"A Reply", Giuliano Valverde
This was a response to comments generated by another Wireclub user's blog post. The strange names you see there are their screen names, which can be verified at the website.
Content
A Reply
by Giuliano Valverde
Originally published as a Wireclub.com blog post on April 3, 2011. http://www.wireclub.com/Blogs/Oneiros/286520
The alleged dead of Osama Bin Laden, announced recently by president Obama has spurred a lot of different discussions here at the Wire, lately. Some focus on the legitimacy of his death, others seem to have more political depth, but in both cases many questions about US Imperialism seem to arise. To me , it is always an interesting exercise to observe these talks, as they almost always portray certain stereotyped characters whose viewpoints make very explicit where the ideas therein are coming from. From the overly opinionated to the historically oblivious, lots of different patterns can be observed in Muna¶s (Moony_xo) recent ³Osama dead?´ post comments. Some misconceptions and opinions contained there must be more carefully approached. Hence this post.
I have first written this out of spite, really. It was meant to be a confrontation, but as I read further down to the comments I started understanding certain subtleties, most of them pointing to an agreement in terms of what is really going on out there. What started as an attempt to confront certain vie ws ended as a slightly deeper elaboration on what is being said, regardless of the sarcasm employed. It is by no means a personal attack on any level, not on anyone. It is just an expansion of arguments and ideas.
ClumsyCatastrophy said:
³FX i dont think ANY of us know if 9/11 was an inside job. People argue
about it therefor theres no proof.
Just because its ur personal thinking it doesnt make it a #fact.
We should be careful with such theories´.
Do you all see the inconsistency in this argument? ³P eople argue about it, therefore there is no proof´. Not to mention that there is a large body of evidence supporting the idea that 9/11 was in fact an inside job. I could point to many scholarly studies published by architects, engineers and physicists, al l pointing in the same direction, all based on very solid evidence, proving that whatever happened on 9/11 it had nothing to do with what the official story, published in the form of ³The 9/11 Commission Report´ wants the American people (and the world) to believe. But instead, all I¶ll ask is this: why did Building 7, from the World Trade Center complex, collapsed, if it wasn¶t hit by anything? Explain to me that and I think we¶ll be halfway there. Of course there will be other pertaining questions as well, but try to explain that one first.
Now, as to that ³any of us know´ part, I believe one only needs to have a look at The 9/11 Truth Movement to see how that is really a far -fetched statement.
³Just because it¶s your personal thinking doesn¶t make it a fact´. That is very true. Except that if your personal thinking contains elements that you like to tout out to people as being truth while being in fact diametrically opposed to reality, then I don¶t see how your ³thinking´ matters at all in a discussion l ike this. That is usually the argument of the overly opinionated: to think that everyone¶s opinions are as poorly informed and distorted as theirs. The opinionated lives in a fairy tale world, where what they think it is usually reflects reality, regardless of evidence and facts to the contrary.
AussieOi said:
³Pretty soon a new 'bad guy' will be promoted by the western media. Pretty soon fighters will rally to the cause of bin laden the martyr. In other words what changes? The conflict is bigger than one man´.
So much said in just a few lines. That is what announcing Bin Laden¶s death is all about, ultimately: to quench Americans¶ thirst for a narrative that could as well be a fable. To provide them with a villain that, in this more acceptable version of the story where everything is Good Vs. Evil, is in control of the wrong side. Remember, you kill the last boss and it¶s game over. That does not apply to the real world, however. ³Bin Laden, the Martyr´. I can see how certain groups could benefit from that in recruiting their soldiers. In the real world, the solo act is a tempting cliche, but just as a fantasy. Like Aussie said, ³The conflict is bigger than one man´, because that is how it usually works in reality.
The whole thing gets more Orwellian by the minute, so yes, I can totally see them looking for a new ³bad guy´. Thing is, the whole Al -Qaeda concept will provide them with plenty... a life long stock.
sLight_O_ reminded us of people holding ³The End Is Near´ signs:
³This man shall never be a symbol nor remembrance to these people, they shall never gather at his resting place, they shall be destroyed´.
Seriously, I find people that think lots of other people ³shall be destroyed´ rather scary. Yo, relax. Let¶s try not to focus so much on destru ction, how about that? I don¶t know if there¶s a Satan, I don¶t think so, but I¶m more
familiar with hatred created by men. We¶re flawed creatures, we¶re human.
Now, the stereotype in case is a whole different thing altogether. I¶d say Dots captured it well with sarcasm, even though he seemed to share some of the stereotype¶s views himself. I¶ve seen some of the things he said everywhere from YouTube comments to Military.com forums. Not literally, but with the same meaning. I know it has to do with the who le identification process some people seem to display towards what they regard as ³tough´, be it in politics, religion, ideology in general, social behavior, etc.
These kind of views stem from a very narrow notion of what the world is, what nations and countries really are, how they are maintained and more importantly, how they go about their business of foreign relations. Some polarize the whole thing in their heads, simplifying everything in terms of Good and Bad. Others still think with the mindset they got from playing RISK for too long, and those are usually the same ones who act surprised when they hear about how rules are written and constantly shattered in the real world.
And so, SarcasticDots said:
³Say what you want about the occupying forces b ut at least they aren't sexist pigs that are overtly concerned with religion and nothing else´.
No, of course not. What, sexism in the military? No. Of course not. Only in the movies, right?
"I am by no means conservative, but I backed both wars. Saddam was a prick and the Taliban are too. The US and Uk, through all their faults are certainly better than those two".
