-2001Dec5.html
This article proves the point I made in my previous message: because
of American military intervention, the vast majority of the people of
Afghanistan will have better lives, men and especially women are
enjoying new freedom, and the new leaders of Afghanistan cannot fairly
be blamed for what happened there in the past. This should make us
happy but it will sadden those people who want to pretend that
American military action is not helping most of the people of
Afghanistan have better lives in the future than they had under the
terrorist Taliban.

{Issues.28.18}: {r3volv3r} Sat, 08 Dec 2001 16:33:42 CST (0 lines)
{erased by dee Fri, 11 Jan 2002 00:42:52 CST}

{Issues.28.19}: Ken Nostratis {kenknows} Mon, 10 Dec 2001 23:52:28 CST (70 lines)

Patrick writes: "I assume your forgetting about the thousands of
innocent Afganis killed by the United States bombings (that were not
near Taliban forces), or perhaps the several oopsies by our military
(blowing up targets that had nothing to do with this war), the
hundreds of thousands of innocents that had to flee their homes
because of our heroic bombing strikes, and that the media uses a
handy little tool called "propoganda". Its counter productive to bomb
a country, plain and simple."

Patrick, when your house is on fire and you cannot get out of your
house, you either have to put out the fire or be burned to death.
Maybe you remember seeing people jumping out of the top floors of the
Twin Towers because they chose to jump to their deaths instead of
being burned to death. Our house is America and we cannot get out
because Osama bin Laden's killers murdered many Americans in America
and in other countries and they will continue murdering us until they
are stopped. This means that the American government was faced with
the choice of allowing Osama's murderers to kill tens of millions of
Americans or hundreds of millions of Americans *or* to fight back. We
are fighting back in Afghanistan. You grossly overstated how many
innocent Afghanis were killed by America's bombing, but for the sake
of this discussion, even if we were to assume that your numbers were
right, it is justified because that is what it takes for Americans to
avoid being murdered again and again until we are all killed. Almost
all Americans understand this and are supporting what the US military
is doing in Afghanistan. An African-American journalist named Clarence
Paige explained it this way when he said: "Nothing unifies the country
like being attacked from outside, women, men, black, white, you name
it." Yes, ten percent of Americans are slow learners, but ninety
percent of us agree that it is so important to stop bin Laden's
organization of mass murderers from continuing to kill more Americans
year after year that we will hunt him and his fellow terrorists to
stop them from killing us, no matter what it takes to stop him. We, or
at least ninety percent of us, understand that not only is it not
counterproductive to bomb the country that gave him protection, it is
essential to our survival and we will do whatever is necessary for us
to survive. It is nice to know that in the process of our hunt for the
terrorists, the American military helped bring freedom to Afghanistan
where women no longer suffer from the barbaric oppression of the
Taliban and where people are once again free to enjoy simple things
that we take for granted, such as being allowed to listen to music and
to make their own music.

The sources you gave for your misinformation were laughable. You cited
Mumia Abu Jamal and you wrote "Mumia must not be executed!" This means
that you know that he was convicted of murder. Even if we assume for
the sake of this discussion that he is innocent, the fact that he
could be put to death as the result of his murder conviction means
that he certainly is not objective. He certainly wants to do as much
damage to America as he can from his prison cell until he is executed,
so he cannot possibly be an impartial or objective source of information.

Patrick writes that the American government is "allying with
terrorists no more or less guilty than the enemy". That is certainly a
false charge for many reasons. One reason is that the people the US is
allying with are not terrorists, but again for the sake of this
discussion even if we assume that they are terrorists, they would be a
lot less guilty than the enemy because they did not stage the multiple
attacks on America on September 11 and earlier, killing many Americans
as well as people from dozens of other nations.

I agree with you when you wrote: "I do wish that terrorism stops, that
oppression stops, that everyone could just be in peace" but wishing
won't make it so: it takes military action to stop terrorism. As I
mentioned earlier, the American military is ending the oppression of
the people of Afghanistan. The end result will be peace and peace will
come sooner if you side with America than if you struggle on behalf of
the terrorists who are determined to kill every American. But whatever
you do, peace will come thanks to the American miliary and the ninety
percent of Americans who support it.

