Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Berkely Anti-War Conference, I was there and yes the ISO did Hijacke it
This is an email from a very well respected friend who is a highly intelligent, articulate person who was there all weekend at the ISO/Berkely Anti-War conference. She said it was evident that the ISO played a complete control role in all of this, and it made people go nuts when they figured out how they were being lied to.
Hi all,
I just got back from the CSAW conference in Berkeley. It was one of the
most awful organizing experiences in my life, and I wasn't the only one.
I know this is long, but if you are interested in organizing on campuses,
please read this. Something really fucked up is happening in anti-war
groups all over the country and we as anarchists and sane, nice people need
to figure out how to deal with this.
(Please note that what I am saying, "never" & "always", really means "almost
never" and "almost always" - I'm sure there are exceptions, but I don't know
of them. I am speaking from the position of having talked to probably a
hundred different people from all types of political persuasions and levels
of experience, as well as my own observations.)
Saturday was all workshops. I don't think even one of them were mainly
about or involving "revolution". Not one was about a specific political
analysis of the war, or the anti-war movement. There were panels/workshops
on the history of the Middle East, environmental impact of the war, how to
make newsletters, etc., but very little that was "political". Despite the
revolutionary politics of many of members of the Berkeley anti-war group
(anarchists, communists, and others), none of that was represented in the
workshops. In many workshops, whenever a person would raise a point about
revolutionary analysis (i.e. that capitalism causes wars and that's what we
need to fight), the panel or workshop leader would cut them off. Apparently
this kind of stuff smacked too much of party-politics, even if people saying
these things were anarchists or unaffiliated. There were probably a few
exeptions to this, but I talked to people who attended almost every workshop
and they all said the same thing.
Later, I found out the reason for the narrow range of workshops and weird
behavior of the workshop leaders. Students from the Berkeley group said the
speakers were organized by a very small group of people, mostly ISO. These
people did not take suggestions fron non-ISO people (I know anarchists and
communists who tried to suggest and conduct workshops and were blown off and
ignored). The Berkeley organzers said their schedule planning was not open
to anyone, and no one outside of the tiny group knew what was going on. Two
people proposed a workshop on the Hart-Rudman report (the US gov't master
plan for Homeland Defense) a couple of weeks ago, and constantly reminded
the organizers to put it on the schedule. In the end, it was not put on the
schedule, not coincidentally because that workshop would have been the only
one with leaders from a "rival" party. I realize that many political parties
use workshops and panels to say really horrificly long speeches about
Trotsky or Mao, disguising the speech as a question. I didn't hear of any
of that going on. One example I know of was a woman from PLP (a rival of
the ISO) tried to simply say "I don't agree that people who don't go to
college are too stupid to learn about imperialism, and we need to organize
based on knowing that all people are capable of understanding," and the
workshop leader cut her off in mid-sentence, saying we "didn't have time for
arguments". The workshop was on "talking to the unconvinced", a workshop on
tactics!
Anyway, the workshops that did take place were OK, but politically
elementary. A lot of people at the conference were disappointed that deeper
political discussion was not allowed, and that the workshop topics in
general were very "apolitical", something which seemed pretty silly
considering the people who were attending. Another fact to note was that
many schools had at least one or two ISO members in their delegation.
Five delegates from every school would be allowed to vote and speak at the
meeting the following day. These delegates registered Saturday night, and
all proposals to be discussed and voted upon were due by 7pm Saturday. This
was so we would have a set list to get through and an infinity of new
proposals wouldn't bog us down on Sunday. On Saturday night as we were
signing in and submitting our proposals, we were told "One delegate from
every school needs to go to the agenda-setting meeting tonight". At my
school, we had two ISO people, a PLP guy, me, and an unaffiliated
anti-authoritarian. I was standing there thinking "Oh god, the ISO has
probably already signed themselves up as the one delegate and is going to go
set a fucked up agenda". Oddly to me, the ISO allowed the PLP guy to go in
there. The agenda was set in this meeting, but there was no discussion of
how decisions would be made the next day.
Sunday morning began with Snehal, an ISO member declaring himself the
facilitator for the day. (We were given no choice on this.) The meeting
began using Parlimentary Procedure, with all speakers being allowed two
minutes to talk. Parlimentary procedure was not explained to the attendees,
so many people had NO idea what was going on or how they could participate.
Usually, questions from the audience about changing the procedure or asking
what was going on were dismissed with Snehal saying "we don't have time for
that".
We started to go through the agenda. When we got to the proposals, the
moderator began to allow new proposals to be put forth. This frustrated
many of the delegates, because we began to see that new proposals would not
allow us to have time for the proposals we brought from out schools or local
coalitions of many schools. Whenever a proposal was put forward, the
moderator clearly had a side. He would allow people on his side to speak
for their two minutes, but dissent was cut off with "we don't have time for
this". If dissent was allowed, somehow an ISO member would speak soon
afterward against whatever dissent was raised. Snehal called proposals very
quickly he and ISO members in the audience would use Roberts Rules of Order
to quickly push through proposals, leaving the audience in confusion and
unhappy with whatever had just happened. An anarchist woman I know
constantly raised her hand and was put on the list of speakers, but out of
five times during the day, she was not called on. I heard the same from
other anarchists, women especially.
After a couple of hours, the hero of the day, Kyle, stood up and said that
this was very undemocratic and we need to change the process. He got a lot
of emphatic applause but the moderator ignored him. Tensions started to run
very high as the delegates realized they weren't alone in getting frustrated
and pissed off about how things were going. We broke for lunch, and after
we returned, more people challenged the process. I missed out on an hour of
the conference at this point, but I heard that Michael Novick proposed that
we not have time limits on agenda items because quality was better than
speed. This got shot down. I don't really know the rest of what happened
during this hour. When I got back, people were still challenging the
process. Unfortunately, they mostly didn't understand that it was the ISO
controlling everything and blamed the problems on sexism and racism of the
moderator and other delegates. This got nowhere, except with the promise
that "women and minorities would have priority in the speaking order". Soon
after this, the moderator decided "we didn't have time" for the remainder of
the proposals - the proposals were the whole reason we were there at all.
We had only gotten through six proposals, three of which had not been on the
list from the previous night. There were about 20 remaining, which is a
lot, but certainly possible. Another HUGE problem was a list of proposals
or an agenda had not been given to any of the delgates, so no one knew what
was on the table for the day. The only proposals discussed were about
specific "days of action", and a national conference with vague goals and
only ONE delegate allowed to ATTEND from each school. (An ISO member later
said privately that one of the ISO's three main goals was to create a
national conference and try to dominate the delegation from it.)
The Southern California Schools Against War had a great proposal that we
"oppose war research and recruitment on campus and challenge racism in our
curriculum and campus practices". This was a proposal which about twenty
schools from SoCal agreed upon. I overheard the ISO the day before telling
people "they wouldn't vote for it because it was too vague, because it
didn't have specific day of action". This made me furious - they were
saying opposing our school's racism and warmongering should be limited to a
certain day! This proposal was not raised ever by the moderator.
At this point, probably a third of the people walked out in frustration.
Most of these people didn't see any reason to be there, if making plans was
no longer allowed. Many took off, but about fifty people gathered in the
hallway and started talking. We met outside and had a discussion about what
was going on and how frustrated we were. When people mentioned that the ISO
were the people who organized, moderated, and dominated the discussions
during this whole conference, people got PISSED. Most of them had just
thought that this was a convergence of random jerks, but when people
realized that certain individuals were members of the ISO, they realized how
screwed up and controlled everything was. Two guys from Berkeley said
something like "the Berkeley group worked really hard on this so please
don't give us a hard time". They were ISO, but didn't say it!!! Another
ISO member sat there silently taking notes. Not once did anyone from the
ISO say who they were during this discussion.
We made a plan to go back into the conference as a group and voice what had
happened. By this point, most people had left and there were only about 100
left in the audience. The organizers said this was because people had to
leave, but I think people would have stayed if it were worthwhile. We got
up as a group and stood at the front of the room.
Our main points were:
- the decision-making process in the conference was not agreed upon by the
attendees, nor explained to us at any point
- the decision-making process before the conference was completely hidden
from view - no one, including many Berkeley activists, had any idea what was
being planned or had any input, even when they tried to participate.
- the ISO dominated many school delegations, dominated the speakers,
dominated the planning, and completely controlled the moderation.
- opposing views were almost always cut off "because we didn't have time"
(At this point, an ISO woman named Leticia stood up and said "we don't have
time for this, people want to go home. We can discuss this later! It's too
late to bring this up anyway." Later? When would that be? It was the very
last hour of the very last day of the conference! When she make this
comment, a few people got furious and the rest tried not to laugh
hysterically.)
- speakers were often interrupted by ISO members
- an agenda for proposals was not public and information in general was
tightly controlled by a few people, mostly ISO, who made little effor to get
outside input or even let other people know what was going on.
During our little presentation, we allowed the audience to speak in the way
that we had wanted to be treated. Questions were taken in order, there were
no time limits on speeches, etc. ISO members were the only people who spoke
defensively about the organization of the conference members. Other
delegates offered some good points, one saying that the decision-making
process isn't accidental, but political.
Anyway, people left the conference feeling much better since we had that
ad-hoc meeting to discuss what went wrong. However, out of 400 or so
people, I would guess that at least 300 of the people were very unhappy with
what happened. A lot of our campus anti-war groups are controlled by the
ISO, and we are still struggling with how we can make the groups grow and
flourish when the leadership is very tight and has a very narrow agenda.
Many of our campus groups are run in the same way the conference was run,
with a tight control of information and the excuse of "we don't have time
for this" when people would like to discuss alternate proposals.
