Where we are headed

.

Time to make peace
by l Friday April 23, 2004 at 08:24 PM



This is where we are headed.

.A “war on terrorism”
Cannot be won.

only occupied.

The reprisals will continue to escalate.

Until we ALL

lose our lives,
and our civilizations.


Time to make peace.

.

Disband the CIA and hold criminal trials for some of its employees.

"Taliban still in power"

-LONDON: The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) worked in tandem with Pakistan to create the "monster" that is today Afghanistan's ruling Taliban, a leading US expert on South Asia said here.-
[ Taliban+CIA]
http://www.multiline.com.au/~johnm/taliban.htm

"Saddam still in power"

-While many have thought that Saddam first became
involved with U.S. intelligence agencies at the start
of the September 1980 Iran-Iraq war, his first contacts
with U.S. officials date back to 1959, when he was part
of a CIA-authorized six-man squad tasked with
assassinating then Iraqi Prime Minister Gen. Abd al-
Karim Qasim.-[Saddam+CIA]
http://www.rise4news.net/Saddam-CIA.html

This war cannot be won.
Nor will it end
We can, like Israel,
keep occupying,
keep killing,
and as the technology presents itself,
they will keep coming back to us with
more and more deadly weapons,
until
we are both destroyed
(the more you have, the more you lose)

and
no one wins.
Not the Islamists
Not the Jews
Not the Christians

NO ONE

and all our civilizations are blotted out.
kaput
no more

Better to right the injustices
better to stop stealing land and resources
better to make peace
better to create justice and international law

We are on the road to total annihilation
weather it happens in the next 5 years
or the next 20

it doesn't really matter

We are on this road of destruction,
led there by
Sharon
and his Neo Con friends and spies

and in the end

everyone loses.

We aways win. People were saying the same thing about the Cold War, we won that too.

We are stronger than the tyrants because we believe in something - tyrants can only motivate through fear.

We won in Korea? We won in Vietnam? We won in Sommolia?
Actually we've never won, when we were facing guerrila warfare. No country has, since the American Revolution. You can occupy for a while, but you can't win against a population that doesn't want you.

Guess what, that's exactly what we're facing now. Noticed any bouquets of flowers being thrown at our troops? (bombs and rocks perhaps)
No, this war was lost before we even invaded. And those who wanted our young men and women occupying a Muslim middle eastern country (a neighbor of Israel, by the way) could care less (they're not fighting, now, are they?) No, the plan was never for us to win, just to occupy.
This war will kill our youth, bleed our finacial reserves. and sooner (hopefully) or later, we'll bail out, just like in Vietnam. Let those who want this war fight it themselves ( the chicken shits).
But, please feel free to volunteer if you feel otherwise, as our army is now stretched to the limit and they need more cannon fodder. You interested in fighting? (or just tapping on your computer?)

Dream on. It ain't going to happen. Our sons and daughters are going to be killed and maimed for an ill concieved war of choice, that we can never win.

Which lobby can we thank for the position that we are now in?

I notice a lot of conservatives saying that the Left was against going into Afghanistan. I recall that there was no consensus about this. The anti-war demos were small, and a lot of people were going along with RAWA's line, which was something like "we'd prefer that Osama bin Laden be captured and tried".... "but, odds are, war is going to happen, so, we'll try to survive that. We'll be happy to see the Taliban fall."

Now... please note... this is my summation of RAWA's position. They've got their roots in Communism, and have been an opposition underground feminist movement for decades. If there's any "anti-war" in there that parallels the current arguments against the Iraq war, I cannot find it.

The anti-war effort was not even one-tenth what it is today. In fact, the *effort* expended by some groups then was probably greater, in proportion to outpouring of support, than it is today. The current anti-war effort is from the grassroots, and moves forward despite some ham-handed pseudo-leadership by guys like Michael Moore (aka Wes Clarke) and Al Franken (aka John Kerry).

Personally, I was against both wars, but, the anti-war movement against the Iraq war is far larger by at least a magnitude (and globally, it seems to be around 100 to 1,000 times larger), and will prove to be a real political issue.

I notice a lot of conservatives saying that the Left was against going into Afghanistan. I recall that there was no consensus about this. The anti-war demos were small, and a lot of people were going along with RAWA's line, which was something like "we'd prefer that Osama bin Laden be captured and tried".... "but, odds are, war is going to happen, so, we'll try to survive that. We'll be happy to see the Taliban fall."