{Issues.28.20}: Patrick Barry {r3volv3r} Thu, 13 Dec 2001 15:00:18 CST (106 lines)

Ken, once again, assumes. Ken, don't assume that just because one
protests the war means they support terrorism. No diplomatic
relations were ever offered to the Taliban to get on Afgani soil
peacefully, we just said "hand over Bin Laden or we're gonna bomb
ya". That just provoked the Taliban to fight back, the US could have
spent those billions of dollars on bombs instead on helping to
liberate Afganistan. And Ken, once again forgetting his history,
doesn't know what it means to be "liberated" by the US. Developing
countries that ally with the US get treated like slaves, a dictator
is most commonly instituted to direct American business, and allow
for the economic development to be crushed. A democratic election
might take place, that is if the US could rig it (democracy is an
enemy of American capitalism in developing countries). Take a look at
Mexico for example with the PRI in power, the US makes political
friends in needy countries to abuse the rights of the people under
its rule, and as soon as the IMF and WTO start talking about
Afganistan the neoliberal nightmare will be complete.

Unfortunetly, Ken forgets his history when he fails to remember that
the US provoked these attacks. When Sudan was bombed and a far
greater number of people died than in the WTC for no reason (Pakistan
got hit by cruise missiles aimed at Afganistan at the same
time "accidentally" too), the US mega media deemed it a "success".
When the US destroyed the entire economic infrastructure in Iraq
during the Persian gulf, the US mega media deemed it "victory". The
economic sanctions that target civilians and kill thousands every
month are deemed "necessary". The armed forces in Saudi Arabia making
sure the flow of oil is continued are thought to be quite fine too.
Support of Israel when they siege tracts of Palastinian land seems
righteous to those who don't realize the repercussions. When you say
the house of the US is on fire, remember who gave the terrorists
their matches, the US. You obviously don't realize that you're
supporting another group responsible for our countries tragedy on
Sept. 11. The Al-Qaeda network was guilty as well, targeting
civilians for supporting (or not resisting) the American government
in its oppressive and genocidal actions. I agree they need to be
brought to justice, and thats why I support a war on terrorism, but
not the one happening now.

A more reasonable approach right now is to demand that the US stop
killing innocents at all costs, and the most accurate count of
civilian deaths in Afganistan right now is 3500, no joke. The media
organizations that are controlled by giant conglomerates have reason
not to show anything that would allow America to get the full view of
the war. If Americans realized that the US government is responsible,
they won't support it. Those conglomerates get so large and filthy
rich because of the capitalist policies the government institutes and
upholds, so of course they'll throw all their support to the
government because its like a dog being loyal to its master. They
ignore civilian casualties, don't report on the history of the
Northern Alliance, and don't report on past US action that have
provoked the attack. You call my sources laughable because they give
an alternate view to the war, one that you brilliant 90% of Americans
don't know either. They don't make million dollar profits because
thats not their aim, theyre political activists that are doing their
job.

I would support using military intellegence to bring the terrorists
to justice, even a little cunning on the part of the American
government if no one got hurt in the process. Changing foreign
policies that cause rage towards America would be a good idea too,
but I doubt the Evil Empire would change itself to do good to the
people of the world. More homeland security is necessary, as we are
still extremely vulnerable to attack, but that doesn't include
arresting any muslim on the street. The US government should also be
working on trying to fix the problems its caused, such as NOT
poisoning Iraqi civilians and building a new pharmicutical plant in
Sudan. Thats the aim in my arguement, to actually stop terrorism, and
not to possibly cause more while trying to destroy the Al-Qaeda
network.

Ken stated before that if we create more terrorists in the process we
can kill them too, but remember that 5000+ Americans died before we
found out which terrorists we would need to find. Those of us who are
trying to actually help America are being critisized for not being
patriotic. Understand that the solution being approached right now
has achieved nothing in stopping terrorism but has further convinced
muslims that America has no respect for them. Its the people who
don't understand this, and the people who blindly follow their
government that need to get a clue.