There are dozens more little examples of my wild accusations to back up what
I'm saying, but I don't feel like writing ten more pages. Please understand
that throughout this whole conference, we tried to discuss the ISO's
*actions*, not their politics. Other 'sectarian' groups were in attendance,
but they did not cause these problems: it was not a knee-jerk reaction to
the fact that they are a trotskyist party. One thing about their politics:
this weekend, I heard ISO members repeat many times that "people who aren't
college educated can't understand..." and I think this has a lot to do with
why they dominate on college campuses, why their decision-making is hidden,
and why everything is so sneaky in general - they think we're all idiots.
The main point of all this is that clearly the ISO is vying for a dominant
position of campus anti-war groups across the country (they held identical
conferences in Chicago, Boston, and Atlanta this weekend). Their tactics
include using Roberts Rules of Order to manipulate meetings, assuming
leadership roles in campus groups, and not disseminating information to
non-ISO members of groups. (There are LOTS of examples on many campuses
where it is known they had information on agendas, events, etc and did not
share this with the larger group.) Another sad fact is they almost *never*
say they are ISO when doing all these things, which particularly misleads
new people in groups.
Across the state, college groups are having splits right now to make sure
the ISO doesn't take control of the anti-war movement. I don't know if this
is a good tactic - I'm not sure what else we can do at this point,
especially when we are not allowed to speak during campus meetings. I'm
inclined to say we should simply bring in lots of honest people to the
meetings and challenge the ISO based on their undemocratic practices, but
this clearly didn't work during the conference.
If anyone has any ideas about what to do, I would much appreciate it, and I
will pass it along to other frustrated people. I know some people on this
list went through similar bullshit in SDS - I would really like to hear
their perspectives in particular.
-Anne
I just got back from the CSAW conference in Berkeley. It was one of the
most awful organizing experiences in my life, and I wasn't the only one.
I know this is long, but if you are interested in organizing on campuses,
please read this. Something really fucked up is happening in anti-war
groups all over the country and we as anarchists and sane, nice people need
to figure out how to deal with this.
(Please note that what I am saying, "never" & "always", really means "almost
never" and "almost always" - I'm sure there are exceptions, but I don't know
of them. I am speaking from the position of having talked to probably a
hundred different people from all types of political persuasions and levels
of experience, as well as my own observations.)
Saturday was all workshops. I don't think even one of them were mainly
about or involving "revolution". Not one was about a specific political
analysis of the war, or the anti-war movement. There were panels/workshops
on the history of the Middle East, environmental impact of the war, how to
make newsletters, etc., but very little that was "political". Despite the
revolutionary politics of many of members of the Berkeley anti-war group
(anarchists, communists, and others), none of that was represented in the
workshops. In many workshops, whenever a person would raise a point about
revolutionary analysis (i.e. that capitalism causes wars and that's what we
need to fight), the panel or workshop leader would cut them off. Apparently
this kind of stuff smacked too much of party-politics, even if people saying
these things were anarchists or unaffiliated. There were probably a few
exeptions to this, but I talked to people who attended almost every workshop
and they all said the same thing.
Later, I found out the reason for the narrow range of workshops and weird
behavior of the workshop leaders. Students from the Berkeley group said the
speakers were organized by a very small group of people, mostly ISO. These
people did not take suggestions fron non-ISO people (I know anarchists and
communists who tried to suggest and conduct workshops and were blown off and
ignored). The Berkeley organzers said their schedule planning was not open
to anyone, and no one outside of the tiny group knew what was going on. Two
people proposed a workshop on the Hart-Rudman report (the US gov't master
plan for Homeland Defense) a couple of weeks ago, and constantly reminded
the organizers to put it on the schedule. In the end, it was not put on the
schedule, not coincidentally because that workshop would have been the only
one with leaders from a "rival" party. I realize that many political parties
use workshops and panels to say really horrificly long speeches about
Trotsky or Mao, disguising the speech as a question. I didn't hear of any
of that going on. One example I know of was a woman from PLP (a rival of
the ISO) tried to simply say "I don't agree that people who don't go to
college are too stupid to learn about imperialism, and we need to organize
based on knowing that all people are capable of understanding," and the
workshop leader cut her off in mid-sentence, saying we "didn't have time for
arguments". The workshop was on "talking to the unconvinced", a workshop on
tactics!
Anyway, the workshops that did take place were OK, but politically
elementary. A lot of people at the conference were disappointed that deeper
political discussion was not allowed, and that the workshop topics in
general were very "apolitical", something which seemed pretty silly
considering the people who were attending. Another fact to note was that
many schools had at least one or two ISO members in their delegation.
Five delegates from every school would be allowed to vote and speak at the
meeting the following day. These delegates registered Saturday night, and
all proposals to be discussed and voted upon were due by 7pm Saturday. This
was so we would have a set list to get through and an infinity of new
proposals wouldn't bog us down on Sunday. On Saturday night as we were
signing in and submitting our proposals, we were told "One delegate from
every school needs to go to the agenda-setting meeting tonight". At my
school, we had two ISO people, a PLP guy, me, and an unaffiliated
anti-authoritarian. I was standing there thinking "Oh god, the ISO has
probably already signed themselves up as the one delegate and is going to go
set a fucked up agenda". Oddly to me, the ISO allowed the PLP guy to go in
there. The agenda was set in this meeting, but there was no discussion of
how decisions would be made the next day.
Sunday morning began with Snehal, an ISO member declaring himself the
facilitator for the day. (We were given no choice on this.) The meeting
began using Parlimentary Procedure, with all speakers being allowed two
minutes to talk. Parlimentary procedure was not explained to the attendees,
so many people had NO idea what was going on or how they could participate.
Usually, questions from the audience about changing the procedure or asking
what was going on were dismissed with Snehal saying "we don't have time for
that".
We started to go through the agenda. When we got to the proposals, the
moderator began to allow new proposals to be put forth. This frustrated
many of the delegates, because we began to see that new proposals would not
allow us to have time for the proposals we brought from out schools or local
coalitions of many schools. Whenever a proposal was put forward, the
moderator clearly had a side. He would allow people on his side to speak
for their two minutes, but dissent was cut off with "we don't have time for
this". If dissent was allowed, somehow an ISO member would speak soon
afterward against whatever dissent was raised. Snehal called proposals very
quickly he and ISO members in the audience would use Roberts Rules of Order
to quickly push through proposals, leaving the audience in confusion and
unhappy with whatever had just happened. An anarchist woman I know
constantly raised her hand and was put on the list of speakers, but out of
five times during the day, she was not called on. I heard the same from
other anarchists, women especially.
After a couple of hours, the hero of the day, Kyle, stood up and said that
this was very undemocratic and we need to change the process. He got a lot
of emphatic applause but the moderator ignored him. Tensions started to run
very high as the delegates realized they weren't alone in getting frustrated
and pissed off about how things were going. We broke for lunch, and after
we returned, more people challenged the process. I missed out on an hour of
the conference at this point, but I heard that Michael Novick proposed that
we not have time limits on agenda items because quality was better than
speed. This got shot down. I don't really know the rest of what happened
during this hour. When I got back, people were still challenging the
process. Unfortunately, they mostly didn't understand that it was the ISO
controlling everything and blamed the problems on sexism and racism of the
moderator and other delegates. This got nowhere, except with the promise
that "women and minorities would have priority in the speaking order". Soon
after this, the moderator decided "we didn't have time" for the remainder of
the proposals - the proposals were the whole reason we were there at all.
We had only gotten through six proposals, three of which had not been on the
list from the previous night. There were about 20 remaining, which is a
lot, but certainly possible. Another HUGE problem was a list of proposals
or an agenda had not been given to any of the delgates, so no one knew what
was on the table for the day. The only proposals discussed were about
specific "days of action", and a national conference with vague goals and
only ONE delegate allowed to ATTEND from each school. (An ISO member later
said privately that one of the ISO's three main goals was to create a
national conference and try to dominate the delegation from it.)
The Southern California Schools Against War had a great proposal that we
"oppose war research and recruitment on campus and challenge racism in our
curriculum and campus practices". This was a proposal which about twenty
schools from SoCal agreed upon. I overheard the ISO the day before telling
people "they wouldn't vote for it because it was too vague, because it
didn't have specific day of action". This made me furious - they were
saying opposing our school's racism and warmongering should be limited to a
certain day! This proposal was not raised ever by the moderator.
At this point, probably a third of the people walked out in frustration.
Most of these people didn't see any reason to be there, if making plans was
no longer allowed. Many took off, but about fifty people gathered in the
hallway and started talking. We met outside and had a discussion about what
was going on and how frustrated we were. When people mentioned that the ISO
were the people who organized, moderated, and dominated the discussions
during this whole conference, people got PISSED. Most of them had just
thought that this was a convergence of random jerks, but when people
realized that certain individuals were members of the ISO, they realized how
screwed up and controlled everything was. Two guys from Berkeley said
something like "the Berkeley group worked really hard on this so please
don't give us a hard time". They were ISO, but didn't say it!!! Another
ISO member sat there silently taking notes. Not once did anyone from the
ISO say who they were during this discussion.
We made a plan to go back into the conference as a group and voice what had
happened. By this point, most people had left and there were only about 100
left in the audience. The organizers said this was because people had to
leave, but I think people would have stayed if it were worthwhile. We got
up as a group and stood at the front of the room.
Our main points were:
- the decision-making process in the conference was not agreed upon by the
attendees, nor explained to us at any point
- the decision-making process before the conference was completely hidden
from view - no one, including many Berkeley activists, had any idea what was
being planned or had any input, even when they tried to participate.
- the ISO dominated many school delegations, dominated the speakers,
dominated the planning, and completely controlled the moderation.
- opposing views were almost always cut off "because we didn't have time"
(At this point, an ISO woman named Leticia stood up and said "we don't have
time for this, people want to go home. We can discuss this later! It's too
late to bring this up anyway." Later? When would that be? It was the very
last hour of the very last day of the conference! When she make this
comment, a few people got furious and the rest tried not to laugh
hysterically.)
