Profile
Search
Register
Log in
RI antiwar group staged a protest at Obama's fundraiser
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > Hall of Fame

Author Message
Sage Francis
Self Fighteous


Joined: 30 Jun 2002
Posts: 21531
 Reply with quote  

Intrinsic wrote:
I was actually jumping on the anti-Obama bandwagon more than anything.


Acknowledged. And I thought you were going to leave with that right there. That's what you said. I think it's a stupid song. Cheap even. Not worthy of further discussion as far as I'm concerned.
Post Wed Oct 27, 2010 4:28 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Intrinsic



Joined: 01 May 2006
Posts: 210
 Reply with quote  

Sage Francis wrote:
I think it's a stupid song. Cheap even. Not worthy of further discussion as far as I'm concerned.


Acknowledged.

Maybe since you're not touring anymore you can get a gig writing for Pitchfork.
Post Wed Oct 27, 2010 5:17 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
xGasPricesx



Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 1505
 Reply with quote  

Intrinsic wrote:
Sage Francis wrote:
I think it's a stupid song. Cheap even. Not worthy of further discussion as far as I'm concerned.


Acknowledged.

Maybe since you're not touring anymore you can get a gig writing for Pitchfork.


I certainly can't speak for Sage here, but I think the problem with the song may be more that it just straight sucks than with the actual content of the song, which isn't necessarily great either. It's just executed really horribly though, it's like a really shitty Immortal Technique song (who isn't that good to begin with either). If you want to make some protest tunes, at the very least make sure they are enjoyable to listen to on some level.
Post Wed Oct 27, 2010 5:25 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
See Arrrgh



Joined: 08 Feb 2009
Posts: 251
Location: New England
 Reply with quote  

firefly wrote:
See Arrrgh wrote:
I've yet to see the mainstream media, or the majority of the public for that matter, talk about how we were wrong to go into Afghanistan.


You're missing the point but you're right, I made a mistake. The mainstream "left" media was saying that about Iraq and about Afghanistan they would divert the subject altogether by saying "Whether or not we should have gone in there is beside the point, we're in their now and we can't just "cut and run"." Which is a big steaming pile of dog shit. To divert the issue with a cop out like "well, we're in there now" is extremely manipulative and ignorant.

You never answered WHY we're there by the way. Any idea WHY we're there?


I fail to see what point I'm missing, unless you have more information than everyone else. If so, then please provide sources to the information so that I can become as informed as you seem to be. The popular opinion of the public has changed dramatically since 2002. There was strong support and strong opposition for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. As time has moved forward, there has been stronger opposition to the Iraq war, but no real determination on the views of the Afghanistan war. It's generally been accepted that there's something worth fighting for in Afghanistan, and that going into Iraq was a mistake of epic proportions. I'm not for the "we can't just 'cut and run'" schtick. I'm also not for allowing the Taliban and other fundamentalist groups to reclaim the region and return to their ways of bullying, abusing, and killing innocent people who attempt to oppose them. To think that the withdrawal of the allied forces from these regions won't result in any negative effect is to condemn innocent people to a fate that they shouldn't have to be faced with. Also, to think that EVERYONE in the ISAF and US military is part of the problem is a mistake based on broad generalizations that really aren't supported by any facts. We have reports being brought back from international news outlets, as well as documents released en masse to the public, that tell us of specific incidents that the ISAF and US forces have engaged in. We have stories that also tell us of the good that some of the members of these armed forces contribute to the region. So let's not generalize, all right?

As for "why we're there." No one knows for a fact. You can claim corporate war profiteering (which is part of it), and I can claim the Taliban (which is also part of it), but neither one of us has the exact one-and-only answer to that question. Hopefully you didn't put all of your hope onto that question being something of substance. My opinion, however, is that we went to war in Afghanistan to lend credibility to Bush's strong desire to invade Iraq for reasons I don't care to debate. The main point still remains that the Iraq war was a fiasco, but there is a complexity to the Afghanistan war that leaves too many questions that cannot be answered by simply demanding "Get out now!" That's the point I think everyone in this thread is missing.


firefly wrote:


Quote:

How long does it take before you guys really get the picture that REAL problems exist in the Middle East outside of the US and ISAF's presence?