I bet if we try really hard we can find a copy of the memo the White House and the Pentagon sent to him, thanking him for his backing. And a medal. He needs one. Now, THAT is the guy who goes on to tell us who the pricks were.
You know what¶s funny? The White House denying the numbers published by The Lancet, who used a research method previously condoned by the same White House, when applied to gather the number of casualties in another conflict. It was good then, now they don¶t agree with the method anymore. Just that, back then, it was to prove somebody else¶s deaths perpetrated by somebody else¶s army. Now its theirs... it would embarrass them, wouldn¶t? Politicians can¶t be embarrassed. They¶re like celebrities.
Still, the number of Iraqi deaths due to the war and occupation of Iraq amounts to 1,455,590 (justforeignpolicy.org/iraq). It took a bigger prick to top them both, after all.
Then he prophesied:
³The problem with these invasions ALWAYS comes when power is handed back. You watch, the current leader of Afghanistan is already corrupt, he'll soon try to hold onto power once the military forces leave... Then another invasion will take place 50 years from now´.
So, let me see if I got this right. The problem of someone busting into your country armed to the teeth and not only stealing you and murdering your kin, your neighbors, but also ripping your life apart is what happens when it ¶s over? By ³over´ I mean the American version, of course, the one that can only end with America as the ³winner´, which in the real world usually translates as setting up a puppet regime to manage things while draining the country¶s wealth from afar.
Now, to say that a leader in these governments around the world, no matter what the country, is corrupt, is to state the obvious. What is funny is how he acts like he¶s really trying to pin that ³corrupt´ angle, as if he (or any one of us for that matter) didn¶t know corruption in our own homeland. The president doesn¶t matter. The whole structure is corrupted. It can¶t be cleansed by its same rules and regulations because it was MEANT to be like that from the beginning. Of course you all want to paint a rosy picture of your Founding Fathers and pretend theirs was not a corrupt concept. Few concepts seldom are. But give that model time to run its gears through age and history and you¶ll see how the parasites outgrow the machine¶s ability to perform without being corrupted. All governments are corrupt. That should be a given. The only reason America became ³independent´ is because their former masters learned how to keep them dependent. The US is still under the leash of the same monetary system the British created.
As for the prophecy itself... really? 50 years? Things are kinda faster nowadays, you know. You should check those sources. Unless you¶re saying this as an ³opinion´, of course. An estimate, if you want.
And this is why I think reading Naomi Klein is important:
"I'm sorry, I don't buy a whole city of a million being converted by the west Nobody is holding a gun to their head, apart from the leader they want gone".
Of course he doesn¶t buy into it. For him to even say something like that already shows why. How can he buy into something he doesn¶t know? The gun is put in their heads through IMF and World Bank. The ammunition is provided by economic policies and agreements that inexorably keep the occupied nation enslaved forever.
"And why the hell would the western powers want the Libyan leadership to dissolve, anyway? Libya was wilfully giving the world oil, as are the Saudi's". Libya had an awful satellite deal with Europe, a US$500 million annual lease to use Intelsat for phone service. In 1992, 45 African nations established RASCOM (Regional African Satellite Communication Organization), they wanted their own satellite. Gaddafi put U$300 million, the African development Bank more U$50 million, and the West African Development Bank added U$27 million. They had their own satellite on December 26, 2007. This is ONE of the things Gaddafi did for his country and for Africa. But you see, historically speaking, it¶s never such a good idea to get too independent. It tends to attract greedy predators, like the US, for instance, and these predators will usually get the whole benefits of exploring whatever you have in your land, leaving you with less than nothing while trying to convince you it¶s a great thing to be part of democracy, as long as you¶re consumin g.
But you can see why the ³allies´ would be interested in Africa, then.
"If anything it was beneficial to the west that Gaddafi stayed".
You see, I¶ve came across many reports showing the CIA was behind the upraise in Libya. Now think about it. Do you really believe NATO and CIA would have been ordered to back up the rebels if ³removing Gaddafi from power´ was not the only objective? He¶ll submit and live or stand and die. It¶s simple like that. Only not if the only thing you read are the papers who usu ally just replicate what they¶re told to by the US, then it may not sound so simple. You want to be playing oxymoron games with what ³officials´ stated about the NATO (read US) campaign, be my guest. You want to ³buy into´ corporate media outlets¶ version that what is happening in Libya is part of the whole ³Arab Uprising´ thing, be my guest. But if we want to know what¶s
going on, we better start digging somewhere else.
"How about (and this is just a thought) countries with oil don't treat their own population like crap, then it'd be easier to sympathise with them [the leadership]".
It¶s the idea that the US does what it does to other countries to ³help them´, you see? He¶s rationalizing US the whole occupation. It¶s like saying ³we do what we do to help you, even if it means killing you for your resources, so you better behave or we¶ll come and get you´. That would be very popular in some radical circles. Like in the ones where people get all edgy because of some insane politician of the past, you know? In the real world, however, things usually don¶t work like that. As Eduardo Galeano once said in ³Open Veins of Latin America´, countries that happen to have great amounts of any particular resource are bound to suffer from poverty and other problems because of the same resources. They are bound to be exploited. Now, some people must think when a transnational corporation comes to a Third World country this may eventually lead to a better life quality to its population, as well as an increase in their wealth. That is not the case, it never was. The only reason a corporation sets in outside its boundaries is because their bottom line is positively affected, they can profit a lot more from a low -cost workforce, especially in countries where laws that should pro tect the worker are either missing or set up in favor of the employer. One only has to verify the story of Latin America and Africa in the last 50 years to have an idea of how truthful this is.
