No I'm saying the opposite. I'm saying that terrorism is a choice made by opposition groups fighting for a political goal. Palestinians for example in 1988 (at least the ones living under Israeli occupation) chose to make the first intifadah nonviolent. In 2000, the second intifadah was violent. Like any struggle, the choice to blow up civilians is a matter of strategy. And why is it suspect to point out the success of nonviolent civil rights movements in America. Do you think no progress has been achieved since the passage of the Voter rights act?
it's suspect to say that civil rights movement was nonviolent, given (as Johnny said) a largely perceived threat of violence on the side of the movement, and widespread use of violence by the government/establishment. (and I think anybody who thinks the civil rights movement was overwhelmingly successful or speaks about it in the past tense hasn't been to the US in a minute.)
terrorism is a choice, but so is violent oppression. the harder one pushes, the harder the other side pushes back. I'm not condoning terrorism, but I do think it's naive to punch someone in the teeth and be surprised and outraged when they swing back and break your nose. terrorism (suicide terrorism especially) has also been unfortunately effective across the globe, which might explain its continued presence.
Well you are right there is more work to be done regarding civil rights in America. But the movement in the sixties was nonviolent. It was called the Student Nonviolent Coordination Committee, Dr. King quoted Gandhi. And maybe there was a perceived threat of violence, but the larger perception was the inevitable continuation of a racial caste system--that most certainly used violence and practiced terror to preserve itself. Civil disobedience radically altered the perception that things would always remain as they were in the south in a way that denied the state in the end at least a justification for using retaliatory violence. When Bull Connor ordered fire hoses be used on children and demonstrators, it brought him and his police force national shame.
I also don't think terror has been succesful. Arafat died without realizing his goal of a palestinian state; there is no independent state of Tamil in Sri Lanka; terror has denied the Muslims of Kashmir a referendum on its status for over fifty years. At the same time, nonviolent movements have been enormously succesful. Not because they are docile or peaceful, but because they make it much harder for the monopolizer of violence (the state) to employ its strength against insurgents. The decision to murder civilians at random does not generate sympathy for your cause and often serves as a reminder for why the rest of the population supports the police, army and security services--to get people who seek to kill as many noncombatants as possible.
[/b] You seem to be on edge lately, I'm used to your posts being more level-headed.
I think you're confusing me with someone else?
no I'm quite serious. I am used to you being a voice of calm and understanding, it seems like your a bit more aggressive as of late. Just making an observation.
no I'm quite serious. I am used to you being a voice of calm and understanding, it seems like your a bit more aggressive as of late. Just making an observation.
Are you waiting for me to threaten you with a baseball bat? Again, you got the wrong guy.
No I'm saying the opposite. I'm saying that terrorism is a choice made by opposition groups fighting for a political goal. Palestinians for example in 1988 (at least the ones living under Israeli occupation) chose to make the first intifadah nonviolent. In 2000, the second intifadah was violent. Like any struggle, the choice to blow up civilians is a matter of strategy. And why is it suspect to point out the success of nonviolent civil rights movements in America. Do you think no progress has been achieved since the passage of the Voter rights act?
it's suspect to say that civil rights movement was nonviolent, given (as Johnny said) a largely perceived threat of violence on the side of the movement, and widespread use of violence by the government/establishment. (and I think anybody who thinks the civil rights movement was overwhelmingly successful or speaks about it in the past tense hasn't been to the US in a minute.)
terrorism is a choice, but so is violent oppression. the harder one pushes, the harder the other side pushes back. I'm not condoning terrorism, but I do think it's naive to punch someone in the teeth and be surprised and outraged when they swing back and break your nose. terrorism (suicide terrorism especially) has also been unfortunately effective across the globe, which might explain its continued presence.
Well you are right there is more work to be done regarding civil rights in America. But the movement in the sixties was nonviolent. It was called the Student Nonviolent Coordination Committee, Dr. King quoted Gandhi. And maybe there was a perceived threat of violence, but the larger perception was the inevitable continuation of a racial caste system--that most certainly used violence and practiced terror to preserve itself. Civil disobedience radically altered the perception that things would always remain as they were in the south in a way that denied the state in the end at least a justification for using retaliatory violence. When Bull Connor ordered fire hoses be used on children and demonstrators, it brought him and his police force national shame.