- speakers were often interrupted by ISO members
- an agenda for proposals was not public and information in general was
tightly controlled by a few people, mostly ISO, who made little effor to get
outside input or even let other people know what was going on.
During our little presentation, we allowed the audience to speak in the way
that we had wanted to be treated. Questions were taken in order, there were
no time limits on speeches, etc. ISO members were the only people who spoke
defensively about the organization of the conference members. Other
delegates offered some good points, one saying that the decision-making
process isn't accidental, but political.
Anyway, people left the conference feeling much better since we had that
ad-hoc meeting to discuss what went wrong. However, out of 400 or so
people, I would guess that at least 300 of the people were very unhappy with
what happened. A lot of our campus anti-war groups are controlled by the
ISO, and we are still struggling with how we can make the groups grow and
flourish when the leadership is very tight and has a very narrow agenda.
Many of our campus groups are run in the same way the conference was run,
with a tight control of information and the excuse of "we don't have time
for this" when people would like to discuss alternate proposals.
There are dozens more little examples of my wild accusations to back up what
I'm saying, but I don't feel like writing ten more pages. Please understand
that throughout this whole conference, we tried to discuss the ISO's
*actions*, not their politics. Other 'sectarian' groups were in attendance,
but they did not cause these problems: it was not a knee-jerk reaction to
the fact that they are a trotskyist party. One thing about their politics:
this weekend, I heard ISO members repeat many times that "people who aren't
college educated can't understand..." and I think this has a lot to do with
why they dominate on college campuses, why their decision-making is hidden,
and why everything is so sneaky in general - they think we're all idiots.
The main point of all this is that clearly the ISO is vying for a dominant
position of campus anti-war groups across the country (they held identical
conferences in Chicago, Boston, and Atlanta this weekend). Their tactics
include using Roberts Rules of Order to manipulate meetings, assuming
leadership roles in campus groups, and not disseminating information to
non-ISO members of groups. (There are LOTS of examples on many campuses
where it is known they had information on agendas, events, etc and did not
share this with the larger group.) Another sad fact is they almost *never*
say they are ISO when doing all these things, which particularly misleads
new people in groups.
Across the state, college groups are having splits right now to make sure
the ISO doesn't take control of the anti-war movement. I don't know if this
is a good tactic - I'm not sure what else we can do at this point,
especially when we are not allowed to speak during campus meetings. I'm
inclined to say we should simply bring in lots of honest people to the
meetings and challenge the ISO based on their undemocratic practices, but
this clearly didn't work during the conference.
If anyone has any ideas about what to do, I would much appreciate it, and I
will pass it along to other frustrated people. I know some people on this
list went through similar bullshit in SDS - I would really like to hear
their perspectives in particular.
-Anne
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Just in case you didn't know, the Mid-Atlantic Infoshop has a hefty collection of articles about those sneaky paper-sellers. See the link below for more!
For more information:
http://www.infoshop.org/texts/iso.html
Surely anarchists aren't that sectarian. And they certainly don't make value judgements according to someone else's political (or non political) beliefs. And of course, we are always the victims of other political groups ganging up on them. I mean, remember at last year's @ bookfair when the ISO, WWP, MIM notes, CPUSA, and others ganged up on them after us anarchists had been so gracious to invite them to participate, only to be betrayed ONCE AGAIN??!!! OH NO, IT'S BLACK KRONDSTAT ALL OVER!!!
I mean, with all of the posturing in black balaclavas and Gap window smashing, you think the anarchists would finally be respected for some truly revolutionary work! I mean remember when they stormed the Pacific Stock Exchange to protest the World Bank? You don't? Oh, funny, neither do I. Oh well, they really got some truly scary stuff with those puppets.
Screw workshops on the middle east...when are we going to kick ass?? Oh you eat meat? Don't worry we have reeducation camps waiting for you. And you drive a car? Tsk tsk. You know, you're beginning to sound like a robot/nonlifebeing/earthhater/oppressor (read: anarchist speak for enemy of the proletariat). Real anarchists and radicals subscribe to the same views, that's why we're so successful at organizing the masses. But beware! There are spies and sabateurs in the midst. If they're not cops, they're marxists, or even worse....stalinist cult members! Ah!
When are we going to be respected for the "free people" (sectxists?) we truly are? Spare a beedee and some vegan muffins?
I mean, with all of the posturing in black balaclavas and Gap window smashing, you think the anarchists would finally be respected for some truly revolutionary work! I mean remember when they stormed the Pacific Stock Exchange to protest the World Bank? You don't? Oh, funny, neither do I. Oh well, they really got some truly scary stuff with those puppets.
Screw workshops on the middle east...when are we going to kick ass?? Oh you eat meat? Don't worry we have reeducation camps waiting for you. And you drive a car? Tsk tsk. You know, you're beginning to sound like a robot/nonlifebeing/earthhater/oppressor (read: anarchist speak for enemy of the proletariat). Real anarchists and radicals subscribe to the same views, that's why we're so successful at organizing the masses. But beware! There are spies and sabateurs in the midst. If they're not cops, they're marxists, or even worse....stalinist cult members! Ah!
When are we going to be respected for the "free people" (sectxists?) we truly are? Spare a beedee and some vegan muffins?
JA, Anne, and others freaked out about ISO dominance and underhanded sneakyness- i didn't go to the CSAW conference, i went to richmond instead. but i know that, at my school in any case, the ISO people, as they are known, do a lot of good student organizing work. For sure, they can really seem like they are monopolizing on whatever current sentiment there might be. It sucks, because they are serious and principled organizers, but their committment to the ISO first and foremost really keeps away alot of people, hm? They are in a bind, because they DO often take leadership positions because they have much more student organizing experience than a lot of college freshpeople. I don't feel they should be obligated to say wherever they go, 'Oh, I'm also a socialist and a member of the ISO.' They are against this war just the same as the rest of us...
This whole thing is silly and frustrating, no wonder Chuck Barry laughs at far left infighting.
This whole thing is silly and frustrating, no wonder Chuck Barry laughs at far left infighting.
If this person is so angry about the way BSTWC is being run, perhaps she should go back to her school and start her own movement.
Yes, the ISO can be suffocating, but they do have the experience with this stuff. People seem real quick to jump on the bandwagon of "I didn't get my way, I'll blame the organizers". If there is seriously this much hatred toward the ISO or BSTWC, get out there and do your own thing!!
Remember, we're all against this war - fighting amongst ourselves will weaken our cause. If you aren't happy with how things are going, join another group or start your own! BSTWC is new, but organized enough to get 200+ people at a weekend conference - where else is that happening??
So complain yes, but do something about it afterwards.
Yes, the ISO can be suffocating, but they do have the experience with this stuff. People seem real quick to jump on the bandwagon of "I didn't get my way, I'll blame the organizers". If there is seriously this much hatred toward the ISO or BSTWC, get out there and do your own thing!!
Remember, we're all against this war - fighting amongst ourselves will weaken our cause. If you aren't happy with how things are going, join another group or start your own! BSTWC is new, but organized enough to get 200+ people at a weekend conference - where else is that happening??
So complain yes, but do something about it afterwards.
It's true that there are some self-proclaimed anarchists that can be insufferably moralistic militant liberals. This stream of politics tends to treat all oppressions as discrete forces that can only be effectively attacked as such. This school of anarchism, as I see it, tends to see the morally anointed as the agents of revolution while confusing tactics with strategy. The cause and effect of this is that capitalism is viewed as just another oppression, and not as a totalizing system.
The above poster, however, doesn't seem to display these deficiencies.
I've witnessed the ISO in action for some time. They have a track-record of craven opportunism, pandering, and dishonesty. They jump on whatever issue is hot, enunciate lowest-common-denominator demands, suck in erst-while liberals who aren't on to them, manipulate formal democratic procedures by packing the important bodies... and, in the process, use and burn people while helping to drive organizing campaigns into the ground. They do this over and over.
Not all ISO members are irredeemable, but the ISO as such should be exposed and isolated.
The above poster, however, doesn't seem to display these deficiencies.
I've witnessed the ISO in action for some time. They have a track-record of craven opportunism, pandering, and dishonesty. They jump on whatever issue is hot, enunciate lowest-common-denominator demands, suck in erst-while liberals who aren't on to them, manipulate formal democratic procedures by packing the important bodies... and, in the process, use and burn people while helping to drive organizing campaigns into the ground. They do this over and over.
Not all ISO members are irredeemable, but the ISO as such should be exposed and isolated.
Anne,
Excellent nonbiased reporting of facts. Thank you. On the positive side the
ISO is organizing students. On the negative side they seem to be herding
them in one particular political direction...towards socialism. As an
anarchist, I feel that any formal coersive ideology that limits freedom is
not something to be supported.
One of the most important things we can do is to get to know consensus
decision making very well. Practice the process at every opportunity. Then
when you find yourself in a group dynamic that does not seem democratic, ask
yourself if the decisions being made are a group consensus or not. If they
are not, then let it be know that the consensus decision making process is
the only way for a truely democratic outcome to come forth. You have to
feel comfortable with being a facilitator. That way when someone from the
ISO or other non-democratic group wants to dominate and unilateraly name
themselves as the facilitator YOU can step up and ask that your name also be
considered as the facilitator. Democracy is not easy. Democracy can be
really messy at times. It can also be the most awe inspiring thing ever.
When you are running with LOTS of folks...all down with the same truth...WOW
that is where the energy flows. It seems to me that we are being divided in
so many ways. We need to focus on gaining Freedom for as many folks as
possible. Learning concensus decision making and using it, will help with
our organizing efforts. Look for ways to build coalitions. Be a movement
of ONE and get public service announcements up in YOUR neighborhood. Do not
wait for two more people to make up an affinity group. One sign on your
street that says WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER will get your neighbors thinking.