Of course there are problems in the Middle East regardless of the US/Canadian/ETC occupation. Nobody is denying that. But A) That doesn't mean we should be there B) That doesn't mean that we're able to fix the problems and C) You're forgetting that the US (and Canada to a much smaller extent) has - for a long time - been behind the scenes in the middle east creating a lot of the problems, with their support of Israel, not to mention CREATING the Taliban.


Oddly enough, it seems like a lot of people are denying that, or at least ignoring that fact by pretending that "Get out now!" is the answer to any of the problems. Point (A) is irrelevant because we ARE there, and withdrawing isn't going to solve (B), (C), or the other infinite points that arise when discussions of the Afghan war take place. Specifically in regards to point (B), I'd have to say that fixing the problems are secondary to the other things currently going on in Afghanistan. The act of attempting to fix the many, many problems present in the region is part of foreign policy. That really doesn't have anything to do with the Taliban and other fundamentalist groups except for the fact that these groups formed the previous corrupt government, which is currently being replaced by a corrupt government formed of Karzai and his warlords. But will us leaving fix this? No. Will us staying fix it? There's no definite answer. As for your third point... Well. It seems like you're really misinformed. The US didn't create the Taliban. They funded the Taliban, and supplied them with weapons, but they most certainly did not create them. The Taliban, according to Captain Mainwaring in an official British report from around 1882, have existed as an idea, if not a definite group, since 1880. The main point of this report was carried by Robert Fisk in a speech in 2008. Let's not get melodramatic and pretend that the Taliban are a direct creation of the United States. Let's stick to facts, and the facts are that the US government supported and supplied the Taliban under the Reagan administration. But this information doesn't solve any of the problems either.

It seems like you're willing to trade one "evil" for another "evil" for the sake of claiming some sort of victory in recalling the Imperialists from the Middle East. But this doesn't help the people who were suffering before we arrived, who have been suffering during our presence, and who will suffer once we leave. My point, as has been highlighted a number of times now, is that our lack of knowledge points more to the fact that we can't just leave and expect anything to change. There, or in our military, or in the policies of those who run the government. My point, not to be redundant, is that ten years of screaming "End the wars!" have earned us nothing.


firefly wrote:


Quote:

Do we just pretend like these problems will go away if we just pick up and leave and let the Taliban and other fundamentalist groups reclaim the area? Is that the answer? Could their be other answers where we solve, or attempt to solve through our activism, more than just one problem


It's funny how differently people see things sometimes. My answer to your question is YES (minus the pretending part). A) There is nothing that the US can or is willing to do to fix the problems. B) I don't think that they actually WANT to fix the problems. Keeping this war alive is pumping BILLIONS of dollars to defence and construction contracts.

But let's not talk about what we think/believe. Look at the actions, the facts. Has the occupation made a positive impact? Have they been respectful of the people in Afghanistan? Are American corporations making huge profits off the war? Are the American citizens going gravely into debt because of these wars? Do I have to paint a clearer picture? Please try to have a critical eye here.

Perhaps there is something that we can do to prevent more chaos/killing after we leave but I don't think there is. This war is about MONEY and POWER, it has NEVER been about FIXING PROBLEMS or any form of benevolence. So why do you keep bringing that up?


I'd have to beg to differ. There is a lot that the US and the ISAF can do to positively impact the civilians in this region, as well as the region itself. It just seems like the people in charge have their heads up their asses and their hands outstretched, palms up, looking for the big bucks. Which goes back to my main point. Demanding to "End the war!" offers no real ideas, offers no real plans, and only makes it easier and easier for the people in charge to dismiss the "anti-war" movement as just another fringe group. If protesters and people looking for change offer NOTHING, then NOTHING is all they are going to get in return.