Now, to pin the reasons for internal clashes that are stirred by an occupying force on a population itself is a mistake. The British has always used divide and conquer methods in India and elsewhere. So do the Americans. So did France.
"But, you know despite its faults at least I'm free to act they way I want".
Sure, as long as you agree with everything and if you don¶t agree with something, then keep it low.
LeaderOfLeaders said:
"For all the U.S. haters, U.S.A is the true democracy. At least its leaders do not kill their own people, like Saddam, Ghadafi, Mubar ak, and all others you know. So please try not to let your hatred, blind you from the facts".
Do you see this? ³U.S. haters´. When you criticize Israel¶s policies on the occupied territories and the occupation itself, Zionists tend to rush to accuse you of being ³anti-Semite´. Some Americans swim in that same current, one that we could label a Bushite school of thought (yes, it sounds like ³bullshit´ for a reason). It¶s the ³if you¶re not with us you¶re with the terrorists´ flawed and absurd rhetoric. As to being the ³true democracy´, I shouldn¶t even have to dwell on that. Some people have yet to wake up to the fact that Republicans and Democrats are basically part of the same corporate payroll and will only do what they¶re told by those who really control the game. These people are still daydreaming the game is real and when they ³criticize´ anything it¶s just the rules they¶re talking about, never the game itself. People really don¶t know what a democracy is. They only have an idea of what it should be an d even then it¶s usually flawed. Read Jean-Jacques Rousseau¶s ³On The Social Contract´ and see if America has any of the requirements in order for it to be a democracy.
I do not hate America. I like most of the Americans I¶ve met so far. They¶re witty, intelligent and were it not for some of them I¶d still be living in an
imaginary world where the US is the greatest good in the world and absurdities like that. It was an American who first opened my eyes to what his government was really about, so I guess it would really be stupid to say ³I hate America´ and still go on talking with Americans and having American friends. That¶s no the case. Not everyone who hates your government hates you as well. It¶s never that simple.
You¶re right, American leaders do not kill their own people, they just sit idly by while other, more powerful and wealthy Americans do it and then act as the spokesperson to whatever ominous policies the perpetrators decide to push through after they¶re done with the killing. They also cash in the benefits they get from heating up the fear machine. 9/11 was an inside job. The sooner you stop denying that without even doing your own research, the better. Go out there and find out. If you want to keep denying that after you¶ve came across the facts and evidence, fine. But do it, don¶t come here with your criticism of what you don¶t know based on what you think happens around the world. That doesn¶t add absolutely nothing useful to the discussion.
"I am sorry if you cannot admit that the U.S Special forces are just too good!"
Oh, they¶re grand. So good that they¶ve been actually showing they can be almost as aggressive and deadly as the Taliban, in Afghanistan. They¶re also great at performing stunts for the White House and the corporate media. Anyone remember Jessica Lynch¶s rescue?
"And about invasions, wasn't the U.S the one that got rid of Saddam who was killing his own people and brought poverty to his people?"
Yes, and then went on to kill even more Iraqis. Actually, I don¶t think Sadda m would ever have managed to kill so many Iraqis if he was still alive. Even if
he wasn¶t an American ally, which he has been for so long before the US decided it was time to end the friendship. But of course, the US only invaded Iraq because of WMD, right? They said Saddam had ties to Al-Qaeda, which he didn¶t, then that he had WMDs, which he didn¶t, then decided ³ah, what the hell, it¶s for democracy then´, when everything else didn¶t hold water. Sorry, you need to get yours facts straight. As to why US i s backing rebels in Libya, only a kid or a teenager, or maybe an adult with an adolescent mindset, still believes the American government interferes wherever just for the sake of ³doing good´ for the population. The US has never had any issues whatsoever in sitting by and watching people be slaughtered when the country in question had no oil or other resources to be exploited.
I understand your memory is short. I understand you lack the knowledge of what really happened in Iraq between 1992 and 1998, and t hat you certainly don¶t know who was really responsible for bringing Iraq to poverty. But before you go about learning that, perhaps I should remind you that there are currently more than 40 million Americans living on food -stamps. Tons of them on what someone labeled ³near-poverty´ levels.
Still according to LeaderOfLeaders:
"The problem is people hate the U.S and will criticize their actions no matter what they do".
Of course. It has nothing to do with the US foreign policy. It has nothing to do with brutal military occupations. It has nothing to do with coups staged everywhere from Iran to Latin America throughout history. It has nothing to do with supporting torture and Abu Ghraib. It has nothing to do with the destruction of American workers¶ rights, the same they took more than 60 years to finally get. It has nothing to do with outsourcing industry work to
sweatshops in China. It has nothing to do with genocide caused or backed by the US on other nations. It has nothing to do with the fascist state A merica has become. It has nothing to do with spending U$1,188,539,516,316 in both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan while allowing American infrastructure to perish and be sold out for nothing to the private sector. It has nothing to do with supporting Zio-Nazism and Apartheid policies Israel conducts against the Palestinians. No. People will hate the US just out of spite, for no reason. Perhaps, like I¶ve been told recently, it¶s just the ³small dog complex´ in them. Sure.
ClumsyCatastrophy then said:
"The usa started all of this after all!
They made buisness with the taliban and al qaida AND dictators.
They never gave a sh!t bout bringin democracy anywhere but as soon as their alies stop listening to them they turn against them.
Funny they never had a problem with the taliban until 9/11 lol.