You have no idea who will read it or how isolated so many of us are. To see
a sign that says UNITED WE SLAUGHTER may just change someones life. WOW,
someone else is thinking and feeling the same thing as me. We are so
isolated and into our own little realities that we can not see the forest
for the trees. There are human beings all around us that want to be free.
Anarchy is the answer to the earth's cry. Give me liberty or give me death.
So far what we have is a whole lotta death. Peace, Tom
Excellent nonbiased reporting of facts. Thank you. On the positive side the
ISO is organizing students. On the negative side they seem to be herding
them in one particular political direction...towards socialism. As an
anarchist, I feel that any formal coersive ideology that limits freedom is
not something to be supported.
One of the most important things we can do is to get to know consensus
decision making very well. Practice the process at every opportunity. Then
when you find yourself in a group dynamic that does not seem democratic, ask
yourself if the decisions being made are a group consensus or not. If they
are not, then let it be know that the consensus decision making process is
the only way for a truely democratic outcome to come forth. You have to
feel comfortable with being a facilitator. That way when someone from the
ISO or other non-democratic group wants to dominate and unilateraly name
themselves as the facilitator YOU can step up and ask that your name also be
considered as the facilitator. Democracy is not easy. Democracy can be
really messy at times. It can also be the most awe inspiring thing ever.
When you are running with LOTS of folks...all down with the same truth...WOW
that is where the energy flows. It seems to me that we are being divided in
so many ways. We need to focus on gaining Freedom for as many folks as
possible. Learning concensus decision making and using it, will help with
our organizing efforts. Look for ways to build coalitions. Be a movement
of ONE and get public service announcements up in YOUR neighborhood. Do not
wait for two more people to make up an affinity group. One sign on your
street that says WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER will get your neighbors thinking.
You have no idea who will read it or how isolated so many of us are. To see
a sign that says UNITED WE SLAUGHTER may just change someones life. WOW,
someone else is thinking and feeling the same thing as me. We are so
isolated and into our own little realities that we can not see the forest
for the trees. There are human beings all around us that want to be free.
Anarchy is the answer to the earth's cry. Give me liberty or give me death.
So far what we have is a whole lotta death. Peace, Tom
First off, nice reporting. I'm sorry to hear that an otherwise intelligent person such as yourself could possibly be against the war, but reasonable people can disagree. Of course, if the larger society were to actually take your advice and get out of the war, pretty soon it wouldn't be possible for reasonable people to disagree. Losing the war means, at least in the long run, losing the right to dissent. Second, I can't say I find it surprising that any sort of socialist organization would use deceptive tactics at its meetings or anywhere else. In the USA, true socialism has always played at most a bit part, but under the banner of the Democratic party, socialists have been able to sneak into Congress, the Senate and just about every level of power in our society. They still aren't a majority, but they're more influential than their numbers justify. Socialists and their Communist cousins have always squelched debate once they gained power, whether that power come in the form of organizing a petty anti-war mob or taking the reins of a nation-state. Best bet is to keep clear of them, and vote against them. Socialists are totalitarians, and have nothing in common with anarchists at all. That it takes a garden-variety conservative to point this out is, to say the least, ironic.
BRIAN: Are you the Judean People's Front?
REG: Fuck off!
BRIAN: What?
REG: Judean People's Front. We're the People's Front of Judea! Judean People's Front. Cawk.
FRANCIS: Wankers.
BRIAN: Can I... join your group?
REG: No. Piss off.
BRIAN: I didn't want to sell this stuff. It's only a job. I hate the Romans as much as anybody.
PEOPLE'S FRONT OF JUDEA: Shhhh. Shhhh. Shhh. Shh. Shhhh.
REG: Stumm.
JUDITH: Are you sure?
BRIAN: Oh, dead sure. I hate the Romans already.
REG: Listen. If you really wanted to join the P.F.J., you'd have to really hate the Romans.
BRIAN: I do!
REG: Oh, yeah? How much?
BRIAN: A lot!
REG: Right. You're in. Listen. The only people we hate more than the Romans are the fucking Judean People's Front.
P.F.J.: Yeah...
JUDITH: Splitters.
P.F.J.: Splitters...
FRANCIS: And the Judean Popular People's Front.
P.F.J.: Yeah. Oh, yeah. Splitters. Splitters...
LORETTA: And the People's Front of Judea.
P.F.J.: Yeah. Splitters. Splitters...
REG: What?
LORETTA: The People's Front of Judea. Splitters.
REG: We're the People's Front of Judea!
LORETTA: Oh. I thought we were the Popular Front.
REG: People's Front! C-huh.
FRANCIS: Whatever happened to the Popular Front, Reg?
REG: He's over there.
P.F.J.: Splitter!
REG: Fuck off!
BRIAN: What?
REG: Judean People's Front. We're the People's Front of Judea! Judean People's Front. Cawk.
FRANCIS: Wankers.
BRIAN: Can I... join your group?
REG: No. Piss off.
BRIAN: I didn't want to sell this stuff. It's only a job. I hate the Romans as much as anybody.
PEOPLE'S FRONT OF JUDEA: Shhhh. Shhhh. Shhh. Shh. Shhhh.
REG: Stumm.
JUDITH: Are you sure?
BRIAN: Oh, dead sure. I hate the Romans already.
REG: Listen. If you really wanted to join the P.F.J., you'd have to really hate the Romans.
BRIAN: I do!
REG: Oh, yeah? How much?
BRIAN: A lot!
REG: Right. You're in. Listen. The only people we hate more than the Romans are the fucking Judean People's Front.
P.F.J.: Yeah...
JUDITH: Splitters.
P.F.J.: Splitters...
FRANCIS: And the Judean Popular People's Front.
P.F.J.: Yeah. Oh, yeah. Splitters. Splitters...
LORETTA: And the People's Front of Judea.
P.F.J.: Yeah. Splitters. Splitters...
REG: What?
LORETTA: The People's Front of Judea. Splitters.
REG: We're the People's Front of Judea!
LORETTA: Oh. I thought we were the Popular Front.
REG: People's Front! C-huh.
FRANCIS: Whatever happened to the Popular Front, Reg?
REG: He's over there.
P.F.J.: Splitter!
Nothing funnier than watching anarchists and communist trying to organize meetings.
This is such a great thread ! LOL.
And the "women and minorities" comment is just so hilarious ! As a minority, nothing is more insulting yet funny as watching white affluent college students trying to treat me like an endangered species. Hypocrites.
This is such a great thread ! LOL.
And the "women and minorities" comment is just so hilarious ! As a minority, nothing is more insulting yet funny as watching white affluent college students trying to treat me like an endangered species. Hypocrites.
I was there. I met your friend, and she is indeed very intelligent, and I liked her very much. I believe she might have even told me a story about you.
This criticism, however, illustrates to me how paranoia can be a self fullfilling prophecy.
My general response to some of her comments is that they are valid criticisms, although not necessarily for reasons of this exciting ISO "conspiracy" I keep hearing so much about.
My specific response to her:
> Saturday was all workshops. I don't think even one of
> them were mainly about or involving "revolution".
> Not one was about a specific political analysis of
> the war, or the anti-war movement. There
> were panels/workshops on the history of the
> Middle East, environmental impact of
> the war, how to make newsletters, etc., but very little
> that was "political". Despite the revolutionary politics
> of many of members of the Berkeley anti-war group
> (anarchists, communists, and others), none of that was
> represented in the workshops. In many workshops,
> whenever a person would raise a point about
> revolutionary analysis (i.e. that capitalism causes wars
> and that's what we need to fight), the panel or
> workshop leader would cut them off. Apparently
> this kind of stuff smacked too much of party-politics,
> even if people saying these things were anarchists
> or unaffiliated. There were probably a few
> exeptions to this, but I talked to people who
> attended almost every workshop
> and they all said the same thing.
It seems to me that if the ISO was running things, you can bet we'd get a good healthy serving of revolutionary politics. It is a testament to the organizers keeping their politics out of it that FACTS, KNOW HOW, and INFORMATION dominated the conference workshops.
> One example I know of was a woman from PLP (a rival of
> the ISO) tried to simply say "I don't agree that people
> who don't go to college are too stupid to learn
> about imperialism, and we need to organize based on
> knowing that all people are capable of
> understanding," and the workshop leader cut
> her off in mid-sentence, saying we "didn't
> have time for arguments". The workshop was on
> "talking to the unconvinced", a workshop on
> tactics!
I am friends with the guy who ran it.
He is a person totally unaffiliated with the ISO
or the Berkeley Coalition, and one who levels a lot
of the same *fair* criticisms at Berkeley that you
do.
Incidentally, his moderation of that meeting was excellent. He was trying to stop a snowballing argument
from starting, in the interest of facilitating
and getting through a nonconfrontational discussion about
ideas for convincing the "unconvinced". he wanted to
let people decide what they felt was valuable on
their own time, rather than letting one side force the
other side to agree on whether only the college educated
could understand whats up. That, by the way, might be an argument for the ISO and PLP types want to engage in, but it was going to divert the focus of the workshop. In addition, the woman you know was responding to a woman whom I know, and she totally misinterpreted the point that my friend had been making (maybe because your friend assumed that my friend was an ISO member - she is not - so lets be careful with those assumptions people!).
> Anyway, the workshops that did take place were OK,
> but politically elementary. A lot of people at
> the conference were disappointed that deeper
> political discussion was
> not allowed, and that the workshop topics in
> general were very "apolitical", something which
> seemed pretty silly
> considering the people who were attending. Another
> fact to note was that many schools had at least
> one or two ISO
> members in their delegation.
Ill tell you what pissed me off. Only 6 people out of 500 attended the second workshop stephen facilitated (stephen is the "unconvinced" facilitator you bashed). His second workshop was about recruiting new volunteers to the movement and organizing our groups to empower
new folks and not shut them out (the way you criticize Berkeley and more directly the ISO for doing).
