HIP HOP LIFESTYLE

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"War on Terrorism" = Hungry for war.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • "War on Terrorism" = Hungry for war.

    The Hunger For War

    By Mumia Abu-Jamal

    Published 2002.



    “There never was a good war, or a bad peace.”
    —Ben Franklin

    “Whacha need ta do, see, is go in ‘ere, and just nuke the hell outta ‘em there!”

    “That guy Saddam (pronounced “SOD-om,” as in the Biblical city of sin) is a same thing as Hitler, and we need to take him out for what he did for … ’er, with the Twin Towers, up in New York. What are we waitin’ for?”

    From such uninformed opinions as these, comes the rising swells of public opinion polls, the false gusts lifting the hopes of politicians into the winds of war.

    But, in truth, there is really nothing new about this “new” War on Terrorism that is claimed by the Bush Administration and the economic elite behind it. For as Lebanese political scientist, As’ad Abu-Khalil notes, in his recent book, Bin Laden, Islam and America’s New “War on Terrorism”:

    From a historical perspective, America’s new war against terrorism is not new at all. Didn’t the U.S. bomb Libya in 1986 under the pretext of fighting terrorism? Didn’t the CIA plant a car bomb in the southern suburbs of Beirut in 1985 to assassinate a Shi’ite religious leader? (They missed their target—Shaykh Muhammad Husayn Fadlallah—but they hit 285 other people, innocent civilians, 85 of whom died)... Didn’t the Reagan administration bomb Lebanon in the 1980s in its fight against terrorism? Weren’t Nicaraguan harbors mined in the 1980s because Nicaragua was engaged in terrorism? Hasn’t American support for Israel been in order to defend that country from terrorism? And finally, weren’t fundamentalist fanatics in Pakistan and Afghanistan armed and financed by the CIA because their common enemy was exporting terrorism? (Abu-Khalil, pg. 83)

    What makes this “new,” however, is the scope that is sought by the American presidency: “regime change.”

    One wonders, why there was never a call for “regime change” when the brutes of Afrikanerdom in apartheid South Africa were, quite literally, shooting down unarmed Black children for demonstrating against the racist excesses of the minority government?

    When the Pinochet regime in Chile was executing thousands of people in football stadiums, and sending its minions to execute people on the streets of Washington, D.C., there was no call for “regime change,” was there?

    In the new colonialism of today, “regime change” is news-speak for a coup; removal of any leader the U.S. deems somehow “unworthy” of true sovereignty.

    But who will dare call for “regime change” in Washington, D.C.?

    Given the underhanded and strong-arm tactics of polling officials and state troopers in the controversial 2000 U.S. presidential election, where the Supreme Court interceded and imposed its will on the nation, it is indeed probable, or at least arguable that Saddam Hussein’s election may have been demonstrably fairer than George Bush’s. (I think we can safely say that no candidate in Iraq ever scored over 500,000 more votes than Saddam did—and still lost!)

    Yet, even in the face of the U.N.-directed arms inspections, the rumblings and saber-rattling of war continues. We will see if these arms inspections make any difference.

    This writer thinks not.

    For political ambition is at the root of this hunger for war. As Bush adviser and hawk, Richard Perle recently told the New York Times: “The failure to take on Saddam after what the President said would produce such a collapse of confidence in the President that it would set back the war on terrorism.” What he means, of course, is it will hurt his re-election chances!

    War for money is one thing, but ambition?

    The hunger grows.
    Last edited by | K Y L E |; 09-04-2005, 04:46 PM.

  • #2
    good read

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by | K Y L E |
      The Hunger For War

      By Mumia Abu-Jamal

      Published 2002.



      “There never was a good war, or a bad peace.”
      —Ben Franklin

      “Whacha need ta do, see, is go in ‘ere, and just nuke the hell outta ‘em there!”

      “That guy Saddam (pronounced “SOD-om,” as in the Biblical city of sin) is a same thing as Hitler, and we need to take him out for what he did for … ’er, with the Twin Towers, up in New York. What are we waitin’ for?”
      For a country with a free media, how do people have this distorted of a view?

