GOP memo touts NEW TERROR ATTACK

by **banned** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 5:22 pm

Wake up, OK? I'm sick of the self censorship which amounts to colluding with the other side. "Oooh we musn't say that or they'll use it against us!" THEY ARE ALREADY USING EVERYTHING YOU SAY no matter how 'politely' and 'inoffensively' you put it against you. They are also putting words in your mouth even if you say NOTHING. What kind of reasoning is behind claiming that people who are vicious, ruthless and conscienceless, torturers and murderers and religious lunatics (like that frothing-mad Robertson threatening Dover PA with divine retribution), can be dealt with if we're just... NICE? I don't think wussy nuts who slap tape over their own mouths in the face of atrocities are on MY side. I think they...YOU, and the people like you on every blog saying "OOhhh don't say that it makes us LOOK BAD"...are on the OTHER SIDE. Just as surely as if someone broke into your home and began to cut your child into sushi and you told your spouse not to scream because it might MAKE THEM MAD. Why don't you just apologize, when someone is slitting your throat, for bleeding on their shoes? Defeatists and Quislings and Vichified wimps--you oughta be on the Democratic side of the aisle in Congress. You'd fit right in.

by **michael meiring** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 5:33 pm

to be PC, i do not support violence to achieve any aim. Now name me one non violent movement that ever achieved anything? and dont quote me that gandi official bullshit thing, thats a worse cover up than 9/11.

by **banned** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 5:39 pm

Nice quote from Camus. Unfortunately what Camus SAID was that we do not want to be on the side EITHER of the victims or the executioners. And what he meant by 'executioner' was not execution for treason and crimes under international law. If you've read more Camus than a couple of quotes on an Internet quotations page you know that he was AGAINST TYRANNY. And if you don't think BushCo is a tyranny, excuse me while I go talk to my cat about quantum mechanics because it would be more rewarding than talking politics with you, you DO NOT GET IT. Here is a more complete quote from Camus. It will only make sense if you “GET” that what he means by MURDERERS is BUSHCO not any war crimes tribunal that would call BUSHCO to account. “All I ask is that, in the midst of a murderous world, we agree to reflect on murder and to make a choice. After that, we can distinguish those who accept the consequences of being murderers themselves or the accomplices of murderers, and those who refuse to do so with all their force and being. Since this terrible dividing line does actually exist, it will be a gain if it be clearly marked. ~Albert Camus, NEITHER VICTIMS NOR EXECUTIONERS” And if you don’t think that domestic and international laws preventing our government from KILLING PEOPLE without a shred of justification constitutes murder were intended to be enforced, what the hell do you think those laws were put on the books for? I know the difference between murderers and duly convicted war criminals and I would be happy to tie the nooses or signal the firing squad that ended the reign of terror of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. If that makes me no better than they are then every soldier who fired a shot against the Nazis was no better than the Nazis. And that is BOLLOCKS.

by **Homeless Halo** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 7:36 pm

Indeed, in "the Rebel" by Camus are several defenses of armed insurrections as well as critiques of both these and non-violent revolutionary ideals. Several declassified (via FOIA) NSA documents indicate a pre-election buildup by the Kennedy administration on the understanding that he wasn't going to launch it until AFTER the election. I'm fairly certain his assassination had more to do with his ties to the Cuban communists and/or his derailing of that war plan, than anything to do with Vietnam, wherein our interests were deep for many years before he took office. I am of the opinion that the "martyr" syndrome is a side effect of assassination, as it makes one quickly forget almost all reality as relates to the "fallen king". The Kennedy family is AS deep in this nonsense as the Bushes are, and would be our resident fascist lords if the infighting hadn't decimated them. You are naive/uninformed if you think otherwise. I think "pacifism" on the other hand, generally plays right into the strategy. No one bothers to break up non-violent protestors anymore, because they have no effect on reality. They plan on you doing nothing. It makes it far easier for them to do whatever they choose when the "good" are willing to simply wait and employ "passive" "resistance". The question remains, when did non-violence EVER work as a para-politcal approach to countering violence?

by **glubglubglub** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 9:49 pm

Here's the take from a politico friend of mine vis-a-vis this memo: i) (some of the more moderate) Republicans in general are testing the waters on distancing themselves from Bush, b/c politically he's seen as an increasing liability ii) it's bad political juju for Bush et. al. if this split in the R's gets more play, ergo Bush et. al. would like to prevent it from happening and thus: iii) IF such a memo is going around, its point is more likely a message to the moderate Rs: 'should any of these things happening, including a terrorist attack, rally around the president! Do not, repeat do not, use such an incident to further your own political career by criticizing his leadership'....ie, it's a warning to the rank and file not to try seizing such a political opportunity. --- The friend is pretty much as aconspiratorial as you can get but that's his take on such a memo for what it's worth -- he's usually good at interpreting such things thanks to having worked within the beltway for a while. Not going to wade into the detour this thread has taken... <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif ALT=":lol">

by **rapt** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 10:28 pm

Sorry Glub - it sounds like desperation to me. Sounds like, "Don't you dare question our idiot-in-chief" - - "you are locked in with the crew and you must go down with the ship. If you can't keep her afloat." If I were one of those fools who had followed the repugs and assisted and lied to support the cause....I'd be looking for a lifeboat right about now. It is obvious that many of them are doing so. You know the age-old saw: Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Sorry for those partisan criminals who thought the dub or the party was going to save them come what may. Perhaps they should have considered what would happen when the house of cards collapsed. Now it is obviously every man for himself. May their God save them, because the party cannot.

by **glubglubglub** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 10:48 pm

it's just that the real 'meaning' of the memo is a warning to keep the base on message...because memos tend to leak, etc., they can't directly ask party members 'don't abandon us in our time of need' so they have to do it in ways like this -- ie, beating around the bush -- and that's the secondary 'meaning' the friend took from it.