Now... please note... this is my summation of RAWA's position. They've got their roots in Communism, and have been an opposition underground feminist movement for decades. If there's any "anti-war" in there that parallels the current arguments against the Iraq war, I cannot find it.

The anti-war effort was not even one-tenth what it is today. In fact, the *effort* expended by some groups then was probably greater, in proportion to outpouring of support, than it is today. The current anti-war effort is from the grassroots, and moves forward despite some ham-handed pseudo-leadership by guys like Michael Moore (aka Wes Clarke) and Al Franken (aka John Kerry).

Personally, I was against both wars, but, the anti-war movement against the Iraq war is far larger by at least a magnitude (and globally, it seems to be around 100 to 1,000 times larger), and will prove to be a real political issue.

To continue the Amy theme somewhat :)

"Contrary to your premise, it is possible for an occupying army to establish a stable and democratic government despite hostility from some elements of the local population. Can you say 'postwar Japan?' Can you say 'postwar Germany?'"

Japan and Germany weren't the only nations involved in WW2 (which was why it was a "world" war). They were just the two emergent imperialist nations involved in WW2, battling with the UK and USA. The success of the occupation of these nations was undergirded by an emergent empire and national industrialization (in Japan's case). I don't need to know much history to know *this* simple fact.

It's like when huge, profitable, telecom companies merge, their goal being to crush small competition. Or, in this case, Russia and the emergent Communist countries.

There are other occupations that have had mixed results. There was the occupation of Haiti, the Philippines, Panama, North America (well, it's successful, but, a lot of indigenous cultures were destroyed), the various Pacific Islands, Cuba, Nicaragua, and I'm sure some other places I just don't know (but whose current inhabitants probably *do* know about).

So, which is Iraq? Is it an emergent imperialist superpower like Japan and Germany were before WW2... (so much so that in the 1920s, Lenin predicted a conflict between the US, Germany and Japan)... or is it a relatively small nation with valuable natural and human resources ripe for exploitation, in a strategic location?

Like, duh.

So was Karl Marx. Just because someone writes big words, it doesn't mean that waht they're saying is clever. Marx appeals to young naive people because he offers a simplistic solution to life's problems - and a possibly lucrative future for the Vanguard of the Revolution.

Marx thought that if people acheived a truly equitable sharing of resources, the state would "wither away".

What an idiot.

And Lenin was an idiot for believing in it.

As one US soldier put it: 'There are 15 million Iraqis in Bagdhad and only 120,000 of us. If the Iraqis really didn't want us here, they could force us to leave."

The successful war on terrorism will continue. Kerry will lose so badly in November even Mondale and Dukakis will blush.

I don't like "Leninism" but Lenin was smart. His writing is lucid, and analysis is pretty clear. I've linked his book "Imperialism: The Highest State of Captialism". It's food for thought about the specific use of the word "imperialism" as well as imperialism itself.

Marx didn't really use too many big words, at least in translation. His writing was difficult for me, though, because he kept defining things in increasing detail. His earlier writings were a bit easier to read, mainly because he was younger and more romantic about things like human nature.

As for simplification, I think that capitalist economists are particularly guilty of simplification, saying the free market is the fairest system, when there's ample evidence that it creates social problems, and seems to increase war. They're especially guilty of excusing problems of the market (mainly the effects of poverty) on government intervention; that's a two-bit debate tactic for head-in-the-sand libertarian pissants on websites, not something upon which to base domestic policy.

Anyway Barney, don't dis the things you don't know. You only betray your own ignorance.

"As for simplification, I think that capitalist economists are particularly guilty of simplification, saying the free market is the fairest system, when there's ample evidence that it creates social problems, and seems to increase war."

>>> Have you ever pointed your high-falutin' analytical powers at your OWN beliefs? You should make an effort to illustrate the economic system you find superior to capitalism.

"They're especially guilty of excusing problems of the market (mainly the effects of poverty) on government intervention"

>>>> It's no secret that government is little better than a barely-reigned in mafia, which shovels money into a furnace while attempting to appear useful (which it is not 90% of the time). High taxation = less properity for those that earned the money. Is that so difficult to understand?

