GOP memo touts NEW TERROR ATTACK

by **Gouda** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 4:35 am

“It is the job of thinking people, not to be on the side of the executioners.” - Albert Camus *** Christopher Isherwood, 1940, wrote the following in his diary: Am I afraid of being bombed? Of course. Everybody is. But within reason. I know I certainly wouldn't leave Los Angeles if the Japanese were to attack it tomorrow. No, it isn't that. . . . If I fear anything, I fear the atmosphere of the war, the power which it gives to all the things I hate – the newspapers, the politicians, the puritans, the scoutmasters, the middle-aged merciless spinsters. I fear the way I might behave, if I were exposed to this atmosphere. I shrink from the duty of opposition. I am afraid I should be reduced to a chattering enraged monkey, screaming back hate at their hate. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=gouda@rigorousintuition>Gouda</A> at: 11/12/05 1:39 am

by **Homeless Halo** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 4:51 am

as an advocate for many devils, I feel, on this occassion, my loyalty is with banned. Indeed, if these bastards are guilty of such crimes as they are suspected of, hanging would be the traditional solution. Pacifism is pretty and makes for pleasant rhetoric. Alas though, all the pacifist leaders were killed and their movements hijacked and led off-course by those who did not share their ideals. The PTB made MLK into a Martyr and gave him a holiday. They try to make sure no one remembers X. Why?

by **professorpan** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 5:14 am

HH, though I often agree with you, I don't buy into violence as a solution to any problem. Self-defense, sure, but beyond that, violence is a tool for the weak -- and a poor, ineffectual tool, at that. Let's say banned has his way -- there's another terrorist attack, and lo and behold, a popular uprising leads lawmakers off to the gallows. Heads roll. Blood runs in the streets. Welcome to the thrilling world of the executioner. Where do you stop with the purge? Lots of people make bad decisions, for all sorts of stupid reasons -- fear, lack of intelligence, love, money, pride. And so forth. How about anyone that worked at the Pentagon? What about the folks who tried to get the truth out about the cabal? Who judges who was guilty or complicit? How about the wife of the general -- she should have known better than to associate with such an evil bastard. His daughter? She could have fled the family. So you become executioner *and* judge? And so it goes... a new round of executions. More fear, more blood, more paranoia. More resistance, more death, and soon it's no different than Palestinians and Israelis killing each other because it's simply the thing to do. Can't buy it -- violent solutions never work. Yes, JFK, RFK, MLK, Malcolm, Gandhi, Lennon, and most likely Paul Wellstone all took a principled stand and the bastards snuffed them out. One question: Is it better to stand for humanitarian principles and preach love over hate -- or to give in, take up violence as your method, and live by shedding the blood of others? I know where my loyalties lie.

by **Gouda** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 5:18 am

Pacifism does not mean shrinking from justice. And I agree pacifism does not always fit the bill. But... Where's our creativity?! Hanging, execution etc...ho hum. Easy on them too. Death for the cause may be an honor for them. Can't you think of something more excruciatingly redeeming in terms of justice? Besides, how much of a deterrent has Nuremburg turned out to be? The process was the key: the public trial, the exposure, the documentation, the witness. The executions, cathartic they were, and they were for that time. It was right for that time - but the process was more important. But the larger point is that the means ARE the ends.

by **Homeless Halo** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 5:23 am

I wouldn't personally choose "hanging" if it were my decision. I'm not so nice. Probably I'd say castraste, lobotomize, hamstring, peel and salt the lot of them. After that they'd receive expert medical care and be shipped off to pick hemp for the new regime until their eventual death from exhaustion. But that's just me. Only those guilty of crimes uniquely punishable by death would be punished, those guilty of lesser crimes would be ruthlessly watched and many imprisoned. Those who were insane would be institutionalized. Those who were uninvolved would be unmolested. I see no flaws in this line of thinking other than some supposed "slippery slope" argument against any/all violence, which I believe to be unfounded, generally. There are established methods for proving guilt and complicity, when these aren't met, no punishment can be given. I am thinking of this in exactly the terms of self-defense as it would be in practice. It could be said, in response to the general polemic regarding ANY violence: Non-violence has no better a track record. (JFK wasn't a pacifist, having already begun violent conflict in vietnam and/or continued it, despite his rhetoric. don't buy the martyr hype, it isn't becoming)