by **Rigorous Intuition** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 10:57 pm

Wielding your new consciousness wisely is another. For starters, I'd say that means not counselling the murder of those who can easily smash virtual printing presses that may be the means to awaken others.

by **rappt** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 10:59 pm

Would you stick around if you were a party member glub? I wouldn't. Even if I was stupid enough to be one in the first place, I'd wise up and abandon abandon abandon. For my life.

by **Homeless Halo** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 11:26 pm

While I appreciate the scruples of those here, and truly, I empathize with those who might fear retribution, no crime has been committed in discussing the ramifications of criminal activities. No more so than if one were to advocate stiff penalties for any other crime. I have seen no evidence of "plotting" against any actual institutions/beauracracies/governments/etc here. I have seen discussion as to the appropriate punishment/solution/safeguards for very abhorrent crimes. You should be careful not to confuse "murder" with "lawful punishment" even in the cases that offend your pacifist sensibilities. Last time I checked "high treason" (among other things, like first degree murder, war profiteering, crimes against humanity, etc) was still a crime punishable by death (usually hanging here) in this, and most other countries, and is therefore lawful to discuss in this context. I find it offensive, personally, that discussion of the appropriate penalty for such horrific crimes should be equated with those crimes they are "punishment" for. This is irresponsible. Personally, I tend to think of it not in terms of "punishment" but in terms of deterrence. In America, there is even a modern precedent allowing for "pre-emptive" measures to be taken against those even suspected of such crimes, such that, in theory, there is almost nothing that would be "illegal" to discuss as rhetoric, etc. What would you prefer be done? That we wait until the PTB decide to punish themselves? How long will that be? How many will die before then? You may be satisfied with discussing this with other members of the "Choir" in hopes that someday someone with power will do something about it. Maybe Jesus. Not everyone is so comfortable with waiting and watching their loved ones die. (gatekeepers)

by **manxkat** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 11:58 pm

This O'Reilly stance just seems to fall into the same category as the alleged GOP memo from the Capitol Hill Blue article, although obviously under the guise of "Al Qaeda." Outrageous. What scares me is how the extreme right is so incredibly overt nowadays, more than ever it would appear. I worry about them striking out like <a href="http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2005/11/warning-to-democrats-beware-of-large.html" target="top">cornered weasels</a>. <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/12/oreilly-responds/" target="top">O’Reilly Responds: “What I Said Isn’t Controversial. What I Said Needed to Be Said.”</a> Appearing yesterday on a conservative San Francisco radio show, Bill O’Reilly offered his first public comments since being criticized for saying he would <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200511100008" target="top">approve of an al Qaeda terrorist attack on the California city</a>.

by **rapt** » Sun Nov 13, 2005 12:31 am

Manxkat, I am glad to have that news delivered. But to me mentioning it is equivalent to confirmation/acknowlegement of the scumbag himself. He is happy to have his name and his masturbation aired on RI or anywhere else, so I'd say don't do it. Ignore the MF. That is the thing he DOESN'T want.

by **banned** » Sun Nov 13, 2005 2:07 am

...but if what you are saying is that Bill O'Reilly can say it's OK for Al Qaeda to attack San Francisco (which is 35 miles from my home and I have friends there) and Pat Robertson can tell an entire town God hates it, but *I* have to "watch what I say" in the immortal words of Ari Fleischer so that the people who really control the Net don't take it away from us, then all I can say is, we need to let the Net go. If the only thing you have to propagate freedom is owned by someone else and speaking freely is forbidden, you are in some sad shape. Freedom that is given is freedom that can be revoked, and my friend, it isn't freedom at all. It's slavery on a long leash that can in one instant turn into a choke chain. If you want to delude yourself that's not true, fine, but don't ask me not to call what you're doing deluding yourself and not to call you a house nigger (a quote from Harry Belafonte about Colin Powell--please, no red herrings about my being racist.) A. J. Liebling said "Freedom of the Press is guaranteed only to those who own one" and that is as true in the pixel era as it was in the days of hot type.

by **professorpan** » Sun Nov 13, 2005 4:23 am

Justice can be served out without killing the convicted. That's why most civil and sane countries (not the U.S.) have abolished the death penalty. Practicing and advocating nonviolence is not moral relativism. Saying some people deserve to die because of x, y, or z is moral relativism. Killing of other human beings, for any reason other than self-defense, is murder. And if you advocate the murder of other human beings -- based upon your criteria of guilt -- realize that others, with different ideas of what constitutes a death penalty offense -- might decide *you* are guilty and deserve to die. To the hardcore freepers, anyone who criticizes the Bush Cult deserves to be hanged -- that includes virtually everyone who posts here. That's the major problem with legitimizing violence -- if you can kill, so can they. I take such talk seriously. I've been politically active for most of my life. Because of my stance against the wars of the Bushes, I've been threatened with physical violence, attacked by a gang of Bush brownshirts, and driven off the road and nearly into a ditch. When we start acting like them, we are no better than them.

by **professorpan** » Sun Nov 13, 2005 4:41 am

It's Jeff's forum, and his rule number one prohibits advocating violence. He's not denying anyone's freedom -- he owns this place, and he can prohibit the mentioning of strawberry ice cream if he wants to.

GOP memo touts NEW TERROR ATTACK

Oh, and Dream's End?

non violence

Oh, and Gouda?

Camus

late to the party it looks like

glub's politico friend and "the" memo

oh I'm sure it's desperation

Waking up is one thing.

desperation

re: off topic

O'Reilly approves of an Al Qaeda attack on San Francisco

O'Reilly

Jeff, I usually agree with you...

The difference between justice and murder

Jeff's rules

Who is online