>>>> The free market never pretends to be perfect and it sure isn't fair. But it's been the most successful at bringing the greatest amount of wealth to the greatest number of people.

"that's a two-bit debate tactic for head-in-the-sand libertarian pissants on websites, not something upon which to base domestic policy."

>>>> NOW who's being overly simplistic? If government regulation is so wonderful and necessary, then why is it involuntary? How about letting businesses opt out of the racket and post big signs "This lawful business is otherwise unregulated by government." Let consumers decide if they want to eat at such a restaurant, or shop in such a store.

"Marx appeals to young naive people because he offers a simplistic solution to life's problems -..."

That would be ME, you moron.

The solution to life's problems is perpetual war.

He was also a mass-murdering bastard, just like all communists when they get into power.

when they get into power they are all murdering bastards.
Power corrupts and is another simian hold over from the era of grunts and chest beating. Pick your lice and ass elsewhere.

Have you just sparked up a joint?

I'm so sorry you are too stupid to figure it out. Here. I'll be kind.
Your pointing out one evil will never justify another. If that's still over your head, why don't you shut the fuck up, quit making a fool out of yourself and watch the pretty pictures.

Because he is STUUUUPID.

a true idiot: an idiot convinced. MARX and his garbage will never free the workers and trhere are 'chists pissed by the big lie enough to spend a long time making sure everyone knows.

MARXISTS. Pigs of slavery. what role does the worker play in your clas war? I KNOW: as fodder to make sure the military arm of your permanent revolution is paid for and is the fighting elite.

Bush and Blair both want the same One world Rule: and Blairs ties to the Socialist Blairites and their convenient "Christian" front and Bushe's family ties to the German Socialists and their infamous blood crimes: you're idiots and you don't want to liberate workers: you just want their energy for your cause. No Real marxist really believes in freedcom and see how many "big words" i need to tell about it?

there is real spirit of change in teh world and it is wise to the long historyof blood and mass murder, and brutal EMPIRE backed with the batons of cops. who were the dissidents in Russia who resisted Marxist brutality? Futile insane people?

so many people are on to your idiocy.

He is also a mass-murdering bastard, just like all fascists when they get into power.

"He is also a mass-murdering bastard, just like all fascists when they get into power."

You have no clue what real fascism is. stfu.

And If Bush is so stupid, how were you and Al Franken outwitted? Neither of you can fly a jet of has an MBA from Harvard. Neither of you is a funny comedian either.

"You have no clue what real fascism is. "

Unsubstantiated Allegation
For more on logic at YOUR level, try reading "Logic for Dummies."

I sure as hell do!

Unsubstantiated Allegation
For more on logic at YOUR level, try reading "Logic for Dummies."

for a robot, you're not really that bright.

try looking up 'Dummies for Liberals' when you get your head out of your ass. if you need further input, I have a size 13 steeltoe for you.

"There is no such thing as nuculur fallout." 7/04

Hey, guys. Apparently, some people spammed this thread to death, just like hundreds of others on this site. I call this sort of bullshit distraction-bombing; it is a way that people motivated by scorn undermine the efforts of those motivated by hope and concern for the well-being of others.

The basic method is to post snide, one or two-line messages that say nothing or next to nothing. There are a number of slightly more advanced strategies, like accusing people of being Marxists when they "dare" to use words like equality and justice. Marx, for those of you not trying to subvert progressive politics in the USA with disinformation smear-tactics, is not the only person to espouse equality and justice. Martin Luther King, Jr., was not a Marxist to my knowledge.

(See, at this point, a well-schooled distraction-bomber might say "of course MLK was a fucking commie just like you, you ignorant scum; George W. Bush knows that the world is run on REAL things, like MONEY, and OIL, not your pathetic, hopeless leftist ideals." Ring a bell?)

People who post this shit are not concerned with learning or communication; they just want to bring other people down to the most inane level possible. If everyone ends up playing into their insult-and-label game, their mission has been accomplished, so they move on to the next thread where people are actually sharing data and perspectives.

How do we avoid this? We don't. There are too many of them, and they are motivated by spite, which is a formidable driving force. On the other hand, they cannot undo what we do share and learn. As Gabriel Garcia Marquez admonished in 100 Years of Solitude, the dark side of our nature wins when we give in to "olvido," or forgetfulness. Take everything that you learn here, and cultivate it. The more you reflect, the more you exchange, the more you will grow and develop--unlike the individuals who have infested this forum with their predatory tactics.