      From a historical perspective, America’s new war against terrorism is not new at all. Didn’t the U.S. bomb Libya in 1986 under the pretext of fighting terrorism? Didn’t the CIA plant a car bomb in the southern suburbs of Beirut in 1985 to assassinate a Shi’ite religious leader? (They missed their target—Shaykh Muhammad Husayn Fadlallah—but they hit 285 other people, innocent civilians, 85 of whom died)... Didn’t the Reagan administration bomb Lebanon in the 1980s in its fight against terrorism? Weren’t Nicaraguan harbors mined in the 1980s because Nicaragua was engaged in terrorism? Hasn’t American support for Israel been in order to defend that country from terrorism? And finally, weren’t fundamentalist fanatics in Pakistan and Afghanistan armed and financed by the CIA because their common enemy was exporting terrorism? (Abu-Khalil, pg. 83)
      This paragraph absolutely owns any Conservative argument on here about "liberating Iraq" and "bringing peace and freedom". American foreign policy is based solely on opportunism, whether it means doing honarable things like freeing people or heinous things as supporting strong-arm murderous dictators.

      One wonders, why there was never a call for “regime change” when the brutes of Afrikanerdom in apartheid South Africa were, quite literally, shooting down unarmed Black children for demonstrating against the racist excesses of the minority government?
      Because it was white people doing the shooting. If it was a black government doing the shooting, the war planes would be revved up. Look at all the criticism and sanctions imposed on Mugabe, and he isnt even shooting or killing people (although he is still ruining their lives).

      When the Pinochet regime in Chile was executing thousands of people in football stadiums, and sending its minions to execute people on the streets of Washington, D.C., there was no call for “regime change,” was there?
      But...but...but....Saddam gassed his own people and the Kurds.
      Originally posted by ethan20
      There's a correlation between cervixal cancer in women and un-circumsized penises. Not to mention it almost cuts your bacteria count on the penis in half.
      Originally posted by reservoirGod
      Ethan sure does know alot about dicks

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by kEgBeGgEr
        For a country with a free media, how do people have this distorted of a view?
        I know it's pretty uncanny. My answer is that it is because deep down the mainstream media is not free at all, it is ran by capitalists that are in bed with careerist politicians and parties and vice versa. They all have the same deep down agenda. They might disagree over petty things, but by and large they agree on all the principles of the dictatorship of the bourgoeisis.


        This paragraph absolutely owns any Conservative argument on here about "liberating Iraq" and "bringing peace and freedom". American foreign policy is based solely on opportunism, whether it means doing honarable things like freeing people or heinous things as supporting strong-arm murderous dictators.
        Yes I know. Americans (or more precisely Conservatives) need to remember that after all their occupations and wars, there have been plenty, on foreign soil they have only ever produced liberal democratic institutions in two countries: Germany and Japan. Germany had a democracy previously, while for years after the illegal setup of West Germany there were many fascists in power and the German Communist Party was banned with members persecuted. So that wasn't a smooth ride one could say.



        Because it was white people doing the shooting. If it was a black government doing the shooting, the war planes would be revved up. Look at all the criticism and sanctions imposed on Mugabe, and he isnt even shooting or killing people (although he is still ruining their lives).
        Exactly.



        But...but...but....Saddam gassed his own people and the Kurds.
        Hahaha. I said to Bri on another thread that there is no conslusive evidence that Saddam gassed his own people. He countered that by saying Iraq, Iran, and an independant source said a village was gassed (by whom it was never proved) and that somehow conslusively makes Saddam guilty. I do suggest to Neo-Cons like Bri to start re-thinking their idea of democracy and freedoms before they start trying to implant them elsewhere. Seriously.

        Comment


        • #5
          Well I definately believe he did gas his own people, but this was done with American knowledge. No Western powers even condemned the gassing at the time it occured.

          Besides, if I ever bring up past American greivances, Conservatives say "it was in the past, way to live decades in the past", yet they constantly brings up Saddam's past deeds decades ago to justify peoples attitudes towards him now. The door swings both ways.
          Originally posted by ethan20
          There's a correlation between cervixal cancer in women and un-circumsized penises. Not to mention it almost cuts your bacteria count on the penis in half.
          Originally posted by reservoirGod
          Ethan sure does know alot about dicks

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by kEgBeGgEr
            Look at all the criticism and sanctions imposed on Mugabe, and he isnt even shooting or killing people (although he is still ruining their lives).
            Have to disagree with you here, Mugabe most certainly is killing people both directly using his brutal security forces and indirectly by starving his nation to death, destroying their homes and livelihoods and banning every NGO that provided healthcare, education and food to the poorest of the poor.

            Mugabe is single-handedly destroying a once prosperous country, he is a meglomaniac who cares only about holding onto power no matter the cost. If ever there were a good example of how power corrupts - Mugabe would be it.
            "Nationalism is an infantile sickness. It is the measles of the human race."