How can we only talk about the facts when it's painfully clear that we only know a portion of the truth, and that doesn't mean shit. The sooner this point gets picked up, the sooner real work can be made toward something of substance.

"Have they been respectful..." Who are the they you're talking about? Attempting to generalize all of the military for the actions of a fraction, and the policies of the rich? Tsk tsk. Are there no stories at all about the positive and negative effects of our presence over there? Are "they" (if we assume that "they" is a generalization of the entire ISAF and US force over there) only doing "bad" things? Do we ignore the good things just because there are also bad things happening? I'm not attempting to be naive, or ignorant, I'm merely attempting to be objective and accept the fact that what we know, and what we accept as fact, isn't the whole truth.

Are corporations profiting? Of course. Corporations are always profiting. Are the American citizens going gravely into debt because of the wars? There's no definite answer. I would have said we were gravely in debt long before Bush ever stepped into office. We, as a country, have been in debt since we broke away from the British. We've been above two trillion dollars in debt since around the 50s. I think trying to use this as some sort of example of why we shouldn't be in the war is ignoring the fact that we're wasting more money in a number of areas of our national budget. While I agree that the money alloted to the DoD could be used for other things, the amount of holes in the budget and the spending of the government lead me to believe that having this money elsewhere, without fixing these other problems at home, won't do any good. Which leads me back to my belief that without doing something about the lobbyists who buy our representatives, then no real change can be achieved.

I'd like for you to source your declarations that this war is only (as it seems you believe) about money and power. I could allow this statement to go unchallenged in regards to the Iraq war, but my lack of knowledge in regards to the Afghan war--as well as my belief that good can be achieved in a region plagued by so many bad things (some caused by us, some caused by the Taliban and other fundamentalist groups)--forces me to ask for proof (other than the hard leftist sources that tend to be cited with their obvious lean).

The reason I challenge these simple views is because I have such a critical eye. I don't just settle because someone is spoon-feeding me the news that I WANT to hear. I question that, ask for sources, look for facts, contrast that to whatever else I can find in regards to this topic, and attempt to find whatever truth that may exist. I never stop questioning the people who attempt to TELL me what the WHOLE truth is.


firefly wrote:


Quote:

And there's no way of comparing whether the Afghan civilians were better off before our arrival, or whether they'd be better off after we leave.


So how can you be so sure that our leaving will make things worse?


I don't know where I ever made it clear that my certainty was high in regards to the situation getting worse if we leave. More than likely, it won't get better. Perhaps that is a better phrasing than "More than likely, it'll get worse." Regardless, this does nothing to help the people who will actually be suffering regardless of whether we're there or not. All of this once again throws back to my main point--that if we continue to only demand one thing, instead of focusing our actions in a way that can truly bring real change, then nothing will improve for these people. If you're okay with just leaving them to whatever fates await them with the return of the Taliban and the other fundamentalist groups, then that's on you. However, I think, as the public, we can impact far greater change if we stop demanding the same tired bullshit we've demanded for TEN YEARS and start offering suggestions, or at least basic ideas, for the government to work with. If we could focus all of our efforts onto a more concentrated message that demands responsibility by our government, then perhaps we might get it? I'm a bit of an idealist in this regard, but democracy is what allows us to question the government to begin with (something A LOT of people in A LOT of countries aren't afforded by their own governments), so democracy is where we should turn. We need to use our voices to demand change, not immediate action.


firefly wrote:


Quote:

But when we leave, we've neither fixed any of the problems (over there, or in our own government/military), nor do we leave them in a safer position.


That was never the intention. Is that what you think the occupation was about? Benevolence? To help the people of Afghanistan? Where did you get this from?