I'm thinking about posting an article on the web that identifies this basic M.O., and gives ideas on how people can avoid these baiting games. Any suggestions

I have run into this kind of people in a number of forums. Based on the utter consistency of their M.O., I have come to suspect that some are paid employees of US Intelligence. My best guess for a strategy would be that the real moles invite a few individuals from conservative message boards to invade forums like this one. They find people who fit a certain psychological profile--say, disdain for progressives, a love of bickering for its own sake, and a natural gift for evading questions that have no good answer. After rallying the troops, the mole becomes a ringleader of the distraction-bombing, setting down a tailor-made style of undermining critical discourse in the targeted forum. They might hold private correspondence with the "trainees" from time to time, to encourage them and give them pointers along the way. For instance, if a would-be dissident tries to discuss Salvadorian Death squads in the 80's, the ringleader would recommend, "Call them a pathetic commie; it really pisses them off! See how stupid and weak they really are?"

Just a theory, folks... but think about it: a broad-based distraction campaign, which targets a number of centers for progressive discussion like this one, could impede the spread of facts that aren't available through the mass media news sources. It would also undermine consensus-building among those working to see the US government held accountable for humanitarian and democratic standards. Sounds like a shoo-in for counterintelligence funding. And on the Garcia-Marquez tip, let's not forget COINTELPRO.

Unless and until the editors get with the program and assist the general effort there will always be the newbees who are drawn ( like myself, I must shamefully admit) to counter the offensive hateful and simply Wrong ideas that are posted. It's human nature for caring people to get involved in a discussion to arrive at a consensus in the pursuit of truth and denounce lies.

They're so paranoid and self-absorbed that they actually think the internet is crawling with government employed paid toadys seeking to undermine their progressive agendas! Whenever some conservative minded individual comes along and calls them a commie, the shriek "government agent!" and if you point out how ridiculous that sounds they shriek "COINTELPRO! COINTELPRO!" Here's a newsflash Luscious: you're Marxist ideologies are not worth the government spending one red cent to debunk, and COINTELPRO was over before it started back in the 1960's. Now if you want to provide some solid proof that the web is crawling with Government cronies all out to get your highly deluded ass, then feel free. I could use some entertainment......

This is a common retort.
'You're too unimportant to matter' 'you're a paranoid' etc.
And of course you know from personal experience that the spooks don't spam this news wire. Sure bet.
The pattern is consistent.

And the government never lies or tries to disrupt counter culture movements.

Want to buy a nice bridge?

Still waiting for the proof. A certified deposition from an ex-newswire spook? An editorial from a creative investigative journalist uncovering the story? Anything?

COINTELPRO was more than 30 years ago! And it really wasn't very effective then! C'mon spoink, give me a morsel of proof. One teeny tiny iota of evidence! Or would the spooks simply silence you for doing so? Perhaps YOU are the spook? Yes, that must be it.......

We have a GROUP of military and ex military on this site (at least the ones who fess up to it) being a vet ( Infantry & USAF) myself, I suspect that these weasels were NEVER in a fire fight and feel like the arm chair heroes they are.

Now they want to fight on the keyboard, using their fat bellies for wrist rests and their shrunken shriveled egos to fuel their disdain.

So the nasty gubbmint agents are now just disgruntled soldiers, who having never fought in combat simply decided to pick on a bunch of progressive minded armchair politicians?

'So the nasty gubbmint agents are now just disgruntled soldiers, who having never fought in combat simply decided to pick on a bunch of progressive minded armchair politicians?'

Yup. And the usual group of racists, morons and general assholes they bring along with them. I feel that Lucius is right on the mark.
Spoink is correct, the pattern IS consistant.

Guessing games don't cut it. I feel like there's probably life on other planets too, but I have no proof. What do you hope to accomplish by claiming those who disagree with your politic are provacateurs? You marginalize yourselves and make your movements look foolish and paranoid. There's nothing productive about your assertions. It's counter-counter culture and it would lead me to believe that it's you that has the agenda. Are you a spook?

And he and I had many converastions. Counter intelligence has many faces.

