Marijuana.com

PsYcHoLoGiCaL

You cant obliterate terrorism but you can weaken it... which is happening.

__________________
"Many of life's failures are people who did not realize how close they were to success when they gave up." -- Thomas A. Edison

 

KWhite

And y'all have devolved into justifications.

Folks, the very nature of this thread is going to bring about dissension.

Some talking points perhaps?

1. The expansion of American/AmEuropean security through the expansion of security zones, placing troops about the world.
2. The control, gained through military efforts, furthered by economic investment, of oil fields in and around the Caspian?
a. bringing evermore strategically important oil into "Friendly " hands
b. Bringing an influx of monies to the region, providing the beginnings of stability through capitalism.

3. The simple eradication of Evil from the world.

4. A move toward World Government with America pulling the strings at the end. (Au'dace Au'dace, Toujours Au'dace)

That is about all my paranoid mind can come up with on short notice.

Any more?
K

__________________
"Your mind is your own, your body as well, from the soul we need not speak, tend it well, making those decisions you deem worthy, aware all responsibility is in your hands when the smoke clears" Kelly L. White

"It is a principle of natural justice that when bad men make bad laws, or when unprincipled authorities compromise good ones, citizens are justified in protecting themselves from the very authority that compromised law and order." Gandhi

Our Posting Guidelines

Niteshift

"They are there, simply, to kill the enemy or be killed by the enemy. In this circumstance, there is no "wrongdoer" as the other guy is just "fighting for the country" just as YOU are."

Yes and no. There are people fighting for evil causes and that is wrong. No matter how you slice it, if your goal is to kill an entire race, ethnic group etc, it is wrong.

Yes, that involves imposing my beliefs on the situation, but someone has to and it might as well be me.

I've been the soldier on the battelfield, so this is not theory to me. I know how my thought process actually worked.

I still disagree with the logic.

"YES killing is WRONG, it doesn't matter who it is."

I completely disagree. Even the majority of religions in the world allow for a person to kill another to save their life or the life of another.

__________________
A burning desire for social justice is never a substitute for knowing what you're talking about. -Thomas Sowell

Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is muzzle flash.

KWhite

So, I suppose it is the whole....
"The motive IS justification"

Thang

*Steps back and lets 'em knock down and drag it out*

Seems just as germaine I suppose, a tricky thread regardless.

have fun.

rum

The us is probably the largest supporter of terrorists yet. It is. The US Gov has hired, trained and funded (the list of aidful verbs goes on and on) far more terrorists than those countries do.

We also do it on different levels: corporate terrorism.

Supporting corporations (most of the us gov are sellouts btw) that pay just under subsitance wages to produce products to sell to consumers--who don't need the products; this terror operates on many levels as well: for the exploited workers (race to the bottom, google that), the exploited consumer base (their whole life is usually a bunch of crap, [work, etc] not to mention how sexist advertising--the vessel of the product--is and how that perputuates much violence against women and similar things).

But then if you want to equate it with the kind of Arab (not afghani) terrorism we expirenced on 9/11, how many times has us-trained/funded/etc overthrown stuggling democracies?

ahh the list goes on and on.

there are two reasons for the war on terror: power and oil (money)

Like the War on Drugs, its a great way to manipulate and infilitrate any particular body; like the Cold War, forcing nations to be with us or against us removes any non-permuable barriers between our country (and economic corporate interest) and thiers (you with us? good, you'll let us in; against us? good, we'll breaking in); like the cold war (and WoD) it is also a good backbone of economic production (not so much true for now, but partly); oil oil oil oil oil

You might say it's too help the people, its not. That is a byproduct used as another main reason to justify the war (and is this a war? what nation are we warring with? ... cough cough iraq soon enough cough cough for oil...)

Furthermore, in muscling countries to filter out the terrorists (like this war with iraq) won't the damage (physical, pyschological, mortal, etc) be so sufficeint--what we cause--to instill further hate and thus instigate further "terrorists"?

Hussein may have helped terrorists, he may be one himself; but bush by far is the larger terrorist.

Bush is building an empire, I personally think he is worse than Reagan and will continue to screw America over while screwing the world over.