They always interfered in the buisness of other countries.
For example by supporting both sides in a war jus to sell weapons and make money (iran and iraq war anyone?)
What do they say again..
What goes around comes around?!
And therefor the terror they caused will come around to them once again..."
See? I can¶t argue with anything she states here. It all makes perfect sense. It¶s really a case of history repeating itself over and over again, but people seem too distracted or numbed down to notice.
LeaderOfLeaders said:
"But at least Americans can speak without fear of being killed. And almost anyone can climb their way up to success. Sorry for the people who come from countries where their own governments abuses them left and right!"
The greatest victory of the wealthy against the working class was a PR stunt. Through a world of gleaning and shiny advertising, they managed to convince people that there is social mobility, that they can actually get there if they try hard. Hence why you constantly get the over -hyped stories of ³self-mademen´ being constantly echoed in the media.
Can we really say in America one is completely safe from harm when speaking out his mind? After seeing those people burning other peop le¶s religious books and persecuting others who don¶t belong to their religion, I wouldn¶t be so sure. Now, the US has been abused over and over again by both Republicans and Democrats. One only has to have a look at how legal protections and safety regulations were removed in exchange for money during the Bush years (and continue to do so), in order to know Americans are abused by their government on a regular basis. Don¶t fool yourself. There are no Republicans and Democrats. It¶s a facade for corporate power. They want you to think you have a voice in things, when you clearly don¶t. Both Republicans and Democrats approved the US invasion and occupation of Iraq. Most of them were in favor of doing so, ashamed of standing up for what is
right and ruining their careers by confronting his imperialist colleagues, too scared to talk reason into a war machine viciously addicted to fear mongering and hatred propaganda. When all is properly weighed in, I think Americans are the ones who have being abused by their own government the most in history. Of course we can cite a plentiful of dictators world wide, many of them put in power by American governments, but never in history a people have been so often oppressed not just by its government, but by its government¶s promiscuity with the corporate interests, which in reality tends to be why governments are set up for in the first place. Americans are suffering from corporatocracy, and they have yet to wake up to the fact that their so-called leaders, their congressmen and congresswomen, their president, their whole political structure, serve only one master and that master is called money. Big Money.
Regarding free speech in the US, ClumsyCatastrophy said:
"We just saw that when a 23 years old american soldier sent secret data to wikileaks and now finds himself in a tiny little single-cell 24/7, without a lawyer, not allowed to see or speak to anyone".
She's referring to Bradley Manning, in case you don't know, who's being accused of jeopardizing US forces' security in Iraq and elsewhere. Not unlike any other fascist regime out there, the government is blaming the whistle blower for what he had to say. Manning is being held incommunicado, and there are reports of him being tortured. THAT is how America treats the ones who are brave enough to dare speaking the truth.
Now, I could go on and elaborate on many other comments posted at the blog, but I¶d be probably repeating myself. Other than the obvious personal attacks I¶ve seen here and there, what¶s left to be addressed is somewhat conveyed
here. I hope this sheds light on people¶s understanding of what is really going on out there and, who knows, maybe even helps them start doing their own research so as to arrive at their own conclusions. Notice that everything I sai d here can be proved, very little stems from personal opinion and I can point to movements and groups that do deeper investigations into affairs of the state.
It is important to know one thing: criticizing the way a government conducts its policies around the globe and in the homeland itself is not the same as criticizing a country. A country is a lot more than its government. Israel is not a bad country, since not all Israelis are Zionists, not all Israelis support the occupation and even some Zionists are against those policies. But their government has set out to invade, kill, destroy and occupy Palestine. America is not a bad country, if you ask me or any intellectual with half a brain out there you¶ll get a similar answer: it¶s quite the opposite of a bad country. It¶s undeniable that the US is sinking into an abyss of debt, distraction, greed and ignorance at the moment, probably the result of many years of wrongdoing, but we can¶t blame every American for that. We can¶t pretend we buy into make-believe democracy just to pin all the bad things politicians do on people who voted for them.
There are a lot, and I mean a lot of Americans who oppose their government¶s practices. A lot more who are true heroes, and I¶m not referring to men and women in uniform who are sent to kill and die on a pack of lies, only to return home and be pissed at other people who don¶t agree that they were doing war in their names. I¶m referring to heroes like Bradley Manning for putting his life to the service of something way greater than himself, putting his life on the line for true freedom. I¶m referring to the more than five hundred thousand men who deserted from the army back in the Vietnam days, thanks to the FTA movement, a movement that started from inside the barracks country-wide. I¶m referring to the many conscientious objectors who dare standing up for
their principles in search of a higher moral ground, throwing their whole lives away at times only to uphold sanity in this world. I¶m referring to the ordinary men and women in US who go out of their way to help soldiers who had enough of lies. Ordinary men and women of Iraq, Palestine and Afghanistan, who endure the chaos and oppression of a foreign power and yet refuse to give in to hatred speech, threading adamantl y on a path of love and understanding instead.