Who did your dad work for? What type of work did he do? I'd seriously be interested in knowing more about it...

Silly man.

I was just curious. Apparently I'm naive about this cyber-espionage and internet subversion stuff, but it just seems far fetched to me. I just thought you might like to share some knowledge on it. My appologies for being nosy......

Click on the link to read more of my posts. I've never argued for more government or more taxes. I'm an anarchist.

My basic premise is that when business and state interests, we go to war. Big government is capitalism's best friend.

I suspect that these weasels were NEVER in a fire fight and feel like the arm chair heroes they are.

Disagreeing with politics or the role of the military is acceptable. It's disparaging ANY member of the Armed Forces for being or having been in that makes one a disgrace to the uniform.
Assuming you survived live combat, you were lucky, no more, no less; it sure doesn't make your opinions wise or more valid (as is evidenced daily).

Now they want to fight on the keyboard, using their fat bellies for wrist rests and their shrunken shriveled egos to fuel their disdain.

And you fall for it, taking the bait every time, which makes you the constant fool.

I suspect that these weasels were NEVER in a fire fight and feel like the arm chair heroes they are.

Disagreeing with politics or the role of the military is acceptable. It's disparaging ANY member of the Armed Forces for being or having been in that makes one a disgrace to the uniform.
Assuming you survived live combat, you were lucky, no more, no less; it sure doesn't make your opinions wise or more valid (as is evidenced daily).

Now they want to fight on the keyboard, using their fat bellies for wrist rests and their shrunken shriveled egos to fuel their disdain.

And you fall for it, taking the bait every time, which makes you the constant fool.

"He was also a mass-murdering bastard, just like all communists when they get into power."

Correction - nationalists, not communists. Acts of genocide occur when the State aligns itself with the idea of a racial, cultural, ethnic, or religious sense of nationalism.

Hitler = nationalist.
Pol Pot = nationalist.
Suharto = nationalist.
Saddam = nationalist.
Ataturk = nationalist.
Stalin = nationalist.
Mao = nationalist.
Il Duce = nationalist.

Since it's April, I guess I can use Kemal Ataturk, Father of Turkey, as an example. He modernized Turkey from a post-imperial Ottoman Empire Muslim nation into a "secular" state, with women's rights, a constitution, etc. However, he did it by first expelling Armenians and Greeks from within the borders of his new nation, and killing those who didn't escape.

Ataturk was a modern socialist, and vaguely respected in the West, but, he was also a nationalist practitioner of genocide.

Nationalism by itself, viscerally offensive as it is, isn't a big thing. We all want to belong to something larger than ourselves, and we all come from some kind of culture that fosters a sense of togetherness. But when nationalism becomes the State, you're asking for trouble.

Is that another legume?

They raided and convicted Sherman Austin. Isn't that enough proof? The kid didn't do a damn thing to anyone, and all he did was link to information on ANOTHER website that had explosives information that NOT ONLY was available at bookstores and on other sites... the information was couched in "don't do any real damage, just disrput people's heads" language.

They went after him because:

1) the FBI feel threatened by high school rebels networking to discuss politics

2) politicians are more afraid of dangerous looking kids, and so the cops know that by busting one or two, they can make brownnose points with their higher-ups

3) some judges like to beat on kids to keep the rest of us the people in line. It's mostly a symbolic victory for the "law and order" side; never mind that a social outsider gets abused and violated in the process.

COINTELPRO worked because of similar propaganda against groups like the Black Panthers. The BPP was active in starting things like breakfast programs for poor kids. (Yes, that school district breakfast program idea was invented by the BPP.) They also made headlines fighting for... get this... stop lights in poor neighborhoods with heavy traffic.

They also looked dangerous with their sunglasses and leather jackets, and appealed to outcasts looking for something better and disgruntled idealists. They sold their Red Books and had parties, but they also collected guns and ran boot camp trainings. That was the radical threat: that outsiders would learn to behave just like the insiders. That the BPP would learn how to lobby for civic services just like old ladies at church, and that they would develop personal discipline just like GIs.

So, the COINTELPRO discredited them to their natural allies: old ladies at the churches, and veterans with an interest in civil rights. COINTELPRO stole their mail, altered it to become extremely hateful, and sent it along. COINTELPRO wrote fake letters fomenting hatred between different groups.