America deserves better.

other things of note:

we are trying to find places to bomb, many of the places we bomb in Afghanistan are villages (www.unseennews.com for pictures) full of innocent lives; tell me, how does bombing (not to mention humilating: we are dropping 100 dollar bills w/ bush on them? how the .... they going to spend that money? their warlords--i mean, polticial officials will simply send out squads to harvest them) and then putting into power a corrupt regime of warlords not going to create more terror?

And btw, with the new Nuclear Posture Review: Bush is extremely stupid; he's believing he can bomb one country with nukes and not have the others notice!?!?! Wtf? Furthermore, isn't threataning the use of nukes a form of terror?

And, lastly, you cannot "beat" terrorism by beating people, countries and the like. You cannot do it. Damage, death, fear, etc will only feed the terrorist-producing circut; you can help people though, and by helping them, they will not have the same conditions under which they will be politically fermented to become terrorists or suicide bombers.

But this flys in the face of us Corporate-Foreign Policy (what is cuasing the destitute conditions of the middle-east, that in turn, (with political manipulation + training) produces terrorists), so....

 

rum

i need to add some more i think:

capitalism is global, not nationally bound, and that capitalist corporations who do not value people other than there function and cost and product as labour play the wage-arbitrage game. This means they hire the cheapest labour possible (why so much is produced in third+ worlds) where it can be found, governments make money from corporations, and because they need this money + corporate backing, they must keep labour unreggulated (ie, working for a week for 1 dime) so that corporations are attracted.
1) race to the bottom: well, labour becomes cheaper in one area, and then in another, and then back to another: this will happen in a circling spiral. It is happening now. Governments are forced to accept that they cannot regulate the wage of workers to be anything beyond iron-law wages simply because, if they do, coporations will go about and pay govs/hire labour in other--cheaper and unnregulated--nations. Right now, there is this race, and because wages keep having to fall, it is the race to the bottom.

Where will it go? I dunno, not many do.

But this race and this use of money/capital to perputate consumer-products (and a lot of them are unneeded) has the opportunity cost of several things:

(the largest + most encompassing): the enviroments, of say, afghanistan, allowing Bin Laden + mujaheed to draft thousands of orphans into refugee camps where they exposed and life is a struggle--every second of each day--where they internalize crap (literalist religion, not fundementalist--just literalist) and then, become of the socio-enconomic and enviromental conditions, become terrorists or join the taliban (no edu, they also never see women--ever, while they grow up)

there is more to it than that, but i am tired and have dragged this on long enough, i hope you get the nut of my point:

and, with all of this in mind, the War On Terror is a way the US-gov can muscle its way into countries for corporate interest (and oil).

but anyways..

Skot Head

Okay, First of all, I am not an expert on this or anything, but..... I suppose the way that the UN would pursue the 9/11 criminals would be to first compile evidence of guilt, then show that evidence to the UN Security Council, who would then decide what measures should be taken. These measures could include extradition through diplomacy (if possible), or sending in an international force to apprehend those guilty of the crimes.

Keep in mind that before the air attacks on Afghanistan, a Taliban ambassador said that they were prepared to try bin Laden (possibly even in a neutral country) if provided solid evidence by the United States. The US, however, demanded immediate extradition of all individuals that it requested, without the responsibility of providing any evidence. None at all. It was either trust us and turn over those we deem responsible (without seeing any evidence) or meet the US war machine. Now would the Taliban have actually came through on that promise? Probably not, but we will never know because the US didn't pursue it, choosing instead vigilanty justice.

That is one of the main reasons why avenues like the World Court don't function efficiently enough. Superpowers like the US undermine their ability by acting unilateraly, by voting against UN resolutions, by ignoring poular international decision when it serves their interests, etc...

You can be sure that the US is more than willing to acknowledge international law if one of its enemies is the one breaking it.

As for the attacks on innocent Afghan citizens, the US and its allies were well aware of the humanitarian disaster unfolding in Afghanistan and they acted by increasing it. It was well known that launching an air campaign would spell disaster for many an innocent human being---innocent human beings with lives and loved ones just like those killed in the 9/11 catastrophy---. Apparently those people did not matter, though, because the air campaign was installed quickly.