Many people seem to think that the movement needs to engage in some sort of "deeply" political self discovery
but I think the heart of this movement is
isnt about that. And not everybody at the conference was as politically hardcore as you think. And even if they were, this movement isnt and shouldnt be about the politically hardcore. Its about how we can convince millions of new people - people who dont really care (yet) how political 500 of the most radical diehard college activists can get.
Practically speaking, so many at the conference bitch about how the ISO is supposed to have hijacked it and shut them (the outsiders, anarchists, the non core-organizers, etc) out, yet not one of these people that I can remember found it important enough to come to a workshop about growing their own movements. Not one of them came to the only workshop aimed at how to avoid excluding and marginalizing the new volunteers and activists who are just getting interested in becoming involved in this movement.
Thats hypocrisy for you! Unless of course, I'm mistaken and we have all been doing such a good job swelling the ranks of the anarchist, activist, socialist networks before 911 that we dont need to take any pointers from seasoned and intelligent activists such as stephen?
When we criticize, lets look inward too.
-Chris
This criticism, however, illustrates to me how paranoia can be a self fullfilling prophecy.
My general response to some of her comments is that they are valid criticisms, although not necessarily for reasons of this exciting ISO "conspiracy" I keep hearing so much about.
My specific response to her:
> Saturday was all workshops. I don't think even one of
> them were mainly about or involving "revolution".
> Not one was about a specific political analysis of
> the war, or the anti-war movement. There
> were panels/workshops on the history of the
> Middle East, environmental impact of
> the war, how to make newsletters, etc., but very little
> that was "political". Despite the revolutionary politics
> of many of members of the Berkeley anti-war group
> (anarchists, communists, and others), none of that was
> represented in the workshops. In many workshops,
> whenever a person would raise a point about
> revolutionary analysis (i.e. that capitalism causes wars
> and that's what we need to fight), the panel or
> workshop leader would cut them off. Apparently
> this kind of stuff smacked too much of party-politics,
> even if people saying these things were anarchists
> or unaffiliated. There were probably a few
> exeptions to this, but I talked to people who
> attended almost every workshop
> and they all said the same thing.
It seems to me that if the ISO was running things, you can bet we'd get a good healthy serving of revolutionary politics. It is a testament to the organizers keeping their politics out of it that FACTS, KNOW HOW, and INFORMATION dominated the conference workshops.
> One example I know of was a woman from PLP (a rival of
> the ISO) tried to simply say "I don't agree that people
> who don't go to college are too stupid to learn
> about imperialism, and we need to organize based on
> knowing that all people are capable of
> understanding," and the workshop leader cut
> her off in mid-sentence, saying we "didn't
> have time for arguments". The workshop was on
> "talking to the unconvinced", a workshop on
> tactics!
I am friends with the guy who ran it.
He is a person totally unaffiliated with the ISO
or the Berkeley Coalition, and one who levels a lot
of the same *fair* criticisms at Berkeley that you
do.
Incidentally, his moderation of that meeting was excellent. He was trying to stop a snowballing argument
from starting, in the interest of facilitating
and getting through a nonconfrontational discussion about
ideas for convincing the "unconvinced". he wanted to
let people decide what they felt was valuable on
their own time, rather than letting one side force the
other side to agree on whether only the college educated
could understand whats up. That, by the way, might be an argument for the ISO and PLP types want to engage in, but it was going to divert the focus of the workshop. In addition, the woman you know was responding to a woman whom I know, and she totally misinterpreted the point that my friend had been making (maybe because your friend assumed that my friend was an ISO member - she is not - so lets be careful with those assumptions people!).
> Anyway, the workshops that did take place were OK,
> but politically elementary. A lot of people at
> the conference were disappointed that deeper
> political discussion was
> not allowed, and that the workshop topics in
> general were very "apolitical", something which
> seemed pretty silly
> considering the people who were attending. Another
> fact to note was that many schools had at least
> one or two ISO
> members in their delegation.
Ill tell you what pissed me off. Only 6 people out of 500 attended the second workshop stephen facilitated (stephen is the "unconvinced" facilitator you bashed). His second workshop was about recruiting new volunteers to the movement and organizing our groups to empower
new folks and not shut them out (the way you criticize Berkeley and more directly the ISO for doing).
Many people seem to think that the movement needs to engage in some sort of "deeply" political self discovery
but I think the heart of this movement is
isnt about that. And not everybody at the conference was as politically hardcore as you think. And even if they were, this movement isnt and shouldnt be about the politically hardcore. Its about how we can convince millions of new people - people who dont really care (yet) how political 500 of the most radical diehard college activists can get.
Practically speaking, so many at the conference bitch about how the ISO is supposed to have hijacked it and shut them (the outsiders, anarchists, the non core-organizers, etc) out, yet not one of these people that I can remember found it important enough to come to a workshop about growing their own movements. Not one of them came to the only workshop aimed at how to avoid excluding and marginalizing the new volunteers and activists who are just getting interested in becoming involved in this movement.
Thats hypocrisy for you! Unless of course, I'm mistaken and we have all been doing such a good job swelling the ranks of the anarchist, activist, socialist networks before 911 that we dont need to take any pointers from seasoned and intelligent activists such as stephen?
When we criticize, lets look inward too.
-Chris
For more information:
http://www.berkeleystopthewar.org
Thank You. Student Organizing in whatever form it takes is a good thing. At least folks are trying to make change and working to build an anti-war movement. Now more than ever we need to stop fighting amongst ourselves and work towards our goals a progressives.
why did you feel the need to use the word BITCH? and BTW just because we don't like the ISO that makes us anarchist? im a socialist and I don't like the ISO and I don't like what they do. So please shut the fuck up no wonder your conference was so fucked up with you as as the webmaster of the Berkeley organizing team saying the things you just did in your post, NO WONDER things went down the way they did.
Im against the war, Im against globalization, capitalization, vanguard points of view. I will not stop anti-war organizing or outreach, but now I just know who I can do it with and who I can't
So sad to think that a school like Berkeley which is supposed to be one of the more progressive groups around would ALLOW for something like this to happen. What is the matter with you people?
Im against the war, Im against globalization, capitalization, vanguard points of view. I will not stop anti-war organizing or outreach, but now I just know who I can do it with and who I can't
So sad to think that a school like Berkeley which is supposed to be one of the more progressive groups around would ALLOW for something like this to happen. What is the matter with you people?
I'm really enjoying this thread; please keep it going! I'm very curious to see if the Socialists and Anarchists can actually get together and organize a meeting by the time the U.S. has removed the Taliban from power and helped to feed millions of starving Afghans. Maybe by this time next year you can issue a position paper or a plan for a day of action. Keep those ambitious goals, folks!
The screed above keeps mentioning Hitler, Himmler, et al as though equating them with President Bush. First, they weren't "fascists," they were Nazis. Not much of a difference, but let's keep facts straight where we can. Second, what did "Nazi" mean? Nazi was short for the National SOCIALIST German Workers Party. Third, equating President Bush with the likes of Hitler just shows how ignorant you truly are.
You socialists conveniently forget that the most brutal regimes in history have all hailed from your side of the aisle. Cambodia, Communist government (Khmer Rouge)--murders 2 or 3 million. North Korea and Vietnam, Communist governments--foment civil wars that divide families and nations, murdering millions. China, Communist government--murders 5 to 10 million during the "Cultural Revolution," thousands more during 1989 uprising. Nazi Germany, Socialist government--sparks a world war, 7 million Jews killed in Holocaust, millions of others die as a result of war and brutal labor camps throughtout conquered Europe. And let's not forget the good ol' USSR, a Communist government that, under Stalin, murdered around 20 million. All of these workers' heaven's had one thing in common--a socialist outlook.
You socialists are a indeed wonderful bunch. Your ideas have been discredited, your tactics repudiated, and your movement has the awesome attactive power to get a whopping 500 people to show up for a rally in Berkeley, the one place that actually wants to live by your rules. Keep organizing, keep protesting, please, keep at it. You demonstrate loud and clear why your side is on the losing side of history.
You socialists conveniently forget that the most brutal regimes in history have all hailed from your side of the aisle. Cambodia, Communist government (Khmer Rouge)--murders 2 or 3 million. North Korea and Vietnam, Communist governments--foment civil wars that divide families and nations, murdering millions. China, Communist government--murders 5 to 10 million during the "Cultural Revolution," thousands more during 1989 uprising. Nazi Germany, Socialist government--sparks a world war, 7 million Jews killed in Holocaust, millions of others die as a result of war and brutal labor camps throughtout conquered Europe. And let's not forget the good ol' USSR, a Communist government that, under Stalin, murdered around 20 million. All of these workers' heaven's had one thing in common--a socialist outlook.
You socialists are a indeed wonderful bunch. Your ideas have been discredited, your tactics repudiated, and your movement has the awesome attactive power to get a whopping 500 people to show up for a rally in Berkeley, the one place that actually wants to live by your rules. Keep organizing, keep protesting, please, keep at it. You demonstrate loud and clear why your side is on the losing side of history.
> why did you feel the need to use the word BITCH?
because it is a verb. this is the first time Ive been
accused of being a sexist for using it to refer to the process
of illegitimate complaining.
> and BTW just because we don't like the ISO that makes us anarchist?
did I say that not liking the ISO made you an anarchist? and since
when is being an anarchist an insult.
> im a socialist and I don't like the ISO and I don't like what they do.
good. i dont care. it has nothing to do with anything that Ive said.
> So please shut the fuck up
no, I dont think I will. especially if you are going to
spread a bunch of misinformed bullshit.