It worked, because people are quick to screw up a "rival"s work. It worked because there was no room for genuine self-criticism in the movement, only attacks. It worked because regular people are a little afraid of weird activists.

But, with enough heart, bullshit like COINTELPRO can't win, because most people are more worried about authority/government/cops/guards/bigbusiness than they are about activists.

Cracked up:

It's called a hypothesis. There are specific examples of counterintel practices going on today (see link at bottom). I have not seen an article that says "FBI infiltrates LA Indymedia," or I would call it a theory. You are correct that there is are not the exact maneuver that I was describing, but a hypothesis is built on connecting facts and patterns of meaning. Since progressive communities have been infiltrated, there IS a precedent. Based on this, I suspect (but do not believe) that an independent, decidedly radical news forum could be a target of such an effort. It wouldn’t take much time from their busy schedules, and since people in this forum pick the handles as they go along, there is a guarantee of anonymity.

As to how I got the cockamamie idea in the first place, I honestly don't think that most of these distraction-bombers are intelligent or organized enough to launch such an effective assault on the free exchange of information.

I would furnish more examples to try and prove that COINTELPRO was not an isolated maneuver. The thing is, you seem to default to a "debunk the paranoid commie" stance, so I'm not eager to waste my time digging up links and articles that you probably wouldn't read anyway.

On a positive note, I was glad to see that a lot of what came back from my post was real discourse, as opposed to single-line petty insults that take up scroll-space on my computer screen. I am not saying that I only want to see one "leftist solidarity" consensus here. What I would love to see is people who have different points of view, and get a chance to put their views across directly. Instead, I see a lot of infantile attacks that seem to fill up these threads every time people start to communicate.

Either way, conspiracy or no conspiracy, there are people on this board who seem bent on undermining communication between people who come here to share actual information. This isn't just a base tactic; it speaks to the fact that they have no coherent opinions about the topic at hand. A lot of people--or just a few overzealous ones--spend most of their time baiting, and contribute next to nothing. Can you explain or justify this? I personally find it dishonorable and manipulative. Maybe you can find some glory in that, but I think it stems from the same "ends justify the means" mindset that justifies inequality, oppression, and war.

You seem to think people are bent on undermining your productive communication on this newswire. I think that is your imagination. I think those people that you feel are sabotaging your ability to share information have a political position in opposition to yours. I think they feel you are spreading propaganda. I think they are calling you out on it. I think they are laughing at you and making fun of you and heckling you. There's nothing more entertaining that watching someone tell you an obvious mouth full of lies while he's keeping a solemn face and these people know that.

So let's take a vote. Which is more likely: My hypothesis that people are coming here to rob you of your political platform out of sheer wit, or that the gubbimint pays spooks to undermine your sweeping revolutionary propaganda?

Yep, you guessed it. Chalk another one up for Occam.

and we then deal with the fact that all the trolls vanish for a few days
about once a month. And we seem to get a new crop of trolls.

Bozo's balloon.

The same old trolls post day in and day out around here:

Bush Admirer

Sheepdog

Myer London

Fresca

(George Bush Senior voice:) Read my lips. No new trolls.

'Cause I like it.

>>"I think those people that you feel are sabotaging your ability to share information have a political position in opposition to yours. I think they feel you are spreading propaganda. I think they are calling you out on it. I think they are laughing at you and making fun of you and heckling you."

Amazing...

I have to point out that your fourth statement contradicts the first three. Heckling is an inherently meaningless way of conversing, and it IS aimed at sabotaging anything of substance, in favor of getting a rise out of someone. This utilizes base emotions, not logic. Hecklers, by definition, have no position, much less a defensible argument.

OK, now let's assume that your first three statements are really your "case" in defending these distraction-bombers. Consider the following "well-thought-out political positions," which you seem to believe are a notch up from other people who use this forum to share information and analyze policy.
_______________
from Bush Admirer:
Snipped post:
>>"It would be nice if you'd move to some other country. You're such a complete ass that you're no longer welcome here... {sic} Wherever you choose to go, please get out of America soon you jerk."