The idea of bombing Afghanistan because it "harbors or supports terrorism" is complete hypocrisy, because the US does the same. The US trained, armed and ran the Contra forces that were responsible for creating massive terrorism in Nicaragua. The US was even called out by the World Court for "unlawful use of aggression." The sanctons in Iraq are responsible for millions of deaths (economic terrorism is one of our specialties), though the deaths are mostly of innocent civilians and not the people who were supposed to be affected. Killing of innocent people to create political pressure against enemies IS terrorism. The same thing is happening now in Afghanistan, in the sense that political goals take precidence over humanity.

Also remember that the makeup of the Northern Alliance is pretty close to the same as that of the group in power before the Taliban took over, and there was a postive response when they were toppled, too. The reason being that both groups are oppressive, exploitative, anti-woman, etc... So the people of Afghanistan may be getting the lesser of the two evils in the Northern Alliance, but I hardly think that the majority of people there are behind the war, as evidenced by the millions who fled to avoid it.

But that isn't supposed to matter. All that we are supposed to be worried about is getting "them" no matter what the cost (attacks on civil liberties, extreme loss of innocent life, creating new enemies, etc...). "Them" by the way, will be defined by the Bush administration without any credible evidence being necessary, because telling us why war is being made in our name might be "a threat to national security." Besides, asking for evidence in such matters might imply that you are "anti-american" or "un-american," or that you are "sympathetic towards terrorists." So don't question your masters or you are a terrorist!

PS Doesn't some of the war propaganda spit by the government bare a striking resmblence to the anti-marijuana propoganda in terms of its authenticity

Niteshift

"The us is probably the largest supporter of terrorists yet. It is. The US Gov has hired, trained and funded (the list of aidful verbs goes on and on) far more terrorists than those countries do."

Like who? Providing a LOT of examples shouldn't be too hard if we're the biggest.

"We also do it on different levels: corporate terrorism. "

A ridiculous concept. There is no such thing as "corporate terrorism", unless you bastardize and cheapen what terrorism truly is.

"Bush is building an empire, I personally think he is worse than Reagan"

Reagan was a great president that rescued this nation from the aftermath of Jimmy Carter.

The rest of your capitalism fearing post deserves no reply.


"I suppose the way that the UN would pursue the 9/11 criminals would be to first compile evidence of guilt, then show that evidence to the UN Security Council, who would then decide what measures should be taken. These measures could include extradition through diplomacy (if possible), or sending in an international force to apprehend those guilty of the crimes."

The UN Security Council has NO LEGAL RIGHT to do it. Besides, extradition is up to the country where the person is physically located. This concept even holds true going from one US state to another. Extradition and it's terms are matters of treaty negotiation, not the UN or "world court".

"Keep in mind that before the air attacks on Afghanistan, a Taliban ambassador said that they were prepared to try bin Laden (possibly even in a neutral country) if provided solid evidence by the United States."

There's a no-brainer. They kept, protected and supported him. How could you even consider for a second letting them conduct his trial? That's as laughable as the Columbian Jail Pablo Excobar used to walk in an out of.

"It was either trust us and turn over those we deem responsible (without seeing any evidence) or meet the US war machine."

There is a time for talk and a time for action. Bush made the right call and the vast majority of people agree.

"That is one of the main reasons why avenues like the World Court don't function efficiently enough. Superpowers like the US undermine their ability by acting unilateraly, by voting against UN resolutions, by ignoring poular international decision when it serves their interests, etc... "

You need to study the "world court" a bit more. It operates on consent. Pure and simple. It has no legal jurisdiction.

Further, it was never designed to have an enforcement mechanism. It is only designed to have both countries involved VOLUNTARILY comply.

Lastly, under Clinton, the US was one of the biggest UN lackeys on the plant. We did everything they asked us to. We didn't undermine them, we kissed their ass.

"The sanctons in Iraq are responsible for millions of deaths (economic terrorism is one of our specialties), though the deaths are mostly of innocent civilians and not the people who were supposed to be affected."

Which goes to show you how well those diplomatic "solutions" work.