You don¶t hate your country for criticizing it, but you sure as hell must hate it if you go along with the suffering it inflicts on other people just because you want to sound ³patriotic´. To love your countr y doesn¶t mean you need to love your government, because those kids dying out there, they have nothing to do with your government, who¶s always eager to send someone else¶s children to kill and die in their name. When you love someone you usually believe that someone is better than that, better than what others want them to believe they are. America is way better than that. America is way better than its government. I know this like I know rain comes from the sky. As soon as more Americans start to wake up and realize what is truly happening to their country, the world will see what I¶m talking about with very practical examples. You can only keep a people oblivious of their own role in things for so long.
by Giuliano Valverde
Originally published as a Wireclub.com blog post on April 3, 2011. http://www.wireclub.com/Blogs/Oneiros/286520
The alleged dead of Osama Bin Laden, announced recently by president Obama has spurred a lot of different discussions here at the Wire, lately. Some focus on the legitimacy of his death, others seem to have more political depth, but in both cases many questions about US Imperialism seem to arise. To me , it is always an interesting exercise to observe these talks, as they almost always portray certain stereotyped characters whose viewpoints make very explicit where the ideas therein are coming from. From the overly opinionated to the historically oblivious, lots of different patterns can be observed in Muna¶s (Moony_xo) recent ³Osama dead?´ post comments. Some misconceptions and opinions contained there must be more carefully approached. Hence this post.
I have first written this out of spite, really. It was meant to be a confrontation, but as I read further down to the comments I started understanding certain subtleties, most of them pointing to an agreement in terms of what is really going on out there. What started as an attempt to confront certain vie ws ended as a slightly deeper elaboration on what is being said, regardless of the sarcasm employed. It is by no means a personal attack on any level, not on anyone. It is just an expansion of arguments and ideas.
ClumsyCatastrophy said:
³FX i dont think ANY of us know if 9/11 was an inside job. People argue
about it therefor theres no proof.
Just because its ur personal thinking it doesnt make it a #fact.
We should be careful with such theories´.
Do you all see the inconsistency in this argument? ³P eople argue about it, therefore there is no proof´. Not to mention that there is a large body of evidence supporting the idea that 9/11 was in fact an inside job. I could point to many scholarly studies published by architects, engineers and physicists, al l pointing in the same direction, all based on very solid evidence, proving that whatever happened on 9/11 it had nothing to do with what the official story, published in the form of ³The 9/11 Commission Report´ wants the American people (and the world) to believe. But instead, all I¶ll ask is this: why did Building 7, from the World Trade Center complex, collapsed, if it wasn¶t hit by anything? Explain to me that and I think we¶ll be halfway there. Of course there will be other pertaining questions as well, but try to explain that one first.
Now, as to that ³any of us know´ part, I believe one only needs to have a look at The 9/11 Truth Movement to see how that is really a far -fetched statement.
³Just because it¶s your personal thinking doesn¶t make it a fact´. That is very true. Except that if your personal thinking contains elements that you like to tout out to people as being truth while being in fact diametrically opposed to reality, then I don¶t see how your ³thinking´ matters at all in a discussion l ike this. That is usually the argument of the overly opinionated: to think that everyone¶s opinions are as poorly informed and distorted as theirs. The opinionated lives in a fairy tale world, where what they think it is usually reflects reality, regardless of evidence and facts to the contrary.
AussieOi said:
³Pretty soon a new 'bad guy' will be promoted by the western media. Pretty soon fighters will rally to the cause of bin laden the martyr. In other words what changes? The conflict is bigger than one man´.
So much said in just a few lines. That is what announcing Bin Laden¶s death is all about, ultimately: to quench Americans¶ thirst for a narrative that could as well be a fable. To provide them with a villain that, in this more acceptable version of the story where everything is Good Vs. Evil, is in control of the wrong side. Remember, you kill the last boss and it¶s game over. That does not apply to the real world, however. ³Bin Laden, the Martyr´. I can see how certain groups could benefit from that in recruiting their soldiers. In the real world, the solo act is a tempting cliche, but just as a fantasy. Like Aussie said, ³The conflict is bigger than one man´, because that is how it usually works in reality.
The whole thing gets more Orwellian by the minute, so yes, I can totally see them looking for a new ³bad guy´. Thing is, the whole Al -Qaeda concept will provide them with plenty... a life long stock.
sLight_O_ reminded us of people holding ³The End Is Near´ signs:
³This man shall never be a symbol nor remembrance to these people, they shall never gather at his resting place, they shall be destroyed´.
Seriously, I find people that think lots of other people ³shall be destroyed´ rather scary. Yo, relax. Let¶s try not to focus so much on destru ction, how about that? I don¶t know if there¶s a Satan, I don¶t think so, but I¶m more
familiar with hatred created by men. We¶re flawed creatures, we¶re human.
Now, the stereotype in case is a whole different thing altogether. I¶d say Dots captured it well with sarcasm, even though he seemed to share some of the stereotype¶s views himself. I¶ve seen some of the things he said everywhere from YouTube comments to Military.com forums. Not literally, but with the same meaning. I know it has to do with the who le identification process some people seem to display towards what they regard as ³tough´, be it in politics, religion, ideology in general, social behavior, etc.
These kind of views stem from a very narrow notion of what the world is, what nations and countries really are, how they are maintained and more importantly, how they go about their business of foreign relations. Some polarize the whole thing in their heads, simplifying everything in terms of Good and Bad. Others still think with the mindset they got from playing RISK for too long, and those are usually the same ones who act surprised when they hear about how rules are written and constantly shattered in the real world.
And so, SarcasticDots said:
³Say what you want about the occupying forces b ut at least they aren't sexist pigs that are overtly concerned with religion and nothing else´.
No, of course not. What, sexism in the military? No. Of course not. Only in the movies, right?
"I am by no means conservative, but I backed both wars. Saddam was a prick and the Taliban are too. The US and Uk, through all their faults are certainly better than those two".