I also don't think terror has been succesful. Arafat died without realizing his goal of a palestinian state; there is no independent state of Tamil in Sri Lanka; terror has denied the Muslims of Kashmir a referendum on its status for over fifty years. At the same time, nonviolent movements have been enormously succesful. Not because they are docile or peaceful, but because they make it much harder for the monopolizer of violence (the state) to employ its strength against insurgents. The decision to murder civilians at random does not generate sympathy for your cause and often serves as a reminder for why the rest of the population supports the police, army and security services--to get people who seek to kill as many noncombatants as possible.
"I also don't think terror has been succesful. "[/b]
I dunno Vitamin. You and your ilk have been successfully terrorizing this country - and the rest of the civilized world - for a while now.
the black panthers were a very, very complicated and contradictory orginazation. you can't sum it up in yea nay.
with that being said your professor is a dumb ass.
vitamin... i know we both like modern soul and thats cool but you gotta take your pro war shit somewhere else. were not having it today.
your multi-paragraph off center rants are annoying and lame.
the war in iraq sucks and is completly unjust. don't give my any of that liberating the people of iraq bullshit either. people die by the ten's of thousands in the sudan and bush could give a rats ass. its all about domanation and control ( as if we did not already know this ).
the black panthers were a very, very complicated and contradictory orginazation. you can't sum it up in yea nay.
with that being said your professor is a dumb ass.
vitamin... i know we both like modern soul and thats cool but you gotta take your pro war shit somewhere else. were not having it today.
your multi-paragraph off center rants are annoying and lame.
the war in iraq sucks and is completly unjust. don't give my any of that liberating the people of iraq bullshit either. people die by the ten's of thousands in the sudan and bush could give a rats ass. its all about domanation and control ( as if we did not already know this ).
no I'm quite serious. I am used to you being a voice of calm and understanding, it seems like your a bit more aggressive as of late. Just making an observation.
Are you waiting for me to threaten you with a baseball bat? Again, you got the wrong guy.
Well you are right there is more work to be done regarding civil rights in America. But the movement in the sixties was nonviolent. It was called the Student Nonviolent Coordination Committee, Dr. King quoted Gandhi. And maybe there was a perceived threat of violence, but the larger perception was the inevitable continuation of a racial caste system--that most certainly used violence and practiced terror to preserve itself. Civil disobedience radically altered the perception that things would always remain as they were in the south in a way that denied the state in the end at least a justification for using retaliatory violence. When Bull Connor ordered fire hoses be used on children and demonstrators, it brought him and his police force national shame.
the movement was bigger than the SNCC.
and if the continuation of a racial caste system "most certainly used violence and practiced terror to preserve itself," what do you think the eventually reaction would be by the oppressed? how long do you think the oppressed would sit and take it? hence: threat of eventual violent retaliation.
I also don't think terror has been succesful. Arafat died without realizing his goal of a palestinian state; there is no independent state of Tamil in Sri Lanka; terror has denied the Muslims of Kashmir a referendum on its status for over fifty years. At the same time, nonviolent movements have been enormously succesful. Not because they are docile or peaceful, but because they make it much harder for the monopolizer of violence (the state) to employ its strength against insurgents. The decision to murder civilians at random does not generate sympathy for your cause and often serves as a reminder for why the rest of the population supports the police, army and security services--to get people who seek to kill as many noncombatants as possible.
way to entirely ignore the first (and more important) point.
Well you are right there is more work to be done regarding civil rights in America. But the movement in the sixties was nonviolent. It was called the Student Nonviolent Coordination Committee[/b], Dr. King quoted Gandhi. And maybe there was a perceived threat of violence, but the larger perception was the inevitable continuation of a racial caste system--that most certainly used violence and practiced terror to preserve itself. Civil disobedience radically altered the perception that things would always remain as they were in the south in a way that denied the state in the end at least a justification for using retaliatory violence. When Bull Connor ordered fire hoses be used on children and demonstrators, it brought him and his police force national shame.