HappyMan

The Sanctions on Iraq are part of the gulf ware cease fire. The Government of Iraq has choosen to ingore the cease fire and has willinging allowed the sanctions to contiue. The Sanctions do not effect the rule class because they are wealthly and have conections. The suffering of the Iraqi people is 100% do to Sadam and is small group of supports to run the country. They have choosen to ingore the generous terms of the 1991 cease fire.

__________________
Bla.

and

Marijuana.Com Community Posting Guidelines

Skot Head

The Charter of the UN is the legal framework which sets up a treaty as the foundation of international law and world order.
Under the Constitution, treaties are regarded as the "supreme law of the land."

The Charter states that "The Security Council shall determine the existance of any threat to peace, breach of peace, act of aggression, and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures should be taken in accordance with Articles 41&42."

It also says that "All members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means, in such a matter that international peace and security, and justice are not endangered."

Continuing on, the Charter states that "All members shall refrain in their international relations from from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state or in any manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

Here's the kicker: "The Organization shall ensure that states which are not members of the United Nations act in accordance with those principals so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security."

Furthermore, Article 92 of the Charter brings the World Court into play: "The International Court shall be the principal judicial organ of the United Nations."

Article 93 states that "A state which is not a member of the United Nations may become party to the Statute of the International Court of Justice on conditions to be determined in each case by the General Assembly upon recommendation of the Security Council."

So as you can see, the US had a legal as well as moral obligation to pursue those responsible through international means, like the UN and World Court. The United States, being the world's leading superpower,(especially in the realm of military force) has shown that it will act as it chooses in spite of its obligation to the UN. The idea that the US has "kissed the ass" of the UN under Clinton(or any other president for that matter) is absolutely ridiculous. The US usually uses the UN only when it helps further their own agenda to do so, and sometimes totaly disregards it. An example is when the Clinton Administration launched missles on Iraq for the alleged assassination attempt on the elder Bush with only "circumstantial" evidence that Iraq was even involved. The US not only acted without the permission of the UN, but it also basically told the world that it would do as it pleased when the Clinton Administration stated that the US would "act multilateraly when possible, and unilateraly when it must(rough quote)."

As for the sanctions on Iraq, the US and ally Britain were the main instigators for those sanctions. The Security Council was pressured into passing them, but before they could do any good the US sent troops to the Gulf and shot down any chances of the sanctions working, and of settling the fiasco through diplomacy. The sanctions are still in effect today even though it is clear that the only thing they are achieving is the loss of innocent life and degredation of Iraq's citizens and their way of life. That is NOT diplomacy, merely a smokescreen sent up to disguise the real motives of those in power in this country; and, like I said before, it is terrorism.

Reagan a great president? Not hardly. Reagan was extremely well liked by the media, so he is dressed up like a saint. In reality he is a tyrant who should have been impeached. He was directly involved in the whole Iran-Contra weapons scandal. He launched a devistating terrorist war in Nicaragua. He upped the ante on Carters terrost war in El Salvador. He supported dictatorships in places like Guatemala. He was an instrument of the wealthy and powerful, who left the US public with unprecedented debt. Hell, there were even more criminal indictments against memebers of the Reagan Administration(138) than any other administration, etc...

Also, I think that rum was completely justified in listing capitalism as a form of terrorism, because capitalism causes the economic conditions necessary for the extreme concentrating of wealth that decides US foreign policy. For example, the US supports dictatorships, undermines democracy, supports and even gets directly involved in terrorism all with the intended purpose of maintaining and furthering exploitative economic policies that allow the powerful to maintain(and gain) wealth and power. Not to mention the fact that capitalism is unjust and is another form of slavery.

Oh, and as for a list of places where the US has supported or implemented terrorism.....here goes, but remember that these are just a few examples. If you look critically you will find that US foreign policy in the Third World almost always involves terrorism in one form or another. But anyway, here is a list of some of the places: El Salvador, Nicaragua, Palestine, Columbia, Sudan, Chile, Haiti, Guatemala, Iraq, Indonesia, Viet Nam, Afghanistan, the list goes on and on.

Anyway, gotta go catch a buzz, so I guess I'll end it on that note.