> no wonder your conference was so fucked up with you as
> as the webmaster of the Berkeley organizing team
> saying the things you just did in your post,
> NO WONDER things went down the way they did.
yeah, youve got it all figured out dont you?
if you want to grow up and discuss your issues
like a civilized human being yuo are
welcome to do so, in an online forum,
through email, on the phone, or come to one
of our BSTW meetings, and Ill treat you with
respect.
considering the way you just lashed out
blindly right there, you cant expect to be take seriously.
> So sad to think that a school like Berkeley which is
> supposed to be one of the more progressive groups around would
> ALLOW for something like this to happen. What is the matter with you people?
Allow for what to happen? Would you like me to call
the Berkeley Police for you or something?
-C
because it is a verb. this is the first time Ive been
accused of being a sexist for using it to refer to the process
of illegitimate complaining.
> and BTW just because we don't like the ISO that makes us anarchist?
did I say that not liking the ISO made you an anarchist? and since
when is being an anarchist an insult.
> im a socialist and I don't like the ISO and I don't like what they do.
good. i dont care. it has nothing to do with anything that Ive said.
> So please shut the fuck up
no, I dont think I will. especially if you are going to
spread a bunch of misinformed bullshit.
> no wonder your conference was so fucked up with you as
> as the webmaster of the Berkeley organizing team
> saying the things you just did in your post,
> NO WONDER things went down the way they did.
yeah, youve got it all figured out dont you?
if you want to grow up and discuss your issues
like a civilized human being yuo are
welcome to do so, in an online forum,
through email, on the phone, or come to one
of our BSTW meetings, and Ill treat you with
respect.
considering the way you just lashed out
blindly right there, you cant expect to be take seriously.
> So sad to think that a school like Berkeley which is
> supposed to be one of the more progressive groups around would
> ALLOW for something like this to happen. What is the matter with you people?
Allow for what to happen? Would you like me to call
the Berkeley Police for you or something?
-C
Nessie,
Your contention that "violence only begets more violence" is a tired, and disproven, assertion. The violence of Nazism sure was solved by the violence of resistance, first in Britain and then by the US. Ask the Austrians how well they fared after Hitler's non-voilent takeover. Ask the European Jews, most of whom didn't fight back, how well they fared under Nazi rule. Ask the French, who were wholly unprepared for the type of war Hitler waged, how well they fared once they'd been overrun. Hitler's violence had only one answer, and that answer was destruction. Having killed him and destroyed his war machine, the world was indeed safer than it had been before. As for the Bolsheviks, we won in part because they knew we were serious--JFK would have bombed Cuba if he'd had to, and Reagan would have deployed a defensive shield had it been technolically feasible at the time. Demonstrating that resolve played a huge part in our victory. We should remember that in our dealing with China vis-a-vis Taiwan.
As for living like the Swiss, are you talking about the same Swiss that financed the Nazi aparatus? Surely you don't want us to become the secretive banker of the world, allowing anyone to use our open systems to launder their bloody money. Surely you don't want us to stand idly by while our neighbors are put to the sword. That's what the Swiss do.
Your argument that the Taliban have now retreated into guerilla warfare misses one extremely important point: allies. The Mujihadin only started to win their war against the USSR once we began to arm them. The USSR would likely have won out if not for our Stinger missiles, which took out the Soviet helicopter cavalry. Ditto for the Vietcong and North Korean forces--they held out because they had Soviet and Chinese allies arming and supporting them. In the case of the Taliban, they have no overt allies--everyone in the region hates them and wishes them gone. They may well be able to hold out for a few weeks in their mountain redoubts, but they can't hold out forever without resupply and reinforcement. Further, the onset of winter bolsters our chances of finding them more quickly. Infrared technology, which finds heat signatures, will see their campfires, generators and body heat in greater relief than it would be able to in other seasons. Our infrared-guided munitions will have less of a problem hitting the intended target.
On the idea that we're creating more terrorists by killing terrorists, again you're off the mark. Terrorists need two things--money and structure--to plan attacks. By showing the world that we will not tolerate states that foster terrorism, we will create a chilling effect. States that today sponsor terrorists will know that they may well find themselves in our path, and will at least less openly support terror. Many will disavow it altogether (such as Sudan). This won't stop the problem entirely, but will make it more difficult for terrorists to operate. The difficulty of Afghanistan's terrain and history actually make our case better for us: if we can conquer a dug-in foe on the other side of the world in unimaginably difficult terrain, we can do it anywhere. No terror sponsor is safe from us, anywhere. Will this make us 100% safe? Of course not--the Unabomber and Tim McVeigh prove that madmen can act alone and still terrorize. But the massive state-sponsored terrorism exemplified by bin Laden will have a harder time gaining traction.
Your assertions about Israel's "appartheid" are beneath contempt, as is your assertion that it hasn't solved terrorism. Israel and Jordan are the only two nations in that region which will even allow Palestenians to become citizens with voting rights. None of the other Gulf states will. One point, though, regarding pre-emptive action. In 1983, Israel pre-emptively destroyed an Iraqi nuclear munitions plant. How many lives did that action save? We'll probably never know, but it certainly saved Israel from a nuclear first-strike.
And finally, if all our nation's interests serve the needs of the men who own the oil companies, why can't exploration proceed in the Alaskan Wilderness? Why can't oil companies drill off the coast of California? Because other, more powerful interests, prevent it. How strong can the oil men be if they can't overcome a few greenies?
Your contention that "violence only begets more violence" is a tired, and disproven, assertion. The violence of Nazism sure was solved by the violence of resistance, first in Britain and then by the US. Ask the Austrians how well they fared after Hitler's non-voilent takeover. Ask the European Jews, most of whom didn't fight back, how well they fared under Nazi rule. Ask the French, who were wholly unprepared for the type of war Hitler waged, how well they fared once they'd been overrun. Hitler's violence had only one answer, and that answer was destruction. Having killed him and destroyed his war machine, the world was indeed safer than it had been before. As for the Bolsheviks, we won in part because they knew we were serious--JFK would have bombed Cuba if he'd had to, and Reagan would have deployed a defensive shield had it been technolically feasible at the time. Demonstrating that resolve played a huge part in our victory. We should remember that in our dealing with China vis-a-vis Taiwan.
As for living like the Swiss, are you talking about the same Swiss that financed the Nazi aparatus? Surely you don't want us to become the secretive banker of the world, allowing anyone to use our open systems to launder their bloody money. Surely you don't want us to stand idly by while our neighbors are put to the sword. That's what the Swiss do.
Your argument that the Taliban have now retreated into guerilla warfare misses one extremely important point: allies. The Mujihadin only started to win their war against the USSR once we began to arm them. The USSR would likely have won out if not for our Stinger missiles, which took out the Soviet helicopter cavalry. Ditto for the Vietcong and North Korean forces--they held out because they had Soviet and Chinese allies arming and supporting them. In the case of the Taliban, they have no overt allies--everyone in the region hates them and wishes them gone. They may well be able to hold out for a few weeks in their mountain redoubts, but they can't hold out forever without resupply and reinforcement. Further, the onset of winter bolsters our chances of finding them more quickly. Infrared technology, which finds heat signatures, will see their campfires, generators and body heat in greater relief than it would be able to in other seasons. Our infrared-guided munitions will have less of a problem hitting the intended target.
On the idea that we're creating more terrorists by killing terrorists, again you're off the mark. Terrorists need two things--money and structure--to plan attacks. By showing the world that we will not tolerate states that foster terrorism, we will create a chilling effect. States that today sponsor terrorists will know that they may well find themselves in our path, and will at least less openly support terror. Many will disavow it altogether (such as Sudan). This won't stop the problem entirely, but will make it more difficult for terrorists to operate. The difficulty of Afghanistan's terrain and history actually make our case better for us: if we can conquer a dug-in foe on the other side of the world in unimaginably difficult terrain, we can do it anywhere. No terror sponsor is safe from us, anywhere. Will this make us 100% safe? Of course not--the Unabomber and Tim McVeigh prove that madmen can act alone and still terrorize. But the massive state-sponsored terrorism exemplified by bin Laden will have a harder time gaining traction.
Your assertions about Israel's "appartheid" are beneath contempt, as is your assertion that it hasn't solved terrorism. Israel and Jordan are the only two nations in that region which will even allow Palestenians to become citizens with voting rights. None of the other Gulf states will. One point, though, regarding pre-emptive action. In 1983, Israel pre-emptively destroyed an Iraqi nuclear munitions plant. How many lives did that action save? We'll probably never know, but it certainly saved Israel from a nuclear first-strike.
And finally, if all our nation's interests serve the needs of the men who own the oil companies, why can't exploration proceed in the Alaskan Wilderness? Why can't oil companies drill off the coast of California? Because other, more powerful interests, prevent it. How strong can the oil men be if they can't overcome a few greenies?
Nessie,
I'd read your Bic lighter story in a previous post. I found it unconvinving then and unvconvincing now. If it's so dang simple, why don't they just do it? What's stopping them? Surely there are other sleeper agents still undected right here in the country that are available for the job. Where are they?
The Bic guy is unglamorous--that's why he hasn't hit. Bin Laden and his ilk are into TV, coverage, more bang for the buck. The WTC/Pentagon attacks were all about spectacle as well as carnage. They wanted us to see it live, and the Bic guy can't deliver that. What they did takes planning and logistics, and therefore a base of operations. These guys aren't interested in the more germane terrorism you're talking about--they probably figure they get an extra virgin for every ratings point they get in the Nielsens.
Yes, there are a ton of ifs in my previous posts. But your attitude is defeatist--we can't stop them so we shouldn't try. There are also a lot of ifs attached to that, and they're mostly bleak. What if you can attack America with impunity? What if you can kill thousands of Americans on their own soil, and they don't fight back? What if you can get yourself a nuke and hit them again, and again, and again? What if you can wipe out their government by placing a nuke at the right spot in DC at the right time? All of those ifs and a thousand others get a little less iffy if we don't hit them and kill them while we can.