Full posts:
>>"The three of you are engaging in mutual masturbation. You're kidding yourselves while pretending to get real satisfaction. "
>>" I'm sorry - I forgot to mention some of the major losers of the past 100 years and didn't mean to slight them.
Let us not forget the world's five dumbest men: Noam Chomsky, Ramsey Clark, Ralph Nader, Alan Dershowitz, and Dennis Kucinich.
They're too dumb to be forgotten."
>>{addressed}To the little lady above:
"What are you doing out of the kitchen?"

_________
Baphomet:
>>"Refute it Bush Fucker. You can't.

As usual, all you can do is mock. Some day the truth will sink in. I'd love to be there when your bull shit bubble pops and you end up sucking on an exhaust pipe. See you in hell."
_________
fallujah delenda est:
>>"sheepdork,
Mr. Rogers is dead. and that leaves no one to offer you marxian neo-hippies a hug, spoon or lollipop. "

______
"IMC"

>>We harass "progressive" websites because it gets exactly the type of reaction you gave. I'm glad you're angry.

Barney:
>>Have you just sparked up a joint?
___
Me:
I'm still waiting for a justification that amounts to more than "you are such deluded losers, so we deserve to have fun at the expense of your using this resource." As these posts illustrate, some people here mainly operate on disdainful assumptions like these, regurgitating the same old left-bashing catch phrases.

Oh yeah: I mean, "fuck you, you left-bashing fucker, take all your friends and stick your heads up EACH OTHER's asses for a change; maybe the change of smell would do you good."

See, I could expel that tripe if I wanted, and we could all dance in circles, which is exactly what some people using the forum want to achieve.

Who gives squirt? You can wait and wait and wait and wait for all I care. No one owes you an explanation you little pissant leftist trash. No one is compelled to provide your unstable deluded ass with any perfunctory intellections on why you can't even comprehend four independent, ordered, declarative statements. You're a buffoon and your opinions are a cyber punching bag for the rest of us to pound and smack about like Mike Tyson. I'll tell you what pissboy when you answer my original question as to where the proof is that this newswire is under attack by spooks, I might provide you with an ounce of substantive prose to sink you intellectual teeth into. Until then keep pissing in the wind......

Next time I'll use the novacain. Ha ha ha ha.

Cracked Up:

I did answer. I said that there was no proof. Moreover, I reminded you that I never claimed to have proof in the first place. My answer was that there is enough proof that such a thing could happen, and that a hypothesis is a way of talking about things like that.

Mostly, I was pointing out that some people on this board keep insinuating themselves into others' discussions with an intent of derailing communication (as opposed to participating in it). There doesn't have to be a conspiracy at any level of government; for all I care, it could be a right-wing veteran grassroots effort, as Sheepdog seems to believe. On this score, I AM making a concrete assertion, and I have more than enough "proof," as listed above.

OK, fair's fair: you occasionally make a valid observation. Your point that conspiracy "guessing games" can marginalize people of a certain political orientation was well taken, even though I technically didn't "claim" anything. You had a moment of lucidity and said something directly, without resorting to profanity or base insults. Congratulations. The problem is, you spend the rest of your time in telling people in this community that they are stupid, pathetic, "" ad nauseum.

You are trying to defend childish tactics of goading, belittling, and attacking people. With the way you carry on, I'd almost think that Socrates himself espoused these methods, then dubbed you the most intelligent debater on the Internet. In a discussion forum, these childish methods are indefensible, and the proof is that you keep evading my original question: "Can you justify them?" The fact that you find yourself in good company among the other baiters at LA IMC doesn't prove anything, it just reminds the rest of us that scorn is the most virulent social disease.

OK, I'm through running in circles. I haven't used the "ignore" function so far, but you have inspired me. I hope that your hostility keeps you warm at night.

I'm sure you'd have seen that there's no one here interested in seriously "debating" the issues.

You have two very small groups here: The leftists who are interested in patting each other on the backs for their mindless assertions, and the rest who are here laughing at them.

Take a look at some of the "Breaking News" on the front page:

Time Magazine Person of the year: the American soldier:

http://la.indymedia.org/news/2004/05/109497.php

5/15 Socialist Pres Candidate at UCLA

http://la.indymedia.org/news/2004/05/109480.php

'Fake' Iraqi photos remind Rush of Lincoln Center

http://la.indymedia.org/news/2004/05/109452.php

Photos of Iraqi women being raped by soldiers

http://la.indymedia.org/news/2004/05/109435.php


These are the kinds of intellectual topics your colleagues want to debate! Tell us all now about your "critical thinking skills" and your "open minds".......