Did you stop to think how patriotism, in pride and support of ones
nation, relates to racism, in its pride and support for ones race?
(just food for thought)

"One of the great attractions of patriotism - it fulfills
our worst wishes.  In the person of our nation we
are able, vicariously, to bully and cheat.  Bully and
cheat, what's more, with a feeling that we are
profoundly virtuous."
-- Aldous Huxley, British Writer [1894-1963]


Oh, and while you bring up the issue of Mumia trying to destroy
America, I almost agree with you. Hes aimed at destroying fascism,
racism, capitalist oppression, ignorance, and blind conformity.
Terrorists at home such as the Ku Klux Klan get nearly ignored while
they have been "cleansing" America for decades, and there has been no
great American uprising against them or any other American terrorist
group. Mumia was given a travesty of a trial for a crime no evidence
can prove he commited. The little attention he got by the mega
(white) media made unjust assumtions and lies, they buried history
too. So yes, Mumia has fought against the Evil Empire (the AmeriKKKan
government), and I support him fully. But hey Ken, if you really dig
fascism and white supremacy, then go ahead and criticize me for
supporting the brother.

{Issues.28.21}: Ken Nostratis {kenknows} Fri, 28 Dec 2001 20:11:01 CST (38 lines)

Patrick wrote "look at Mexico for example with the PRI in power." The
PRI is not in power in Mexico, it left office after being defeated in
a free election. Patrick is also wrong when he wrote "Developing
countries that ally with the US get treated like slaves. A dictator
is most commonly instituted to direct American business". There are
dozens of nations in the Western hemisphere and every one of them
except for Cuba is a democracy that is allied with the US. Women in
Afghanistan under the Taliban were treated worse than slaves. They
were deemed by the Taliban to be unworthy of an education, they were
not allowed to have jobs, they often had to beg for food to keep from
starving, and they were forced to dress in an extreme way or be
beaten by the Taliban's "morality police". Now they are free and the
men of Afghanistan are also free from the oppression of the Taliban.
Patrick uses the phrase "the genocidal actions" of "the American
government" but our government did not engage in genocide in
Afghanistan - very few people were killed and the vast majority of
Afghanis are alive and free for the first time in many years, thanks
to the help of the American government. The patriotism that loyal
Americans feel has nothing to do with racism because we realize that
loyal Americans include people from every race in America. Ninety
percent of Americans are patriotic and support American actions in
the war against terrorism. It is possible for an American to oppose a
policy of the government but it is much more likely that the
opposition would come from people who hate America and support the
terrorists who were led by Bin Laden. Finally, Patrick was reduced to
writing "But hey Ken, if you really dig fascism and white supremacy,
then go ahead and criticize me for supporting the brother." Of course
I don't support fascism or white supremacy, and nothing that I wrote
showed any support for either of those things. What I wrote about
Mumia that inspired Patrick's desperate rant was "The sources you
gave for your misinformation were laughable. You cited Mumia Abu
Jamal...You know that he was convicted of murder... the fact that he
could be put to death as the result of his murder conviction means
that he certainly is not objective...He cannot possibly be an
impartial or objective source of information." It remains true that
Mumia is not objective and people of all races agree that someone who
is in prison is not someone to turn to for an objective opinion of
the people who are keeping him in prison.

{Issues.28.22}: Patrick Barry {r3volv3r} Sun, 30 Dec 2001 19:59:11 CST (86 lines)

Just to clear some things up, it seems like people here like to twist
words a lot...

I know the PRI isn't in office any more, I never said it was, I was
directing to the things it had done in the past (is the PAN really
much better though?). One example of how great the US treated Mexico
was with NAFTA, which increased poverty and unemployent dramatically
by allowing multi-national corporations to abandon their American
warehouses and factories so they could build new ones in Mexico
(where labor came at the price of dirt, that Ken, is destroying
developing countries). The US is now trying to revise NAFTA into a
new plan, sure to reak havoc on Mexico all the same. If you know
about the Zapatista uprising when NAFTA was first instituted, you
would remember that the US backed a short military campaign killing
many Zapatistas and the indigeonous innocents of Mexico alike.

I'm sure Ken neglects (if he does know at all) the Contra Wars fought
in Latin America. Democratic uprisings and democratic regimes were
repressed in several countries, such as El Salvador, Guatemala,
Nicaragua, Chili, and Panama. American capitalism and foreign
democracy in third-world-countries don't mix, so of course the US
instituted several dictatorships. Most of them still exist too, they
are all over the globe, in Africa, in Asia, in Latin America. Ken
assumes that because he isn't told about this that it doesn't happen.