            -Albert Einstein

            Comment


            • #7
              used to be my avatar... http://www.danielfaulkner.com/newsar...1956720044.jpg

              http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...umia+abu+jamal
              My other aliases:
              justp1ayin
              West
              Masai
              On The Shelf

              Originally posted by Nasen
              i seeth for a minute
              Originally posted by Derty JaSoN
              i have no clue who was de-re whatever

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Tricia
                Have to disagree with you here, Mugabe most certainly is killing people both directly using his brutal security forces and indirectly by starving his nation to death, destroying their homes and livelihoods and banning every NGO that provided healthcare, education and food to the poorest of the poor.

                Mugabe is single-handedly destroying a once prosperous country, he is a meglomaniac who cares only about holding onto power no matter the cost. If ever there were a good example of how power corrupts - Mugabe would be it.
                Good post

                Mugabe is an awful cancer to the people of zimbabwe. It's pretty sad that people like keg wont research facts and instead throw out support for the sake of furthering their anti-americanism.

                Originally posted by KYLE
                Hahaha. I said to Bri on another thread that there is no conslusive evidence that Saddam gassed his own people. He countered that by saying Iraq, Iran, and an independant source said a village was gassed (by whom it was never proved)
                Kyle you are a boring anti-american communist

                1. European doctors said "without a doubt" it was chemical weapons.
                2. Reporters who inspected the town saw the people.. dying
                3. Saddam said "yes, gas was used, but it was Iran - not us", giving us governmental verification. The only problem was, most of the gas used has since been found to be the kind iraq had in stockpiles, not iran.
                Warpox exposes himself | Editorial 1 4 | 2Pox

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by TheWalrus
                  1. European doctors said "without a doubt" it was chemical weapons.
                  2. Reporters who inspected the town saw the people.. dying
                  3. Saddam said "yes, gas was used, but it was Iran - not us", giving us governmental verification. The only problem was, most of the gas used has since been found to be the kind iraq had in stockpiles, not iran.
                  http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=24960

                  1. The sole evidence is that a British labatory concluded that soil in the Kurdish region contained Mustard Gas.
                  2. Source?
                  3. There is no evidence Saddam used anthrax or any other chemical weapons against the Iraqi Kurds. There have been allegations, but Iraq has always insisted it did not use such weapons in the two 1989 incidents alleged. There were estimates that 1,400 to 4,000 Kurds died of chemical weapons in an Iraqi offensive. The Iraq Defense Minister insisted it did not use gas and that it was neither logical nor feasible to use gas against small groups of Kurds in areas through which government forces had to pass.

                  The sole "evidence" seems to be the finding of a British laboratory that soil samples in the Kurdish region contained mustard gas (not anthrax). Edward Peck, our ambassador to Iraq in 1977-79, who today teaches at the government war colleges, recalls a Department of Defense statement at the time that the gas used in that region was not of the type we had supplied Iraq for its use in the war with Iran.


                  I asked for conslusive evidence which you have yet to produce in your two posts on the subject. You are simply a war-mongering philistine that is desperate for wars anywhere possible and clings on any rumor to start them. Saddam Hussein is currently in court defending himself against this genocide allegation, like Slobadans Kangaroo court case, the prosecution has failed to produce any evidence of his part in genocide. Innocent before proven guilty.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Nice read.

                    haha, those quotes are so fucking funny (at the start). Some clever people you got there in America.
                    "Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith, I consider a capacity for it terrifying and absolutely vile."
                    - Kurt Vonnegut

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by TheWalrus
                      Good post

                      Mugabe is an awful cancer to the people of zimbabwe. It's pretty sad that people like keg wont research facts and instead throw out support for the sake of furthering their anti-americanism.
                      Never disagreed with that. I simply brought up the point to you, and Tricia now:

                      Why are sanctions and condemnation thrown on Mugabe, but not when the white power structure was heinously oppressing blacks in Zimbabwe? Why condemn and use sanctions in one instance and not the other? Because in one instance the oppressor was white, and in this case black?

                      Why was white oppressing blacks gone un-punished with the international community?