I bet if we try really hard we can find a copy of the memo the White House and the Pentagon sent to him, thanking him for his backing. And a medal. He needs one. Now, THAT is the guy who goes on to tell us who the pricks were.
You know what¶s funny? The White House denying the numbers published by The Lancet, who used a research method previously condoned by the same White House, when applied to gather the number of casualties in another conflict. It was good then, now they don¶t agree with the method anymore. Just that, back then, it was to prove somebody else¶s deaths perpetrated by somebody else¶s army. Now its theirs... it would embarrass them, wouldn¶t? Politicians can¶t be embarrassed. They¶re like celebrities.
Still, the number of Iraqi deaths due to the war and occupation of Iraq amounts to 1,455,590 (justforeignpolicy.org/iraq). It took a bigger prick to top them both, after all.
Then he prophesied:
³The problem with these invasions ALWAYS comes when power is handed back. You watch, the current leader of Afghanistan is already corrupt, he'll soon try to hold onto power once the military forces leave... Then another invasion will take place 50 years from now´.
So, let me see if I got this right. The problem of someone busting into your country armed to the teeth and not only stealing you and murdering your kin, your neighbors, but also ripping your life apart is what happens when it ¶s over? By ³over´ I mean the American version, of course, the one that can only end with America as the ³winner´, which in the real world usually translates as setting up a puppet regime to manage things while draining the country¶s wealth from afar.
Now, to say that a leader in these governments around the world, no matter what the country, is corrupt, is to state the obvious. What is funny is how he acts like he¶s really trying to pin that ³corrupt´ angle, as if he (or any one of us for that matter) didn¶t know corruption in our own homeland. The president doesn¶t matter. The whole structure is corrupted. It can¶t be cleansed by its same rules and regulations because it was MEANT to be like that from the beginning. Of course you all want to paint a rosy picture of your Founding Fathers and pretend theirs was not a corrupt concept. Few concepts seldom are. But give that model time to run its gears through age and history and you¶ll see how the parasites outgrow the machine¶s ability to perform without being corrupted. All governments are corrupt. That should be a given. The only reason America became ³independent´ is because their former masters learned how to keep them dependent. The US is still under the leash of the same monetary system the British created.
As for the prophecy itself... really? 50 years? Things are kinda faster nowadays, you know. You should check those sources. Unless you¶re saying this as an ³opinion´, of course. An estimate, if you want.
And this is why I think reading Naomi Klein is important:
"I'm sorry, I don't buy a whole city of a million being converted by the west Nobody is holding a gun to their head, apart from the leader they want gone".
Of course he doesn¶t buy into it. For him to even say something like that already shows why. How can he buy into something he doesn¶t know? The gun is put in their heads through IMF and World Bank. The ammunition is provided by economic policies and agreements that inexorably keep the occupied nation enslaved forever.
"And why the hell would the western powers want the Libyan leadership to dissolve, anyway? Libya was wilfully giving the world oil, as are the Saudi's". Libya had an awful satellite deal with Europe, a US$500 million annual lease to use Intelsat for phone service. In 1992, 45 African nations established RASCOM (Regional African Satellite Communication Organization), they wanted their own satellite. Gaddafi put U$300 million, the African development Bank more U$50 million, and the West African Development Bank added U$27 million. They had their own satellite on December 26, 2007. This is ONE of the things Gaddafi did for his country and for Africa. But you see, historically speaking, it¶s never such a good idea to get too independent. It tends to attract greedy predators, like the US, for instance, and these predators will usually get the whole benefits of exploring whatever you have in your land, leaving you with less than nothing while trying to convince you it¶s a great thing to be part of democracy, as long as you¶re consumin g.
But you can see why the ³allies´ would be interested in Africa, then.
"If anything it was beneficial to the west that Gaddafi stayed".
You see, I¶ve came across many reports showing the CIA was behind the upraise in Libya. Now think about it. Do you really believe NATO and CIA would have been ordered to back up the rebels if ³removing Gaddafi from power´ was not the only objective? He¶ll submit and live or stand and die. It¶s simple like that. Only not if the only thing you read are the papers who usu ally just replicate what they¶re told to by the US, then it may not sound so simple. You want to be playing oxymoron games with what ³officials´ stated about the NATO (read US) campaign, be my guest. You want to ³buy into´ corporate media outlets¶ version that what is happening in Libya is part of the whole ³Arab Uprising´ thing, be my guest. But if we want to know what¶s
going on, we better start digging somewhere else.
"How about (and this is just a thought) countries with oil don't treat their own population like crap, then it'd be easier to sympathise with them [the leadership]".
It¶s the idea that the US does what it does to other countries to ³help them´, you see? He¶s rationalizing US the whole occupation. It¶s like saying ³we do what we do to help you, even if it means killing you for your resources, so you better behave or we¶ll come and get you´. That would be very popular in some radical circles. Like in the ones where people get all edgy because of some insane politician of the past, you know? In the real world, however, things usually don¶t work like that. As Eduardo Galeano once said in ³Open Veins of Latin America´, countries that happen to have great amounts of any particular resource are bound to suffer from poverty and other problems because of the same resources. They are bound to be exploited. Now, some people must think when a transnational corporation comes to a Third World country this may eventually lead to a better life quality to its population, as well as an increase in their wealth. That is not the case, it never was. The only reason a corporation sets in outside its boundaries is because their bottom line is positively affected, they can profit a lot more from a low -cost workforce, especially in countries where laws that should pro tect the worker are either missing or set up in favor of the employer. One only has to verify the story of Latin America and Africa in the last 50 years to have an idea of how truthful this is.