And for some reason, you keep on attacking the Taliban. I don't know
why, I agree with you that they were oppressive and needed to be
removed. I don't agree that the Northern Alliance would be an
appropriate interim or permanent government, though. People are still
poor and starving, and now the narcotics are flowing out like crazy.
And if the US is so supportive of women, why are we not liberating
the women of other countries as well (take Saudi Arabia for example,
an American ally as well)? Woman aren't treated equally to men even
in the United States, it wouldn't surprise me if that was still the
case in Afganistan as well. If the United States truly had morality
they would institute another regime, not one that is oppressive, and
certainly not one that would allow itself to be manipulated by
American capitalism.

When I talked about genocidal actions, I don't just mean what has
happened in the past few months, Ken. Don't forget your history...

And I said try to find a relation between patriotism and racism, you
misinterpreted it Ken. When you see something that says "Proud to be
American", why is that righteous while instead "Proud to be white"
would be outrageously wrong? I use the example of racism because I
think everyone here can agree its a horrible thing. When people rally
together in pride as such, in the reason of patriotism or racism,
there becomes a sense of isolation or selfishness in those belonging
to that group. In my opinion patriotism is no better than racism,
both are just ignorance and isolation from the rest of humanity.
Perhaps thats where America finds the morality to kill and oppress...

Ken, you believe that Mumia cannot be considered worthy of trust
because he was on death row, or at least thats how it seems. The big
controversy behind his trial was sparked by his journalism prior to
his conviction (and the travesty of the trial itself). He had many
radical and un-American things to say, like when he reported on
police brutality against minorities. Ultra-nationalists are people
who try to better the nation by being unpatriotic, because we know
that being so is futile and submissive to the very aspects of this
nation that Americans would benefit from destroying. Mumia reported
on oppressive police back then, and its not hard to establish that he
was set-up if you do some real research on him. He was thrown in jail
for being an objective source! He is objective for the reason that he
isn't blinded from the truth by a fog of patriotism. The truth seems
to disapoint America if we suffer enough to hear it, so we go watch
CNN or read the Times to give our mind its daily dose of
brainwashing, and thats why journalists that want to help humanity
seem so un-American...

I wasn't the first to throw around insults Ken, and yours was much
deserved (if you don't realize or acknowledge that the American
government is fascist and racist, then you certainly have embraced
either idiocy or patriotism, good for you). Lets look at what you
wrote before, shall we?

"Yes, ten percent of Americans are slow learners, but ninety
percent of us agree that it is......"

Now, when you call people who don't think patriotically like
you "slow", isn't that also disgraceful? And to say that my rant was
out of line while you threw an insult at dissidents is just a
liiiiittle bit hypocritical. If you really wanted to show your
intelligence you would reply to all the things I've written before,
because I notice you tend to ignore a lot of the things I write.

{Issues.28.23}: Ken Nostratis {kenknows} Wed, 02 Jan 2002 13:15:07 CST (121 lines)