by **boogie** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 7:35 am

"you might as well line up the deluded, divorced-from-reality people who are so busy watching reality tv they can't even bring themselves to vote." What do you propose to do with the people who choose not to vote because they believe that voting only empowers the system and people (look how quickly politicos are to call a victory a "mandate" to do whatever they want - the people be damned) that are causing/the cause of most of the problems in the US? Have you considered that it is not the people who don't vote, but the people that line up like sheep to vote and berate and belittle those that don't wish to "be heard" by casting one vote out of millions in elections that are never ever won by a single vote that are the bigger problem? Not voting is itself a valid choice, and far too many people think that anyone who chooses to not vote is doing so out of ignorance or stupidity, yet the same people will go vote because "everyone is doing it" etc etc By voting in this country people are essentially doing nothing but helping to enable the continuing existance of the flawed system and people that oppress them and impose laws and actions on them that are against their best interests. After all one vote (that might not even be counted) out of 10 million is noting but useless, and one more vote to continue with the flawed system. The least those people could do is to not act all superior like they are engaing in some noble act when they vote, and like anyone who doesnt vote (for whatever reason) is inferior.

by **rapt** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 12:56 pm

Public humiliation did nothing to stop Iran Contra perps from returning to positions of power and continuing their crime spree. One would hope that this time around they will be recognised as traitors and executed according to law. As was done at Nuremburg. If this makes you squeamish, how about comparing it to Falluja and hundreds of other murderous atrocities committed by the above-mentioned perps. They are all ducumented too, if not shared with you by the MSM. The perps list is long and includes much of the NYT mgmt and staff.

by **professorpan** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 2:05 pm

I just oppose violence as a means to an end. Period. Never works, never will, and it just perpetuates further violence when those who supported the executed seek their vengeance. And around and around it goes, more blood, more pain, more death. I find it rather suprising, in fact, that a number of voices on this board are calling for violent retribution. I thought the level of discourse -- not to mention the level of consciousness -- was higher than that of the freeper forums. Apparently, I'm quite wrong. And now rapt is calling for the execution of the NYT management and staff. Nice. Rapt made my point about the ever-widening spiral of victims of the executioner mentality -- why stop at the NYT? I'm sure you could ferret out the disloyalists at the Washington Post, the LA Times, and your local paper while you're at it. Do you guys realize you are saying the same fucking things as the freepers?

by **Qutb** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 2:25 pm

I'll just repeat the Professor's MLK quote: <blockquote>Quote:<hr> "Nonviolence is a powerful and just weapon, which cuts without wounding and ennobles the man who wields it. It is a sword that heals."<hr></blockquote> What's the violent solution anyway? Militias? Military coup by "patriotic" generals? Good luck with that.

by **Dreams End** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 2:27 pm

While I will at times side with the violent revolutionaries (the Zapatistas as a recent example) I think Pan is seeing something that is pretty important: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Do you guys realize you are saying the same fucking things as the freepers?<hr></blockquote> While one can argue for armed struggle, this idea of mass executions is, well, creepy. And it is the kind of post that, if picked up by bad guys, will be reposted all over the net with attacks on Jeff and his "followers." It is irresponsible and dangerous. And honestly, I think one shouldn't even make a case for armed struggle on this forum, for those who hold that view, simply to protect Jeff and our little "community" here. It is, in fact, illegal to advocate the armed overthrow of the U.S. government. That sort of speech, in my understanding, has never been constitutionally protected.