You do realize that Both Stokely Carmichael and H.Rap Brown were leaders of SNCC. Both of which did not totally agree with MLK on many ideals of how to improve Civil rights.
Don't let a name fool you Vitamin, kind of like how we went to Iraq to "fight against" terrorism
don't give my any of that liberating the people of iraq bullshit either. people die by the ten's of thousands in the sudan and bush could give a rats ass.
ap -
not taking sides here at all, just curious. are you against all wars like this or just wish Bush would wage more of them or wage them more honestly? in other words, are you opposed to Bush's decision to invade Iraq or opposed to his decision not to invade Sudan? if Bush was serious about liberating people and didn't do so selectively (based on oil, other geopolitical considerations, HIS OWN NARROW ECONOMIC INTERESTS AND THAT OF THIS CRONIES, etc.) would you be opposed to his actions? just curious if people here are against the very idea of invading a "sovereign nation" for whatever reason, or are merely against Bush and the current Iraq war.
feel free to ignore this question altogether; not trying to hijack a good panthers thread with more Iraq talk (though I think that happened a while ago)...
Before we spin totally away from Black Panther talk here. Can someone please tell me why this book and this man are celebrated? I've always found this piece of non-fiction to be filled with disgusting bullshit ("I raped black women to practice raping white women")
Eldridge Cleaver is a piece of shit who had no morals to stick to. If he was in power he would of been just as huge a tyrant as any other leader we've come to detest.
Seriously though why is he painted in such a good light?
[are you against all wars like this or just wish Bush would wage more of them or wage them more honestly? in other words, are you opposed to Bush's decision to invade Iraq or opposed to his decision not to invade Sudan? if Bush was serious about liberating people and didn't do so selectively (based on oil, other geopolitical considerations, HIS OWN NARROW ECONOMIC INTERESTS AND THAT OF THIS CRONIES, etc.) would you be opposed to his actions? just curious if people here are against the very idea of invading a sovereign nation for whatever reason, or are merely against Bush and the current Iraq war.
great question rootless... i'd like to hear a whole lot of you answer this question
[are you against all wars like this or just wish Bush would wage more of them or wage them more honestly? in other words, are you opposed to Bush's decision to invade Iraq or opposed to his decision not to invade Sudan? if Bush was serious about liberating people and didn't do so selectively (based on oil, other geopolitical considerations, HIS OWN NARROW ECONOMIC INTERESTS AND THAT OF THIS CRONIES, etc.) would you be opposed to his actions? just curious if people here are against the very idea of invading a sovereign nation for whatever reason, or are merely against Bush and the current Iraq war.
great question rootless... i'd like to hear a whole lot of you answer this question
It is a very good question. I personally think we shouldn't go to war unless it is in defense of our nation.
This war was us sending troops to a country that was not strong enough to invade us, nor did it seem to have any plans to do so. Beyond all the small tit-for-tat arguments being made in the media we should all be aware that this war was brought to us in the name of oil. Whatever excuse was made this week, month, or year is immaterial because they all sidestep the craving for petroleum that our oil hungry government seems to have.
Last week oil companies posted a $10,000,000,000 profit for a single quarter![/b] all this while we hear about how much gas prices had to rise due to lack of rfineries and storm damage. We also got a similar song and dance a few years ago ith the Iraqi oil fields burning. It was all bullshit and I wouldn't be surprised if Iraq is pumping oil at full capacity via Halliburton and other American companies and just not reporting it to further gouge prices.
Bush being an oil man only makes this even more ugly. tens of thousands have died so that 5 or 6 oil companies can make record profits.
Beleiving any tripe the administration feeds us now or in the past is foolish. We are not running as a nation anymore but rather as a massive oil corporation designed to bring the highest profits we can to our president & CEO
Each situation is different. I cannot comment on abstract and hypothetical situations very easily.