Now, to pin the reasons for internal clashes that are stirred by an occupying force on a population itself is a mistake. The British has always used divide and conquer methods in India and elsewhere. So do the Americans. So did France.
"But, you know despite its faults at least I'm free to act they way I want".
Sure, as long as you agree with everything and if you don¶t agree with something, then keep it low.
LeaderOfLeaders said:
"For all the U.S. haters, U.S.A is the true democracy. At least its leaders do not kill their own people, like Saddam, Ghadafi, Mubar ak, and all others you know. So please try not to let your hatred, blind you from the facts".
Do you see this? ³U.S. haters´. When you criticize Israel¶s policies on the occupied territories and the occupation itself, Zionists tend to rush to accuse you of being ³anti-Semite´. Some Americans swim in that same current, one that we could label a Bushite school of thought (yes, it sounds like ³bullshit´ for a reason). It¶s the ³if you¶re not with us you¶re with the terrorists´ flawed and absurd rhetoric. As to being the ³true democracy´, I shouldn¶t even have to dwell on that. Some people have yet to wake up to the fact that Republicans and Democrats are basically part of the same corporate payroll and will only do what they¶re told by those who really control the game. These people are still daydreaming the game is real and when they ³criticize´ anything it¶s just the rules they¶re talking about, never the game itself. People really don¶t know what a democracy is. They only have an idea of what it should be an d even then it¶s usually flawed. Read Jean-Jacques Rousseau¶s ³On The Social Contract´ and see if America has any of the requirements in order for it to be a democracy.
I do not hate America. I like most of the Americans I¶ve met so far. They¶re witty, intelligent and were it not for some of them I¶d still be living in an
imaginary world where the US is the greatest good in the world and absurdities like that. It was an American who first opened my eyes to what his government was really about, so I guess it would really be stupid to say ³I hate America´ and still go on talking with Americans and having American friends. That¶s no the case. Not everyone who hates your government hates you as well. It¶s never that simple.
You¶re right, American leaders do not kill their own people, they just sit idly by while other, more powerful and wealthy Americans do it and then act as the spokesperson to whatever ominous policies the perpetrators decide to push through after they¶re done with the killing. They also cash in the benefits they get from heating up the fear machine. 9/11 was an inside job. The sooner you stop denying that without even doing your own research, the better. Go out there and find out. If you want to keep denying that after you¶ve came across the facts and evidence, fine. But do it, don¶t come here with your criticism of what you don¶t know based on what you think happens around the world. That doesn¶t add absolutely nothing useful to the discussion.
"I am sorry if you cannot admit that the U.S Special forces are just too good!"
Oh, they¶re grand. So good that they¶ve been actually showing they can be almost as aggressive and deadly as the Taliban, in Afghanistan. They¶re also great at performing stunts for the White House and the corporate media. Anyone remember Jessica Lynch¶s rescue?
"And about invasions, wasn't the U.S the one that got rid of Saddam who was killing his own people and brought poverty to his people?"
Yes, and then went on to kill even more Iraqis. Actually, I don¶t think Sadda m would ever have managed to kill so many Iraqis if he was still alive. Even if
he wasn¶t an American ally, which he has been for so long before the US decided it was time to end the friendship. But of course, the US only invaded Iraq because of WMD, right? They said Saddam had ties to Al-Qaeda, which he didn¶t, then that he had WMDs, which he didn¶t, then decided ³ah, what the hell, it¶s for democracy then´, when everything else didn¶t hold water. Sorry, you need to get yours facts straight. As to why US i s backing rebels in Libya, only a kid or a teenager, or maybe an adult with an adolescent mindset, still believes the American government interferes wherever just for the sake of ³doing good´ for the population. The US has never had any issues whatsoever in sitting by and watching people be slaughtered when the country in question had no oil or other resources to be exploited.
I understand your memory is short. I understand you lack the knowledge of what really happened in Iraq between 1992 and 1998, and t hat you certainly don¶t know who was really responsible for bringing Iraq to poverty. But before you go about learning that, perhaps I should remind you that there are currently more than 40 million Americans living on food -stamps. Tons of them on what someone labeled ³near-poverty´ levels.
Still according to LeaderOfLeaders:
"The problem is people hate the U.S and will criticize their actions no matter what they do".
Of course. It has nothing to do with the US foreign policy. It has nothing to do with brutal military occupations. It has nothing to do with coups staged everywhere from Iran to Latin America throughout history. It has nothing to do with supporting torture and Abu Ghraib. It has nothing to do with the destruction of American workers¶ rights, the same they took more than 60 years to finally get. It has nothing to do with outsourcing industry work to
sweatshops in China. It has nothing to do with genocide caused or backed by the US on other nations. It has nothing to do with the fascist state A merica has become. It has nothing to do with spending U$1,188,539,516,316 in both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan while allowing American infrastructure to perish and be sold out for nothing to the private sector. It has nothing to do with supporting Zio-Nazism and Apartheid policies Israel conducts against the Palestinians. No. People will hate the US just out of spite, for no reason. Perhaps, like I¶ve been told recently, it¶s just the ³small dog complex´ in them. Sure.
ClumsyCatastrophy then said:
"The usa started all of this after all!
They made buisness with the taliban and al qaida AND dictators.
They never gave a sh!t bout bringin democracy anywhere but as soon as their alies stop listening to them they turn against them.
Funny they never had a problem with the taliban until 9/11 lol.
They always interfered in the buisness of other countries.