by **Gouda** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 4:20 pm

"There is no table at which to sit in dialogue with the government. We have to construct it...What the table has to achieve is to allow us to emerge with dignity, so that neither I nor anyone else has to go back and don all that military paraphernalia again. The challenge before us is to construct not only the table, but also our interlocutor. We need to make a statesman, not a marketing product designed by image consultants, out of him. It won’t be easy. War was easier. But in war much more becomes irremediable. In politics, remedies can always be found. We do not believe that the end justifies the means. Ultimately, we believe that the means are the end. We define our goal by the way we choose the means of struggling for it." Subcomandante Insurgente Marcos Zapatista Army of National Liberation, Chiapas, Mexico

by **manxkat** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 4:47 pm

I just came across this same Capitol Hill Blue article again at Online Journal -- with an interesting introduction and overview: <a href="http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_177.shtml" target="top">Bush forces planning new Pearl Harbors, new 9/11s, in face of mounting worldwide outrage and opposition</a> In the wake of political damage caused by looming scandals, plummeting popularity, continuing failure in Iraq, a still-unaddressed energy collapse and approaching shock (exacerbated and hastened by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita), and a major Republican election defeat, the desperate and hemorrhaging Bush administration and its network are resorting to murder, death, chaos and fear to restore their grip on power. The US-orchestrated 9/11 provided the “new Pearl Harbor” needed to shock a nation into submission, and into supporting (to use the infamous words of Zbigniew Brzezinski) “imperial mobilization” -- an endless “war on terrorism,” a sequential region-by-region conquests for oil, and a police state within the US. Now a November 10 report published by <a href="http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7639.shtml" target="top">Capitol Hill Blue</a> (reprinted below in its entirety) reveals that Bush/GOP operatives are contemplating how another “devastating attack” on US soil could do the trick for Bush again. Fabricated terrorism is an ancient classic method of social control. Post-9/11, every nation and community had had its own 9/11-type terror event at the precise moment a country’s ruling elite needed one to justify draconian measures to paralyze communities (and minds). From Spain (Madrid bombings) and Indonesia (Bali bombings), to London (the 7/7 bombings) and Lebanon (the <a href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=HAS20051025&articleId=1146" target="top">Rafik Harriri assassination</a>, blamed on Syria). Acts of pure terror carried out and facilitated by Anglo-American forces, as well as “real” terrorism by insurgencies and resistance (in response to criminal Anglo-American actions) continue to fuel a never-ending world war. In the past week, Jordan got its own Pearl Harbor, its own 9/11. The same questionable circumstances, <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-bombings10nov10,0,2022733.story?coll=la-home-headlines" target="top">anomalies</a>, and spin. The same <a href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=MIC20050611&articleId=201" target="top">Al-Qaeda/Zarqawi</a> attributions. The same Pavlovian reactions and backlash (“denunciations of ‘terrorists’”), followed by the same justifications for more militarization and aggression. That the mass murder of its own citizens, and its political rewards, are the subject of chat among US “lawmakers” merely confirms the deep criminality that is routine and systemic throughout Washington. It also adds to the evidence proving that Bush-Cheney neocons are not only fully complicit in the murders of 9/11, but maintain an ongoing interest in more Pearl Harbors and Operation Northwoods-style events, and new lies, when it serves them. As a potentially devastating winter approaches, promising more trouble for the Bush administration, the temptation for them to kill and blow things up becomes even greater. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=manxkat@rigorousintuition>manxkat</A> at: 11/12/05 1:48 pm

by **Gouda** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 5:04 pm

Similar to how I read it over at this topic's sister thread: <a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showMessage?topicID=1909.topic">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...1909.topic</a> But was the Capitol Hill Blue wording cleverly meant to be a rorschach, or was it just crappy writing? Larry Chin seems pretty pure positive we should interpret Capitol Hill Blue's report as more proof of planned terror. Not to doubt that's what it could be, (active rather than passive), but from the strange wording, I would not dash off something like what Chin has based on the Capitol Hill Blue article. He neglects to mention it ain't just a GOP thing. And the report is weak anon sourcing. Larry needs to chill.

by **john darmy** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 5:11 pm

Actually, one reason why JFK was killed was because he was in the process of WITHDRAWING all U.S. military advisers from Vietnam. Lyndon Johnson reversed that policy within days of JFK's assassination and started sending troops to Vietnam. However, there has long been a vicious disinformation conducted against JFK, no doubt directed by the CIA, to make him out to be just another war criminal. That is far from the truth. See "JFK and Vietnam" by John Newman.