I can tell you however that I am against the war in Iraq. It is shameful that the Bush Administration used the of liberating a society as it's platform for war. That is a joke. People all around the world are suffering under oppression and we are so concerned about only the citizens of Iraq. Bullshit! That's not what the war is about, just as terrorism is not what the war is about. The war is about strategic control. This is so obvious.
My point is if you are into liberating societies you can start wars all over Africa and South America too. That is not the agenda however. What I am saying is tell it like it is. Don???t pretend that the U.S. Is so concerned with the people of Iraq. That is a lie. The U.S. Government is not even concerned about the people of New Orleans.
I am not the expert on foreign policy that Vitamin thinks he is but I can smell a turd when I sense one and this war stinks. The U.S. Involvement in World War II was another matter obviously, but that was many years ago. The world is a different place now so make of it what you will.
I am not foolish enough to think this is a one-sided, simplistic issue. I know this is complex and I am not just a mindless liberal banter victim. I actually hate that uncritical bullshit. I come from a long line of Democrats but I see the flaw in the system, not one party.
I can say this however... Even Jimmy Carter is dissing Bush now and former Presidents just don't do that kind of thing.
[are you against all wars like this or just wish Bush would wage more of them or wage them more honestly? in other words, are you opposed to Bush's decision to invade Iraq or opposed to his decision not to invade Sudan? if Bush was serious about liberating people and didn't do so selectively (based on oil, other geopolitical considerations, HIS OWN NARROW ECONOMIC INTERESTS AND THAT OF THIS CRONIES, etc.) would you be opposed to his actions? just curious if people here are against the very idea of invading a sovereign nation for whatever reason, or are merely against Bush and the current Iraq war.
great question rootless... i'd like to hear a whole lot of you answer this question
I am against the very idea of invading a ???"sovereign nation" ??? and find it especially repulsive when it is done under the guise of freedom, when it is not. It would be only slightly better if the real reasons are stated.
If going into Iraq was indeed about liberation, there may still have been a war, but I think it would have been planned, strategized and fought very differently. Then people would come first and not oil/resources/strategic geographic position/etc. Would there be less casualities? I don???t know ??? but the country might have had a better chance of recovery.
Flip the question ??? how many of you would be OK with China invading the US over what happened to the First Nations people or the millions of Blacks or the handling of NO? It???s not just about war, but the unbelievable arrogance of one country telling another country that they know what???s best for them
the whole theroy of peak oil is suspect and oil is more and more seemingly being a false scarce commodity. some of you might think that i am a total crackpot but remember diamonds are a false scarce commodity too. debeers has so many of them vaulted in warehouses it's absurd. it is all about charging 3,000 for a low grade carat. just like oil. it's all about charging $3.00 a gallon. stop and think for a second... you really beleive that oil comes from dinosaur bones? it comes from deep in the earth. not just from fossils and plankton. that shit is magma level and is as abundant as can be. now you know just what a freak i really am.
the whole theroy of peak oil is suspect and oil is more and more seemingly being a false scarce commodity. some of you might think that i am a total crackpot but remember diamonds are a false scarce commodity too. debeers has so many of them vaulted in warehouses it's absurd. it is all about charging 3,000 for a low grade carat. just like oil. it's all about charging $3.00 a gallon. stop and think for a second... you really beleive that oil comes from dinosaur bones? it comes from deep in the earth. not just from fossils and plankton. that shit is magma level and is as abundant as can be. now you know just what a freak i really am.
man, I really don't know what to say. Although it does make sense to make this a false scarce commodity. in order to increase price & profit. The word "collusion" seems to come to mind as well
are you against all wars like this or just wish Bush would wage more of them or wage them more honestly? in other words, are you opposed to Bush's decision to invade Iraq or opposed to his decision not to invade Sudan? if Bush was serious about liberating people and didn't do so selectively (based on oil, other geopolitical considerations, HIS OWN NARROW ECONOMIC INTERESTS AND THAT OF THIS CRONIES, etc.) would you be opposed to his actions? just curious if people here are against the very idea of invading a "sovereign nation" for whatever reason, or are merely against Bush and the current Iraq war.