For example by supporting both sides in a war jus to sell weapons and make money (iran and iraq war anyone?)
What do they say again..
What goes around comes around?!
And therefor the terror they caused will come around to them once again..."
See? I can¶t argue with anything she states here. It all makes perfect sense. It¶s really a case of history repeating itself over and over again, but people seem too distracted or numbed down to notice.
LeaderOfLeaders said:
"But at least Americans can speak without fear of being killed. And almost anyone can climb their way up to success. Sorry for the people who come from countries where their own governments abuses them left and right!"
The greatest victory of the wealthy against the working class was a PR stunt. Through a world of gleaning and shiny advertising, they managed to convince people that there is social mobility, that they can actually get there if they try hard. Hence why you constantly get the over -hyped stories of ³self-mademen´ being constantly echoed in the media.
Can we really say in America one is completely safe from harm when speaking out his mind? After seeing those people burning other peop le¶s religious books and persecuting others who don¶t belong to their religion, I wouldn¶t be so sure. Now, the US has been abused over and over again by both Republicans and Democrats. One only has to have a look at how legal protections and safety regulations were removed in exchange for money during the Bush years (and continue to do so), in order to know Americans are abused by their government on a regular basis. Don¶t fool yourself. There are no Republicans and Democrats. It¶s a facade for corporate power. They want you to think you have a voice in things, when you clearly don¶t. Both Republicans and Democrats approved the US invasion and occupation of Iraq. Most of them were in favor of doing so, ashamed of standing up for what is
right and ruining their careers by confronting his imperialist colleagues, too scared to talk reason into a war machine viciously addicted to fear mongering and hatred propaganda. When all is properly weighed in, I think Americans are the ones who have being abused by their own government the most in history. Of course we can cite a plentiful of dictators world wide, many of them put in power by American governments, but never in history a people have been so often oppressed not just by its government, but by its government¶s promiscuity with the corporate interests, which in reality tends to be why governments are set up for in the first place. Americans are suffering from corporatocracy, and they have yet to wake up to the fact that their so-called leaders, their congressmen and congresswomen, their president, their whole political structure, serve only one master and that master is called money. Big Money.
Regarding free speech in the US, ClumsyCatastrophy said:
"We just saw that when a 23 years old american soldier sent secret data to wikileaks and now finds himself in a tiny little single-cell 24/7, without a lawyer, not allowed to see or speak to anyone".
She's referring to Bradley Manning, in case you don't know, who's being accused of jeopardizing US forces' security in Iraq and elsewhere. Not unlike any other fascist regime out there, the government is blaming the whistle blower for what he had to say. Manning is being held incommunicado, and there are reports of him being tortured. THAT is how America treats the ones who are brave enough to dare speaking the truth.
Now, I could go on and elaborate on many other comments posted at the blog, but I¶d be probably repeating myself. Other than the obvious personal attacks I¶ve seen here and there, what¶s left to be addressed is somewhat conveyed
here. I hope this sheds light on people¶s understanding of what is really going on out there and, who knows, maybe even helps them start doing their own research so as to arrive at their own conclusions. Notice that everything I sai d here can be proved, very little stems from personal opinion and I can point to movements and groups that do deeper investigations into affairs of the state.
It is important to know one thing: criticizing the way a government conducts its policies around the globe and in the homeland itself is not the same as criticizing a country. A country is a lot more than its government. Israel is not a bad country, since not all Israelis are Zionists, not all Israelis support the occupation and even some Zionists are against those policies. But their government has set out to invade, kill, destroy and occupy Palestine. America is not a bad country, if you ask me or any intellectual with half a brain out there you¶ll get a similar answer: it¶s quite the opposite of a bad country. It¶s undeniable that the US is sinking into an abyss of debt, distraction, greed and ignorance at the moment, probably the result of many years of wrongdoing, but we can¶t blame every American for that. We can¶t pretend we buy into make-believe democracy just to pin all the bad things politicians do on people who voted for them.
There are a lot, and I mean a lot of Americans who oppose their government¶s practices. A lot more who are true heroes, and I¶m not referring to men and women in uniform who are sent to kill and die on a pack of lies, only to return home and be pissed at other people who don¶t agree that they were doing war in their names. I¶m referring to heroes like Bradley Manning for putting his life to the service of something way greater than himself, putting his life on the line for true freedom. I¶m referring to the more than five hundred thousand men who deserted from the army back in the Vietnam days, thanks to the FTA movement, a movement that started from inside the barracks country-wide. I¶m referring to the many conscientious objectors who dare standing up for
their principles in search of a higher moral ground, throwing their whole lives away at times only to uphold sanity in this world. I¶m referring to the ordinary men and women in US who go out of their way to help soldiers who had enough of lies. Ordinary men and women of Iraq, Palestine and Afghanistan, who endure the chaos and oppression of a foreign power and yet refuse to give in to hatred speech, threading adamantl y on a path of love and understanding instead.
You don¶t hate your country for criticizing it, but you sure as hell must hate it if you go along with the suffering it inflicts on other people just because you want to sound ³patriotic´. To love your countr y doesn¶t mean you need to love your government, because those kids dying out there, they have nothing to do with your government, who¶s always eager to send someone else¶s children to kill and die in their name. When you love someone you usually believe that someone is better than that, better than what others want them to believe they are. America is way better than that. America is way better than its government. I know this like I know rain comes from the sky. As soon as more Americans start to wake up and realize what is truly happening to their country, the world will see what I¶m talking about with very practical examples. You can only keep a people oblivious of their own role in things for so long.