by **banned** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 5:16 pm

...are moral relativists and they're not worth listening to/reading. If someone can't see a difference between Nazis murdering their opponents and the execution of the Nuremberg defendants who were the architects of those murders after trials in which they were given what their victims were not--a chance to present a defense (not that their victims had DONE anything to require defending, of course--unless you buy that the Nazi state had the right to criminalize being a Jew or a Gypsy.) BEWARE of those who muddy the waters and throw dust in your eyes so that you believe that you as a citizen of this country with its Constitution and system of law do not have a right to expect that those laws, used so effectively against the poor and minorities and dissidents, cannot be used AS THEY WERE INTENDED TO BE against those who conspire together against the interests of the United States and its citizens. Make no mistake: The neocons, the Bush cabal, are TRAITORS. They are not just folks who happen to have different political opinions. No one is suggesting hanging someone without a trial anyway, but more importantly, no one is suggesting hanging someone over a difference of opinion. *I* am suggesting that a deliberate conspiracy to fabricate intelligence and sell it to the American people to justify a war in which the lives of innocent Iraqis and of US soldiers are thrown away for NOTHING that benefits any but a small group of multimillionaires is what the Constitution had in mind as 'high crimes', and that there is absolutely NO similarity between BushCo/freepers/Saddam Hussein or any other bogus comparison that moral relativists (who are actual moral imbeciles) in the guise of advocates of peace try to foist off on you and the right of the citizens of this nation to try their elected and appointed officials UNDER THE LAW (including accepted principles of international law). These benevolent pacifists cloak themselves in nobility and in caring for human beings, but ask them where is the caring to allow the people who made decisions to torture the innocent at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo, to use white phosphorus and quite possibly napalm in Fallujah, to walk free and sleep on their expensive Egyptian cotton sheets every night while their victims are dead or suffering inhuman agonies in a burn unit or losing their reason? The professorpans of this world are wolves in sheep's clothing, asking you to blur the line between lying and murder and your righteous anger at those lies and murders AND YOUR RIGHT to bring the liars and murderers to account under the law and mete out on them the maximum penalty allowed by law to end their reign of terror. Violence may not solve the world's problems forever but it is naive in the extreme to believe ANYTHING can do that. All we can take responsibility for is seeing that JUSTICE IS DONE in our own time. Does anyone believe that the Germans and Japanese who were tried and executed after WWII should not have been, and that those executions interfered with peaceful governments being established in those countries in the postwar years? Of course not, because that is not what happened. Again: Tyrants interpret mercy as weakness and if you are merciful you WILL have to fight them again. If that's what you want, fine. It is not what I want, and I refuse to let professorpan's sophistry obscure the fact that that does not thereby reduce me to the level of a freeper, unless the prosecutors and judges who hanged the Nuremberg defendants and General Yamashita are on the level of freepers. What utter bosh. Now, executing people at the NYT--waste of a good box of bullets or some nice rope you could hang your laundry on. These are gutless yuppie narcissists who can be destroyed simply by no one reading their drivel. Make them get a real job, making beds in a nursing home or saying "Want fries with that?" at a window, for minimum wage. Make them buy their clothes at Goodwill not Prada and put Payless specials not Manolos on their feet and take away their favorite table at the new hip restaurant in SoHo. PFFFT. All gone. Save the rope for the next batch to go on trial (this time for war profiteering) after the politicians are gone: Halliburton, Enron, and oil company executives.

GOP memo touts NEW TERROR ATTACK

Re: Jeff's rules for posting

well

Killing

Re: well

well

not voting is a valid choice too

just to be practical about it...

It ain't squeamishness

Re: It ain't squeamishness

Re: It ain't squeamishness

Re: It ain't squeamishness

Re: GOP memo touts NEW TERROR ATTACK

Re: GOP memo touts NEW TERROR ATTACK

JFK's Vietnam policy

People who argue that 'it's all the same'...

Who is online