Here are some more positive ifs for you. What if our action in Afghanistan causes some states to rethink their support of terrorism? What if it causes an alliance between the US and Russia that breaks the OPEC stranglehold on oil supplies? What if that means we don't have to explore the Alaskan wilderness? What if the mullahcracy in Iran falls to more pro-US forces (which is possible if you pay attention to what's going on there)? What if the US emerges stronger and wiser in how we deal with that thorny part of the world? What if we win so decisively that we can just forget about that thorny part of the world and go back to worrying about the latest starlet to end up in drug rehab?
Your knowledge of history is impressive, I just wish it were put to better use. You say the Nazis are more powerful now than they were before the war. Really? Europe trembled at their mention, and Stalin signed a little pact with them to insure that he'd never have to fight them (his big mistake was trusting them). We were too busy tending to our own affairs to care overmuch what they were up to. The Nazis built a war machine that nearly conquered all of Europe in a few short years, and probably would have survived if Hitler hadn't invaded the USSR and the Japanese hadn't attacked us. True enough, they're underground now, but last time I checked they didn't have a Waffen SS or a Luftwaffe or a Von Braun helping them devise new weapons. And they don't have dozens of deathcamps scattered across a continent. But you contradict yourself by asserting that we could've taken care of them earlier and saved millions, but say we shouldn't be going after bin Laden now. Isn't this action, taking care of bin Laden now, the action you advocate vis-a-vis the Nazis--namely, getting them before they actually get ahold of a real country and can do more damage? And isn't that what Israel was doing in bombing the Iraqi nuke plant? That wasn't terrorism, that was prudent defense via effective offense.
Your comments about bombing babies are just lame. Today's munitions are far more accurate than they were years ago, but mistakes still happen. Further, we're not the ones targeting babies, the terrorists are. The Afghans in Kabul seem to be able to grasp that point, though their babies are presumably the ones most at risk.
Back to Israel...you don't seem to like them very much. The Occupied Terrorities are not technically a part of Israel, so it only makes sense that its residents don't have the full rights of citizenship. The OT were won in Israel's several wars with her neighbors, wars started when those neighbors surrounded and attacked Israel (once during Ramadan, ironically). Palestenians living in Israel proper, as well as other Arabs, are full citizens. There are even Arab members of the Knesset. How many Arab states have Jews in their governments? How many Arab states even allow Jews the right to co-exist, in their countries or in Israel itself? No, Israel hasn't solved terrorism. Part of the problem no doubt lies in the settlements (they were a bad idea), but the lion's share of the blame has to go to the Arab states that support and fund terrorism. Having proven that they're no military match for Israel, they've turned to terrorism to try and destroy it. Besides, all of this has nothing to do with bin Laden. He's just using the Palestenian issue to confuse people like you, and to try and foment a full-scale war in the Gulf. In his first aim he's been successful, less so in the second.
You are right that most Americans oppose domestic drilling. Most Americans don't have a clue about the strategic weakness this gives us. The Saudis are stronger because we can't drill. Saudi money, some of it anyway, goes straight to thugs like bin Laden. Other Saudi money props up its corrupt regime, a regime propped up in part because we can't drill domestically. Until the fall of the USSR, Russian oil was largely inaccessible, but thanks to good ol' American know-how that oil may well cripple the Saudis. Another if, but a positive one. But I stand by my earlier statement--the oilmen can't be as powerful as you say they are if we can't even drill for the dang stuff in our own country.
Your assertions that the US sponsors terrorists, evidence please? You like to throw around statments like that on your web site too, that UFOs are definitely of alien origin, etc--but where's the evidence? And bringing Cuba into the mix--bold, but stupid, move. Cuba is a known sponsor of terrorism themselves, in addition to being one of the more brutal regimes on the planet. Just forcing people to listen to Castro's 6-hour speeches on the sugar crop is enough to classify them as savages, not to mention just plain wacky.
But again, I say please keep up your protests. Tighten that tinfoil hat, badly paint up a few placards and declare that the end is near, and make sure you're on tv when you do it. You serve as a shining example of how a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and how seriously deluded the anti-war movement has become.
I'd read your Bic lighter story in a previous post. I found it unconvinving then and unvconvincing now. If it's so dang simple, why don't they just do it? What's stopping them? Surely there are other sleeper agents still undected right here in the country that are available for the job. Where are they?
The Bic guy is unglamorous--that's why he hasn't hit. Bin Laden and his ilk are into TV, coverage, more bang for the buck. The WTC/Pentagon attacks were all about spectacle as well as carnage. They wanted us to see it live, and the Bic guy can't deliver that. What they did takes planning and logistics, and therefore a base of operations. These guys aren't interested in the more germane terrorism you're talking about--they probably figure they get an extra virgin for every ratings point they get in the Nielsens.
Yes, there are a ton of ifs in my previous posts. But your attitude is defeatist--we can't stop them so we shouldn't try. There are also a lot of ifs attached to that, and they're mostly bleak. What if you can attack America with impunity? What if you can kill thousands of Americans on their own soil, and they don't fight back? What if you can get yourself a nuke and hit them again, and again, and again? What if you can wipe out their government by placing a nuke at the right spot in DC at the right time? All of those ifs and a thousand others get a little less iffy if we don't hit them and kill them while we can.
Here are some more positive ifs for you. What if our action in Afghanistan causes some states to rethink their support of terrorism? What if it causes an alliance between the US and Russia that breaks the OPEC stranglehold on oil supplies? What if that means we don't have to explore the Alaskan wilderness? What if the mullahcracy in Iran falls to more pro-US forces (which is possible if you pay attention to what's going on there)? What if the US emerges stronger and wiser in how we deal with that thorny part of the world? What if we win so decisively that we can just forget about that thorny part of the world and go back to worrying about the latest starlet to end up in drug rehab?
Your knowledge of history is impressive, I just wish it were put to better use. You say the Nazis are more powerful now than they were before the war. Really? Europe trembled at their mention, and Stalin signed a little pact with them to insure that he'd never have to fight them (his big mistake was trusting them). We were too busy tending to our own affairs to care overmuch what they were up to. The Nazis built a war machine that nearly conquered all of Europe in a few short years, and probably would have survived if Hitler hadn't invaded the USSR and the Japanese hadn't attacked us. True enough, they're underground now, but last time I checked they didn't have a Waffen SS or a Luftwaffe or a Von Braun helping them devise new weapons. And they don't have dozens of deathcamps scattered across a continent. But you contradict yourself by asserting that we could've taken care of them earlier and saved millions, but say we shouldn't be going after bin Laden now. Isn't this action, taking care of bin Laden now, the action you advocate vis-a-vis the Nazis--namely, getting them before they actually get ahold of a real country and can do more damage? And isn't that what Israel was doing in bombing the Iraqi nuke plant? That wasn't terrorism, that was prudent defense via effective offense.
Your comments about bombing babies are just lame. Today's munitions are far more accurate than they were years ago, but mistakes still happen. Further, we're not the ones targeting babies, the terrorists are. The Afghans in Kabul seem to be able to grasp that point, though their babies are presumably the ones most at risk.
Back to Israel...you don't seem to like them very much. The Occupied Terrorities are not technically a part of Israel, so it only makes sense that its residents don't have the full rights of citizenship. The OT were won in Israel's several wars with her neighbors, wars started when those neighbors surrounded and attacked Israel (once during Ramadan, ironically). Palestenians living in Israel proper, as well as other Arabs, are full citizens. There are even Arab members of the Knesset. How many Arab states have Jews in their governments? How many Arab states even allow Jews the right to co-exist, in their countries or in Israel itself? No, Israel hasn't solved terrorism. Part of the problem no doubt lies in the settlements (they were a bad idea), but the lion's share of the blame has to go to the Arab states that support and fund terrorism. Having proven that they're no military match for Israel, they've turned to terrorism to try and destroy it. Besides, all of this has nothing to do with bin Laden. He's just using the Palestenian issue to confuse people like you, and to try and foment a full-scale war in the Gulf. In his first aim he's been successful, less so in the second.
You are right that most Americans oppose domestic drilling. Most Americans don't have a clue about the strategic weakness this gives us. The Saudis are stronger because we can't drill. Saudi money, some of it anyway, goes straight to thugs like bin Laden. Other Saudi money props up its corrupt regime, a regime propped up in part because we can't drill domestically. Until the fall of the USSR, Russian oil was largely inaccessible, but thanks to good ol' American know-how that oil may well cripple the Saudis. Another if, but a positive one. But I stand by my earlier statement--the oilmen can't be as powerful as you say they are if we can't even drill for the dang stuff in our own country.
Your assertions that the US sponsors terrorists, evidence please? You like to throw around statments like that on your web site too, that UFOs are definitely of alien origin, etc--but where's the evidence? And bringing Cuba into the mix--bold, but stupid, move. Cuba is a known sponsor of terrorism themselves, in addition to being one of the more brutal regimes on the planet. Just forcing people to listen to Castro's 6-hour speeches on the sugar crop is enough to classify them as savages, not to mention just plain wacky.
But again, I say please keep up your protests. Tighten that tinfoil hat, badly paint up a few placards and declare that the end is near, and make sure you're on tv when you do it. You serve as a shining example of how a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and how seriously deluded the anti-war movement has become.
Nessie,
Having read through various parts of your website, I have now figured out what bugged me so much about your arguments. You know history, at least the version you believe in, but you don't know how to apply it to the present. You can look backward, but not forward.