Patrick ended his message with the words "If you really wanted to show
your intelligence you would reply to all the things I've written
before, because I notice you tend to ignore a lot of the things I write."
Patrick, I replied to a lot of what you wrote before but if something
appeared to be a minor point I may not have replied to that point, or
I may not have commented on it because I had nothing much to add on
that subject. In one case you made a major point in attacking
"capitalism" and I did not respond to it because it would have led us
away from the discussion of the war against the Taliban which is what
I wanted to discuss at that time. Now I will get to that point. For
many years the Communists denounced capitalism but all of the nations
that used to promote Communism now practice capitalism. Staying with
Communism too long destroyed the Soviet Union which broke up into many
smaller nations after Communism failed them. Today the former nations
of the Soviet Union and the nations of Eastern Europe and China are
capitalist. Even economically backward Cuba is allowing private
enterprise, in other words, capitalism. If there is any other point
you made that you want me to comment on, let me know what it is and I
will address it.
Patrick wrote "I know the PRI isn't in office any more, I never said
it was, I was directing to the things it had done in the past."
Patrick, it seemed like you thought the PRI was still in power when
you wrote in your previous message "Take a look at Mexico for example
with the PRI in power, the US makes political friends in needy
countries to abuse the rights of the people under its rule". Now he
asks "Is the PAN much better though?" That is a question for the
majority of Mexico's voters to decide, and they made their decision in
favor of the PAN. In their next election they can again decide which
political party is best for them. About NAFTA, many American labor
leaders opposed NAFTA on the grounds that it would benefit the people
of Mexico at the expense of the members of their unions.
Patrick wrote "the Contra Wars fought in Latin America. Democratic
uprisings and democratic regimes were repressed in several countries,
such as El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Chili, and Panama. American
capitalism and foreign democracy in third-world-countries don't mix,
so of course the US instituted several dictatorships. Most of them
still exist too, they are all over the globe, in Africa, in Asia, in
Latin America." I wrote that there are no "US instituted dictatorships
in Latin America" but you continue to claim that they still exist.
Name the countries where they exist. The Latin American nations you
named above all have democratic governments, not repression. In these
cases and other cases, the problems that you are complaining about are
problems of the past that have now been solved. Instead of wallowing
in past problems, you should take a moment to celebrate the fact that
the United States is a better country than we were when we had those
problems. This country is not perfect but it has achieved a great deal
of progress for its people and this progress continues.
Patrick wrote "for some reason, you keep on attacking the Taliban. I
don't know why, I agree with you that they were oppressive and needed
to be removed. I don't agree that the Northern Alliance would be an
appropriate interim or permanent government, though. People are still
poor and starving, and now the narcotics are flowing out like crazy.
And if the US is so supportive of women, why are we not liberating the
women of other countries as well (take Saudi Arabia for example, an
American ally as well)?"
The oppressiveness of the Taliban was one of the reasons why it was
very good for most of the people of Afghanistan that the American
military, fighting alongside of anti-Taliban Afghans, fought to remove
the Taliban from power. Here's some good news for you: the Northern
Alliance is not the interim or permanent government of Afghanistan.
Problems caused by the Taliban in Afghanistan cannot be solved
overnight but things are getting better for the people of Afghanistan.
Although Afghan women greatly benefit from American military
intervention there, our military intervened to attack the people who
planned the attacks on America of September 11. We do not have this
type of justification for a military intervention in Saudi Arabia at
this time.
In 1969 James Brown had a song titled "Say it Loud, I'm Black and I'm
Proud". I know the year because I looked it up on the Internet today.
Patrick wrote "When you see something that says "Proud to be
American", why is that righteous while instead "Proud to be white"
would be outrageously wrong?" The answer is that there is nothing
wrong with saying "proud to be white" or "proud to be American" unless
you think that James Brown was being racist when he said and sang "I'm
Black and I'm Proud". It would also be racist to say that it is okay
for a Black to be proud of being Black but it would be wrong for a
white to be proud of being white. If you do something that you know is
wrong, you should be ashamed, but you should not be ashamed of being
born white or being born Black. It is also perfectly fine for the
citizen of any country to say that he is proud of being a citizen of
that country. Anyone who is ashamed of being a citizen of his country
should consider emigrating to a country that he can be proud of,
although it is also perfectly all right to stay and work to try to
change things about your country that you would want to see changed.
Because Americans of every race can proudly say that they are proud to
be Americans, there is nothing racist about saying that. Again, the
reason to kill in Afghanistan was self-defense, and I am proud that
America acted in self-defense in Afghanistan. We are not oppressing
anyone. We have acted in self-defense against criminals.
Patrick wrote that Mumia "is objective for the reason that he isn't
blinded from the truth by a fog of patriotism." It would be fair to
say that Mumia is blinded by his hatred of America. Patriotism is not
a fog, it is a state of mind that allows people to be happy about
something that they have in common with each other. There is something
to be said for happiness. The fact remains that Mumia is not
objective, and people of all races agree that someone who is in prison
is not someone to turn to for an objective opinion of the people who
are keeping him in prison. His views of America's actions in
Afghanistan are worthless because his being kept in prison distorts
his view of America's actions anywhere else in the world.