                      Note: "People didnt know it was happening" is not a viable answer.
                      Originally posted by ethan20
                      There's a correlation between cervixal cancer in women and un-circumsized penises. Not to mention it almost cuts your bacteria count on the penis in half.
                      Originally posted by reservoirGod
                      Ethan sure does know alot about dicks

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        and its a shame that people let him run for office
                        FUCK YOU BITCH!!!! YEA YOU

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          to bri and other conservatives here on the board,even if sadam gassed his own ppl,IT WAS AMERICAN GAS! just like how america gave satelite info to iraq and iran at the same time,america sold weapons to both countries when they were at war!
                          if you give me a rep PLZ LEAVE YOUR NAME so i can know who you are,especially if you leave me a bad one,have the damn guts to leave ur damn name!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by kEgBeGgEr
                            Never disagreed with that. I simply brought up the point to you, and Tricia now:

                            Why are sanctions and condemnation thrown on Mugabe, but not when the white power structure was heinously oppressing blacks in Zimbabwe? Why condemn and use sanctions in one instance and not the other? Because in one instance the oppressor was white, and in this case black?

                            Why was white oppressing blacks gone un-punished with the international community?

                            Note: "People didnt know it was happening" is not a viable answer.
                            For much the same reason the West does anything, self-interest. Both the white regimes in South Africa and Zimbabwe (Rhodesia then) were anti-communist and the West (primarily the US & UK) supported these govts as part of the cold war. Human rights and the treatment of people were not relevant, ensuring the Soviet Union did not gain control of the African continent was far more important to them. The USSR supported most of the liberation movements like the ANC in SA, Frelimo in Mozambique and the MPLA in Angola. The US backed the Apartheid regime because they sent troops to fight these groups.

                            I don't know why the oppressors in Zimbabwe weren't punished by the International Community - maybe because there wasn't really one then and perhaps because Zimbabwe gained its independence after winning a war that took many years and handled it internally.

                            South Africa held the Truth and Reconciliation Commission were people who had committed political crimes (i.e. crimes to hold onto power) could apply for amnesty if they were prepared to come forward and tell the complete truth about their activities. Many did and many didn't - many of those that didn't are now in prison. The purpose of this commission was to bring closure to families and push the country forward, by-en-large it was seen as successful. There was no need for the International community to become involved, the country dealt with it themselves.

                            Also, sanctions were imposed on South Africa especially during the mid 1980's once it became clear to the West that the USSR was on the verge of collapse.

                            What Mugabe is doing to his country now is just as bad, if not worse than what the oppressive Rhodesian govt did. At least they built an infrastructure, the people were oppressed but they were not starving. Now they are both oppressed and starving and Mugabe won't let anyone help, he is rapidly dismantling the infrastructure by not investing in it. Roads, telecommunications, basic services like clean water and electricity are falling apart while Mugabe lives like a king. People that support the opposition are regularly beaten and imprisoned. Only card carrying members of his party are eligible for any kind of food aid, which is minimal at best. Refugees are pouring over the South African border in the hundreds of thousands. He is rapidly destroying Zimbabwe.
                            "Nationalism is an infantile sickness. It is the measles of the human race."

                            -Albert Einstein

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Bely
                              to bri and other conservatives here on the board,even if sadam gassed his own ppl,IT WAS AMERICAN GAS! just like how america gave satelite info to iraq and iran at the same time,america sold weapons to both countries when they were at war!
                              Yup. I hate to go along with the waffle groupie here, but this is true.

                              Comment

                              Post ad widget 300x250

                              Collapse

                              LATEST POSTS

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Deborahlanker, Today, 10:00 AM
                              0 responses
                              2 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Deborahlanker  
                              Started by Deborahlanker, Today, 08:25 AM
                              0 responses
                              3 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Deborahlanker  
                              Started by Dave Dirty, 02-02-2016, 02:29 AM
                              5 responses
                              121 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post | K Y L E |  
                              Started by WesleyDrake, Today, 06:54 AM
                              0 responses
                              5 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post WesleyDrake  
                              Started by Deborahlanker, 10-31-2020, 07:43 AM
                              5 responses
                              23 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Rapsodia  
                              Started by ioddvrea, Today, 04:50 AM
                              0 responses
                              3 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post ioddvrea  
                              Started by pdmhuqwdghko, Today, 01:45 AM
                              0 responses
                              2 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post pdmhuqwdghko  
                              Started by FrankCobalt, Yesterday, 11:29 PM
                              1 response
                              4 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Doro
                              by Doro
                               
                              Started by FrankCobalt, Yesterday, 11:27 PM
                              1 response
                              3 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Doro
                              by Doro
                               
                              Started by FrankCobalt, Yesterday, 11:24 PM
                              1 response
                              5 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Doro
                              by Doro
                               
                              Working...
                              X