For example, your site and your arguments here are replete with conspiracy-minded fare, with the Nazis playing a central role. You insist, for instance, that the Nazis won WWII. Well okay then, suppose they did. It is true that some of them escaped justice by running to Argentina. They went on to live shadowy lives, supporting various nasty ventures around the world. One of their prime directives was the extermination of the Jews. Hitler wrote about it in his famous book, and the party was largely organized around the principles of expanding Germany and coming to a "final solution" regarding the Jews. Having lost the farm on Germany, today's Nazis would still probably be interested in the latter principle, right? Your web site puts the Klan in league with them to this day--the Klan would also share that goal too, wouldn't they? Today's Nazis may have other goals--cornering the gold market, locking up people like you who are "on to them"--but the "final solution" would still be something they'd be pretty keen on. Well, who also believes in reaching a "final solution" to the "Jewish problem?" Just about the whole Arab world, that's who. The Egyptian press regularly mentions the "final solution," as do the government-run press organs in the other Arab states. Osama bin Laden himself even says that killing Jews is the highest priority. Sounds like he's being a good Nazi. Doesn't this strengthen the argument, then, that we should wipe out bin Laden and his groupies? There's a thread of philosophy that connects this guy to the Nazis--heck, some of his pile of cash may even be tooth gold from Hitler's death camps. Think about it.
Another argument is one you came up with. You said in your last note that we could'ce taken care of the Nazis with a few pool cues early on, before they siezed power and could cause real trouble. Well, in Osama bin Laden we have the chance to make up for that mistake. We can take him out now. Imagine if that guy ever gets ahold of Saudi Arabia itself. It's not far-fetched--he has a great deal of support there, and their wahhabi brand of Islam is tailor-made for him. Imagine him taking over the Gulf's richest state, replete with about 100 US-made fighter aircraft. He'd have a war machine at his disposal, and the Nazis just might have their man of the hour. Don't you think it might make sense to blast this guy while we have the chance?
You also might want to re-think your position on Israel. They're up against a whole lot of Nazi-like neighbors.
Having read through various parts of your website, I have now figured out what bugged me so much about your arguments. You know history, at least the version you believe in, but you don't know how to apply it to the present. You can look backward, but not forward.
For example, your site and your arguments here are replete with conspiracy-minded fare, with the Nazis playing a central role. You insist, for instance, that the Nazis won WWII. Well okay then, suppose they did. It is true that some of them escaped justice by running to Argentina. They went on to live shadowy lives, supporting various nasty ventures around the world. One of their prime directives was the extermination of the Jews. Hitler wrote about it in his famous book, and the party was largely organized around the principles of expanding Germany and coming to a "final solution" regarding the Jews. Having lost the farm on Germany, today's Nazis would still probably be interested in the latter principle, right? Your web site puts the Klan in league with them to this day--the Klan would also share that goal too, wouldn't they? Today's Nazis may have other goals--cornering the gold market, locking up people like you who are "on to them"--but the "final solution" would still be something they'd be pretty keen on. Well, who also believes in reaching a "final solution" to the "Jewish problem?" Just about the whole Arab world, that's who. The Egyptian press regularly mentions the "final solution," as do the government-run press organs in the other Arab states. Osama bin Laden himself even says that killing Jews is the highest priority. Sounds like he's being a good Nazi. Doesn't this strengthen the argument, then, that we should wipe out bin Laden and his groupies? There's a thread of philosophy that connects this guy to the Nazis--heck, some of his pile of cash may even be tooth gold from Hitler's death camps. Think about it.
Another argument is one you came up with. You said in your last note that we could'ce taken care of the Nazis with a few pool cues early on, before they siezed power and could cause real trouble. Well, in Osama bin Laden we have the chance to make up for that mistake. We can take him out now. Imagine if that guy ever gets ahold of Saudi Arabia itself. It's not far-fetched--he has a great deal of support there, and their wahhabi brand of Islam is tailor-made for him. Imagine him taking over the Gulf's richest state, replete with about 100 US-made fighter aircraft. He'd have a war machine at his disposal, and the Nazis just might have their man of the hour. Don't you think it might make sense to blast this guy while we have the chance?
You also might want to re-think your position on Israel. They're up against a whole lot of Nazi-like neighbors.
Nessie, at it again citing your own articles as 'proof 'of your outlandish theories. Scholarly masterbation at it's best.
The cuting and pasting is very 'scholarly' too.
The cuting and pasting is very 'scholarly' too.
Well Nessie,
I'm through wasting time on you. Suffice it to say that referring readers to your own website, where the articles consist of quoting a few books with bridges written by yourself, is a very onconvincing way to make your case. All it proves is that you can read.
I apologize for the personal zings...just couldn't resist. I stand by their substance though, which is that you misuse your mind.
Funny you bring up the global hawk. I'm a big fan of that aircraft, having a friend that is involved in the project. GH is one of the instruments that will help our folks locate and eliminate bin Laden, but they certainly had nothing to do with any 9/11 attacks. By suggesting that they did, though, you engage in one of those nasty tactics you deride. I can't prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that the GH folks are innocent, nor can I prove beyond all doubt that the planes weren't remote controlled. But the Occam's razor test cuts your argument to shreds--you have too many unnecessary parts. Which brings me back to the central problem with your entire line of reasoning, which is that you're self-contradictory. You say that terrorists don't need technology or planning, then suggest that the planes of 9/11 were remotely controlled (also, if they don't need bases, uh, why do they in fact have bases?). Well, wouldn't that take a fair amount of planning and technology? Might that not take fairly substantial state sponsorship? It's easier to see 19 terrorists, some of whom were clueless that they were on a suicide mission, hijacking planes--especially given airline pilots' rules of engagement prior to 9/11.
You also suggest that we should've taken out the Nazis early on, yet you're unwilling to apply that same reasoning in the case of bin Laden, who might well have some common interests with Nazism. And regarding Taiwan, you say neither your life nor mine is worth defending them from mainland Chinese aggression. Why not? Are Taiwanese any less human than you or I? Do the Chinese Communists have the right to subjucate others, who clearly want nothing to do with Communism, to their rule? You deride Israeli "appartheid," yet you're blind to the real brutality that is Communism in general, and the Chinese variety in particular. And the human rights of the Taiwanese mean nothing to you, while the human rights of Palestenians means everything.
In my way of thinking, everyone deserves to be treated fairly, as a full human, until they've proven that they don't deserve such treatment. The Taiwanese want freedom, and we've guaranteed it. Their adversaries, the ChiComs, care nothing for the rights of others and only want power. In the case of the Middle East, on her founding day Israel was attacked from all sides by her Arab neighbors. Israel won that conflict and every military conflict since. Israel is the only democracy in that region, and the only one conferring rights to people belonging to an ethnic group that has sworn to destroy her. No Arab state allows Jews to become citizens, and several Arab states will execute anyone who practices a religion other than Islam. While neither Taiwan nor Israel is sinless, picking them over their enemies should be a no-brainer to those that love liberty. In the case of the Palestenians, most of them deserve full human rights in their own state (by the way, Jordan is a Palestenian-majority state, ruled by minority Hashemites). A few of them deserve death, for murdering civilians and keeping alive a struggle that Arafat could've ended during the Barak regime. Bin Laden and his ilk are also deserving of death, for murdering innocents and attempting to re-ignite the Crusades.
You just deserve contempt.
I'm through wasting time on you. Suffice it to say that referring readers to your own website, where the articles consist of quoting a few books with bridges written by yourself, is a very onconvincing way to make your case. All it proves is that you can read.
I apologize for the personal zings...just couldn't resist. I stand by their substance though, which is that you misuse your mind.
Funny you bring up the global hawk. I'm a big fan of that aircraft, having a friend that is involved in the project. GH is one of the instruments that will help our folks locate and eliminate bin Laden, but they certainly had nothing to do with any 9/11 attacks. By suggesting that they did, though, you engage in one of those nasty tactics you deride. I can't prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that the GH folks are innocent, nor can I prove beyond all doubt that the planes weren't remote controlled. But the Occam's razor test cuts your argument to shreds--you have too many unnecessary parts. Which brings me back to the central problem with your entire line of reasoning, which is that you're self-contradictory. You say that terrorists don't need technology or planning, then suggest that the planes of 9/11 were remotely controlled (also, if they don't need bases, uh, why do they in fact have bases?). Well, wouldn't that take a fair amount of planning and technology? Might that not take fairly substantial state sponsorship? It's easier to see 19 terrorists, some of whom were clueless that they were on a suicide mission, hijacking planes--especially given airline pilots' rules of engagement prior to 9/11.
You also suggest that we should've taken out the Nazis early on, yet you're unwilling to apply that same reasoning in the case of bin Laden, who might well have some common interests with Nazism. And regarding Taiwan, you say neither your life nor mine is worth defending them from mainland Chinese aggression. Why not? Are Taiwanese any less human than you or I? Do the Chinese Communists have the right to subjucate others, who clearly want nothing to do with Communism, to their rule? You deride Israeli "appartheid," yet you're blind to the real brutality that is Communism in general, and the Chinese variety in particular. And the human rights of the Taiwanese mean nothing to you, while the human rights of Palestenians means everything.
In my way of thinking, everyone deserves to be treated fairly, as a full human, until they've proven that they don't deserve such treatment. The Taiwanese want freedom, and we've guaranteed it. Their adversaries, the ChiComs, care nothing for the rights of others and only want power. In the case of the Middle East, on her founding day Israel was attacked from all sides by her Arab neighbors. Israel won that conflict and every military conflict since. Israel is the only democracy in that region, and the only one conferring rights to people belonging to an ethnic group that has sworn to destroy her. No Arab state allows Jews to become citizens, and several Arab states will execute anyone who practices a religion other than Islam. While neither Taiwan nor Israel is sinless, picking them over their enemies should be a no-brainer to those that love liberty. In the case of the Palestenians, most of them deserve full human rights in their own state (by the way, Jordan is a Palestenian-majority state, ruled by minority Hashemites). A few of them deserve death, for murdering civilians and keeping alive a struggle that Arafat could've ended during the Barak regime. Bin Laden and his ilk are also deserving of death, for murdering innocents and attempting to re-ignite the Crusades.
You just deserve contempt.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$75.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network