Patrick wrote "if you don't realize or acknowledge that the American
government is fascist and racist, then you certainly have embraced
either idiocy or patriotism". Yes, I have embraced patriotism, not
idiocy. When Americans join together to try to make this a better
country, we are expressing our patriotism. Over the years America has
become better and better in many ways than it had been in the past.
The American government is not fascist or racist. The two most
powerful people shaping American foreign policy are Colin Powell and
Condoleeza Rice, and they both happen to be African-Americans.
Patrick quoted me writing "ten percent of Americans are slow learners,
but ninety percent of us agree that ..." and he added "Now, when you
call people who don't think patriotically like you "slow", isn't that
also disgraceful? And to say that my rant was out of line while you
threw an insult at dissidents is just a liiiiittle bit hypocritical."
No it is not disgraceful and it is not hypocritical. I was being kind
because someone else could have called them traitors, but I never
called them that. Writing that they are 'slow learners' expresses a
belief that they may be capable of learning and that some day many of
them may catch up with the other ninety percent of us who understand
what is going on.

{Issues.28.24}: Patrick Barry {r3volv3r} Wed, 02 Jan 2002 22:34:24 CST (131 lines)

Ken, I would like you to shed some of your great insight on (some of
these I've spoken on, some I've only briefly spoken of or want to):

-America's intervention with the Israel-Palastine Conflict
-The Sudanese medical plant disaster/Pakistan disaster
-Why the US would be allying itself with dictators, past or present
(Saddam, the PRI, the Taliban, Pinochet, the Saudi governemnt are
good examples)
-The Northern Alliances history of rape, gang warfare, and innocent
killings
-The economic sanctions instituted in Iraq that kill thousands
-Reasons and results for the US Contra Wars in Latin America
-How corporate media outlets report biasly in favor of the government
and ignore certain facts that need to be reported
-What evidence there is to convict Mumia
-Why diplomacy was avoided and threats made after Sept 11 with the
Taliban
-What evidence you have to support the governments institution of
NAFTA and how it has impacted Mexico
-Do you even know who the Zapatistas are??
-How American capitalism on an international level (globalization)
has positively effected 3rd world countries vs negetively effected
-How the IMF, WTO, and World Bank are supporting developing countries
(Argentina for example)
-Why the Ku Klux Klan and other American terrorist organizations have
not been eliminated
-Why the US intervenes with democracy in foreign countries (rigged
elections and support of "democrats" who would allow for their
countries to be subject to globalisation)
-What you think neoliberalism is
-Why the US will train and use terrorists (CIA training terrorists in
particular, not just Osama too) but condemn terrorism in this war
-Why the government has given back $140 billion to corporations and
not to citizens (who pay the taxes in the first place)
-How your government has justified killing OVER 3500 (likely around
3800) innocent civilians in Afganistan
-How this war will break the circle of violence when killing thus far
has only promoted retribution

I think that just about covers it, I'll come back with more if I
think of them.

China is a communist nation, although it doesn't use true communist
theory. Communist Russia was not broken by communism. It was broken
by its approach at expansion, but lost wars. It was broken by its
corrupt government as well. It attempted to expand and seize, but
this was morally objectable, but it worked much like how the US
globalises and spreads their markets (with the help of terrorists,
dictators, the CIA, etc). Although many of the dictators in those
countries don't have to act as such, they still exist in one way or
another. This is my view on how American democracy works:

2 candidates are nominated and given large sums of soft money by
giant corporations. Those large corporations would only fund
campaigns of someone dedicated to upholding corporate America, it
only makes sense that giant corporations would want to support
someone who supported globalisation, neoliberalism, anti-
egalitarianism (equality is bad for business) and a low minimum wage.
The same media outlets that you, Ken, get your news from are owned by
the corporations that provide soft money as well, so they also use
their media to deterr voters onto the 2 candidates nominated. Neither
candidate has any intention to/will destroy the system, but perhaps
alter it, expand it, or cunningly cover it up. When we're given these
2 choices (yes, there are other options, but someone like Nader
didn't lose because his policies weren't appealing) and lied to about
the candidates intention. Also, democracies in developing countries
are similar, but they don't act as dictatorships when theres no
reason to. Theres a crisis in Argentina right now, why don't you go
check it out?

"If voting could change the system, it would be illegal."

Theodore Adorno

Pride in the right light is honorable, pride when taken as supremacy
becomes ignorance. Ken, you can't argue that pride, whether for a
nation, a religion, an ethnic group, or whatever else, has always
been positive. In the perfect world patriotism would be just, but
certainly it has led America down a trail of ignorance and arrogance.
America has become so consumed in its own pride that it feels
righteous to murder civilians in foreign countries but will wage war
commiting more murder than was inflicted upon itself. If you read the
articles I posted before you would have seen an outrageous quote by
Madeline Albright justifying genocide to protect America. I was
watching CNN the other day and heard loud and clear that America has
the liberty to protect its own interests (in other countries) with
military enforcement. This is what helped spark the terrorism of
9/11, and I found this outrageous, do you?