(sigh)

One more time... call me a glutton for confrontation...

In case you hadn't noticed, I was talking about something else--a lack of content in what people discuss on the LA IMC forum. My critique includes everyone who just says "nice post" or "keep protesting, sister," then never comes back to the thread. My general feeling is, "just send them your kudos in an email." On the other hand, these gestures can remind you that even though a certain fact is not represented in the mass media, it is important to other people out there.

I noticed the weak attempt to salvage your credibility as a debater. Of course, you would want to preserve your sense of intellectual superiority. Here's the thing: if you had a point about any of the topics mentioned above, you should have said them directly, when the occasion arose. Instead, you have proudly proclaimed that you are not in this for the debate: you come to hob-nob with the merry pranksters who laugh at all of us morons and call us funny names.

You as much as confessed that you aren't here to pose arguments, logical or otherwise. Your real agenda here is really to "stick it to the leftists" with insults and ridicule. This statement detracts (just the tiniest bit) from the credibility of any point that you have EVER put across on the LA IMC forum!

D'oh--the gig is up!!! But the admins seem to believe in free speech, so if this sabotage mission really makes you happy, the doors are open. By the way, was this you?

>> "We harass "progressive" websites because it gets exactly the type of reaction you gave. I'm glad you're angry."

(my response at http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/09/85524_comment.php#107775)

I would also add that leftists--a word which means less to me each day, but I'll play your game for a moment--also participate in the shit-slinging on this board. Let's share the blame: some people with more conservative views post their thoughts here, and are met with jibes from would-be leftists who think that they are scoring one for the good guys. It's a vicious cycle.

The real "problem" here is people who try to discuss topics in a Platonist fashion (e.g., trying to learn, instead of just fucking someone over), until they are insulted and baited by someone like yourself. At this point they either sink to the baiter's level and start talking trash, try to reason with the person (a fool's game), or ignore the comment. The last option is usually best, but since hate-baiters travel in packs, they may just continue the insults amongst themselves.

The truth is, what assails this message forum is not a "conservative" issue. A lot of conservatives, much as they might think leftist politics are moronic, never resort to your kind of infantile derision. In fact, they believe that the best way to prove their superiority is to be eloquent, direct, and civil--winning because their beliefs and principles are sound, and not wasting time trying to get a rise out of their opponents. They are embarrassed by people like you, on behalf of conservatives everywhere who value fairness and decency.

Sorry to break it to you, but I have just torn apart your whole position on this matter. In case you haven't been paying attention, I just I called you out on an interpersonal ideology, not a sociopolitical one. I contrasted two kinds of people: those who disagree but can explain their rationale in plain English, and those who give themselves a pat on the back every time they attack, belittle and insult someone. You are one of the morons here, and I have used logic to show it instead of just finding a synonym for moron and tacking it onto a loaded political label.

Lastly, if your real passion is reveling in hostility, scorn and general discord, you would be much happier at a Satanist forum.

It's been less than a pleasure, "Cracked Up," AKA whoever. I'm through dealing with you--or anyone else with your predator's M.O., for that matter.

Chomsky: moronic? Try the bio.

http://www.san.beck.org/GPJ32-Chomsky.html

Mwa ha ha...

That's what you think. You will continue to deal with me as long as I say you must. Because I am the boss, and you are my dancing monkey. I will continue to type a few lines under this moniker, or under the next, and you will continue to harangue away. Saying nothing but blah blah, conspiracy, blah blah, spooks, and blah blah cogent dialogue, blah blah blah blah blah.

What exactly is your point? Can you make it without bloviating next time? My browser scroll bar is getting worn out.

As far as any viable points I've ever made on indymedia, I've not done so out of concern for their validity.

I still remember the very first post I made on indymedia, years past, and the responses came back "FASCIST!" and "NAZI!" and "SHOW US SOME MORE OF YOUR TWISTED VISAGE!"

and since that day, I've never seen anything on indymedia to lead me to the conclusion that you dupes should be taken seriously.

Now, tell me some more about how the spooks are manipulating this forum. Dance monkey. Dance! Dance!

Want me to do the Charleston?