I'm against pre-emptive strikes. I supported the war in Afghanistan.
that being said, if we invaded Sudan, I wouldn't be horribly opposed to it. I personally bring up the "why not Sudan" argument because that would be a much better war to fight in the interest of being humanitarian.
Comments
I think you're confusing me with someone else?
Well you are right there is more work to be done regarding civil rights in America. But the movement in the sixties was nonviolent. It was called the Student Nonviolent Coordination Committee, Dr. King quoted Gandhi. And maybe there was a perceived threat of violence, but the larger perception was the inevitable continuation of a racial caste system--that most certainly used violence and practiced terror to preserve itself. Civil disobedience radically altered the perception that things would always remain as they were in the south in a way that denied the state in the end at least a justification for using retaliatory violence. When Bull Connor ordered fire hoses be used on children and demonstrators, it brought him and his police force national shame.
I also don't think terror has been succesful. Arafat died without realizing his goal of a palestinian state; there is no independent state of Tamil in Sri Lanka; terror has denied the Muslims of Kashmir a referendum on its status for over fifty years. At the same time, nonviolent movements have been enormously succesful. Not because they are docile or peaceful, but because they make it much harder for the monopolizer of violence (the state) to employ its strength against insurgents. The decision to murder civilians at random does not generate sympathy for your cause and often serves as a reminder for why the rest of the population supports the police, army and security services--to get people who seek to kill as many noncombatants as possible.
no I'm quite serious. I am used to you being a voice of calm and understanding, it seems like your a bit more aggressive as of late. Just making an observation.
Ross:[/b] I do believe its sandwich time
Are you waiting for me to threaten you with a baseball bat? Again, you got the wrong guy.
Grand Valley State University www.gvsu.edu
and to address a point brought up in an earlier post: My teacher was refferring to their intent as a group rather than their image.
"I also don't think terror has been succesful. "[/b]
I dunno Vitamin. You and your ilk have been successfully terrorizing this country - and the rest of the civilized world - for a while now.
with that being said your professor is a dumb ass.
vitamin... i know we both like modern soul and thats cool but you gotta take your pro war shit somewhere else. were not having it today.
your multi-paragraph off center rants are annoying and lame.
the war in iraq sucks and is completly unjust. don't give my any of that liberating the people of iraq bullshit either. people die by the ten's of thousands in the sudan and bush could give a rats ass. its all about domanation and control ( as if we did not already know this ).
ap
co-fuckin-sign
Dude, I think its time for sandwiches all around
I recommend it.
the movement was bigger than the SNCC.
and if the continuation of a racial caste system "most certainly used violence and practiced terror to preserve itself," what do you think the eventually reaction would be by the oppressed? how long do you think the oppressed would sit and take it? hence: threat of eventual violent retaliation.
way to entirely ignore the first (and more important) point.
You do realize that Both Stokely Carmichael and H.Rap Brown were leaders of SNCC. Both of which did not totally agree with MLK on many ideals of how to improve Civil rights.
Don't let a name fool you Vitamin, kind of like how we went to Iraq to "fight against" terrorism
frankly, this describes everyone involved in this discussion...
Where the hell is that most hip-hoppist tape from the Paul Wall wedding photo thread?
ap -
not taking sides here at all, just curious. are you against all wars like this or just wish Bush would wage more of them or wage them more honestly? in other words, are you opposed to Bush's decision to invade Iraq or opposed to his decision not to invade Sudan? if Bush was serious about liberating people and didn't do so selectively (based on oil, other geopolitical considerations, HIS OWN NARROW ECONOMIC INTERESTS AND THAT OF THIS CRONIES, etc.) would you be opposed to his actions? just curious if people here are against the very idea of invading a "sovereign nation" for whatever reason, or are merely against Bush and the current Iraq war.
feel free to ignore this question altogether; not trying to hijack a good panthers thread with more Iraq talk (though I think that happened a while ago)...
Before we spin totally away from Black Panther talk here. Can someone please tell me why this book and this man are celebrated? I've always found this piece of non-fiction to be filled with disgusting bullshit ("I raped black women to practice raping white women")
Eldridge Cleaver is a piece of shit who had no morals to stick to. If he was in power he would of been just as huge a tyrant as any other leader we've come to detest.