The American government is most definetly racist and fascist, and
many others agree. Police officers think they have the authority to
murder minorities, and whats worse is that they are not or barely
punished for doing so. Border guards near Mexico shoot hundreds of
latino civilians every year, but they are of no significance to the
government. Mumia himself was racially targeted for being Black, and
his death sentance was overturned on these grounds and he is being
given a retrail (thanks to the millions internationally who have
supported his fight for freedom). And Ken, when you say that there
are minorities who hold political power, did you ever think that
maybe they have that power to keep Americans believing that the
establishment isn't bigotted? And when you look at wars waged by the
United States and targets of the g8, IMF, WTO and World Bank, don't
you see that the American government has targeted non-white countries
(with the exception of the World Wars, not started by the US, America
hasn't engaged a foreign white nation in war, and the Revolutionary
war was only a defense, Great Britain was never targetted). Or
perhaps you might see that corporations keep minorities in low paying
jobs and often make it impossible to climb the corporate ladder? Just
coincidences Ken? That was then, this is now? The American
government's abuse of minorities is improving, but only at the rate
that citizens form movements or resist this abuse (the terrorists,
right Ken?).

As for fascism, the government has been democratic in the way that
they tell us what to think, and we obey or become un-american
radicals. Democracies literal meaning is active participation of
civilians, and not only a specified sect, in government. Or it can be
modified to citizens elect their leader (America fits this one, I
explained how that part works). One of the greatest things this
nation has left is free speech, as long as it doesn't spark change
and danger to the system. We have the freedom to communicate with one
another even if its about dissent. BUT, we are limited to what we
know, and what America doesn't know keeps the fascist elites in
power. The system of America is comparable to the matrix in the
movie, "The Matrix". People are kept in complacency and ignorant
bliss while they are controlled and used (in America's example, by
corporations). There are even those who will fight to protect this
system when introduced to the truth, and that is why the truth is a
weapon of the people. That is also why America has been brainwashed
into consent, not because they're good thinkers like Ken has stated,
but because they either don't know or don't accept the truth.

{Issues.28.25}: Ken Nostratis {kenknows} Thu, 03 Jan 2002 12:34:42 CST (35 lines)

Patrick, you asked me many questions and I will answer them, but first
I want you to answer just one point that I made in my previous
message. You earlier stated that "'Proud to be white' would be
outrageously wrong." I totally disagreed, and my explanation was:
"In 1969 James Brown had a song titled "Say it Loud, I'm Black and I'm
Proud". I know the year because I looked it up on the Internet today.
Patrick wrote "When you see something that says "Proud to be
American", why is that righteous while instead "Proud to be white"
would be outrageously wrong?" The answer is that there is nothing
wrong with saying "proud to be white" or "proud to be American" unless
you think that James Brown was being racist when he said and sang "I'm
Black and I'm Proud". It would also be racist to say that it is okay
for a Black to be proud of being Black but it would be wrong for a
white to be proud of being white. If you do something that you know is
wrong, you should be ashamed, but you should not be ashamed of being
born white or being born Black. It is also perfectly fine for the
citizen of any country to say that he is proud of being a citizen of
that country. Anyone who is ashamed of being a citizen of his country
should consider emigrating to a country that he can be proud of,
although it is also perfectly all right to stay and work to try to
change things about your country that you would want to see changed.
Because Americans of every race can proudly say that they are proud to
be Americans, there is nothing racist about saying that."
I will add that someone can certainly say that he or she is proud of
being Black, or proud of being white, without it being a statement of
supremacy. It is saying "I am comfortable about being me, and that
includes being comfortable with my ancestry."

Do you still believe that it would be racist or outrageously wrong to
say "Proud to be white"?
Do you believe that it would be racist or outrageously wrong to say
"Proud to be Black" or in the words of James Brown "I'm Black and I'm
proud"?
If you gave a different answer to those two questions, how do you
justify having different answers?