Seriously though why is he painted in such a good light?
great question rootless...
i'd like to hear a whole lot of you answer this question
It is a very good question. I personally think we shouldn't go to war unless it is in defense of our nation.
This war was us sending troops to a country that was not strong enough to invade us, nor did it seem to have any plans to do so. Beyond all the small tit-for-tat arguments being made in the media we should all be aware that this war was brought to us in the name of oil. Whatever excuse was made this week, month, or year is immaterial because they all sidestep the craving for petroleum that our oil hungry government seems to have.
Last week oil companies posted a $10,000,000,000 profit for a single quarter![/b] all this while we hear about how much gas prices had to rise due to lack of rfineries and storm damage. We also got a similar song and dance a few years ago ith the Iraqi oil fields burning. It was all bullshit and I wouldn't be surprised if Iraq is pumping oil at full capacity via Halliburton and other American companies and just not reporting it to further gouge prices.
Bush being an oil man only makes this even more ugly. tens of thousands have died so that 5 or 6 oil companies can make record profits.
Beleiving any tripe the administration feeds us now or in the past is foolish. We are not running as a nation anymore but rather as a massive oil corporation designed to bring the highest profits we can to our president & CEO
Each situation is different. I cannot comment on abstract and hypothetical situations very easily.
I can tell you however that I am against the war in Iraq. It is shameful that the Bush Administration used the of liberating a society as it's platform for war. That is a joke. People all around the world are suffering under oppression and we are so concerned about only the citizens of Iraq. Bullshit! That's not what the war is about, just as terrorism is not what the war is about. The war is about strategic control. This is so obvious.
My point is if you are into liberating societies you can start wars all over Africa and South America too. That is not the agenda however. What I am saying is tell it like it is. Don???t pretend that the U.S. Is so concerned with the people of Iraq. That is a lie. The U.S. Government is not even concerned about the people of New Orleans.
I am not the expert on foreign policy that Vitamin thinks he is but I can smell a turd when I sense one and this war stinks. The U.S. Involvement in World War II was another matter obviously, but that was many years ago. The world is a different place now so make of it what you will.
I am not foolish enough to think this is a one-sided, simplistic issue. I know this is complex and I am not just a mindless liberal banter victim. I actually hate that uncritical bullshit. I come from a long line of Democrats but I see the flaw in the system, not one party.
I can say this however... Even Jimmy Carter is dissing Bush now and former Presidents just don't do that kind of thing.
ap
you make it sound like this is something oither than the norm. All in a hard day's work!
I am against the very idea of invading a ???"sovereign nation" ??? and find it especially repulsive when it is done under the guise of freedom, when it is not. It would be only slightly better if the real reasons are stated.
If going into Iraq was indeed about liberation, there may still have been a war, but I think it would have been planned, strategized and fought very differently. Then people would come first and not oil/resources/strategic geographic position/etc. Would there be less casualities? I don???t know ??? but the country might have had a better chance of recovery.
Flip the question ??? how many of you would be OK with China invading the US over what happened to the First Nations people or the millions of Blacks or the handling of NO? It???s not just about war, but the unbelievable arrogance of one country telling another country that they know what???s best for them
Sadly I can do nothing but agree with this.
I would not be OK with this.
man, I really don't know what to say. Although it does make sense to make this a false scarce commodity. in order to increase price & profit. The word "collusion" seems to come to mind as well
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!
I don't think he is saying that, but i believe he is saying that it is not as limited as we've been led to beleive
oh damn it, I did it too. I got offtrack in a discussion I was hoping would revolve around the panthers and their ideals.
Ok nevermind my oil babble speak
Someone please tell me why Eldridge Cleaver is seen as such a good man?
I'm against pre-emptive strikes. I supported the war in Afghanistan.
that being said, if we invaded Sudan, I wouldn't be horribly opposed to it. I personally bring up the "why not Sudan" argument because that would be a much better war to fight in the interest of being humanitarian.