Where did you get the assumption that I said the "occupation" was about benevolence? The war in Afghanistan, as I've stated, was to lend credibility to the war in Iraq. The fact that it DID lend credibility means that we went there with a little more purpose than just "corporate power" and "war profiteering." The Taliban are real. They really want us, as a society, to crumble and disappear. They hate everything we stand for. They suppress the people they rule over. They kill those who wish to oppose them. They're clearly, and unapologetically, against women and women's rights. Whether you wish to consider them "terrorists" or not is irrelevant. They do exist, and they've abused the civilians of this region for decades (at least). Regardless of WHY you think we went to war in Afghanistan (ignoring the war in Iraq, since it's been settled numerous times now that no one agrees with that war), we ARE there. Now that we are there, is there anything we can do to HELP? Again, my main point is that the answer to this question is not as simple as "Get out now!" or "End the war!" Which is why I don't agree with pushing this message as if it means anything but bullshit to shout and put on signs and t-shirts.
Post Wed Oct 27, 2010 8:28 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Jared Paul



Joined: 15 Jul 2002
Posts: 3720
Location: www.PrayersForAtheists.org
 Reply with quote  

The civil rights movements, the labor movements, the women's rights movements, and the anti-war movements of the past were all only about who could have the coolest slogan on a tee-shirt and bullshit to shout about. Gotcha.

Meanwhile, civilians in Afghanistan are being killed left and right, and you've directed us to the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan's website to showcase the evils of the Taliban- a website which clearly states that the women who run it want an end to the U.S. occupation and that the U.S. backed government is at least as bad, if not worse than the Taliban. Also clearly stating that the U.S. regularly kills civilians and pins the deaths on the Taliban.

We've got Predator drone strikes on villages, Bagram where Abu Ghraib like torture takes place, killings at checkpoints, and 10's of thousands of people displaced.

It's almost 10 years since we invaded. Nearly everything is worse. i don't think that we know better than the women of RAWA, or than the veterans of IVAW about what's going.

It seems like all the things you're worried about happening if we leave, have already happened, and are happening now as we speak...
Post Wed Oct 27, 2010 8:54 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
See Arrrgh



Joined: 08 Feb 2009
Posts: 251
Location: New England
 Reply with quote  

Jared. It's painfully clear by your continued posting that you definitely haven't been reading what I've been typing, and you definitely haven't been able to comprehend what you might have actually read. Your condescending tone doesn't help you either. I'll eventually respond in-depth to the off-topic subjects you keep trying to divert the conversation to, but that will be on my own time when I feel the desire to engage a partially-informed zealot who thinks he already knows everything.

I must, however, address two things at this time. Your declarations that I've contradicted myself aren't supported by facts. I'll cover this again when I get around to responding to more of what you've said. The other thing is that this is the second time you've declared that I wouldn't be saying any of this to your face. I'm not two-faced like you seem to be, so there's no evidence to justify this assumption. More to the point, however, is that I don't respect you as an intellectual or as an activist. I may get more in-depth with this point, but I think I've summed in up nicely.

Have a good day.
Post Thu Oct 28, 2010 8:28 am
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
crash



Joined: 07 Aug 2003
Posts: 5456
Location: the chocolate city with a marshmallow center and a graham cracker crust of corruption
 Reply with quote  

my 2 cents:

the taliban
the USA did not create the taliban. the taliban, as we know it today, was formed my mullah omar in 94. this is well after we abandoned afghanistan and left it to the ISI.

certainly, the US did fund the mujahideen during the 80s via the ISI. i don't doubt that the CIA knew that their money was funding fundamentalist militias (or "freedom fighters" as we liked to call them) - but that's about as far as our involvement goes.

the afghan resistance was radicalized by the unpopular secular policies and land reform of the native afghan communist government, the heavy handed soviet invasion, and salafists from the gulf (such as osama). they got funding from the ISI, USA, and mostly arab salafists organizations. training came from the ISI and possibly, to a lesser extent, the CIA. years later parts of the resistance formed the taliban.

if anything the taliban is the creation of the ISI. they want their people (pashtuns) in power in afghanistan. the CIA didn't really care who ran afghanistan as long as the soviets were out.


afghanistan
i'm really at a loss on what our actually policy should be. it feels hopeless in so many ways but abandoning afghanistan seems like a sure win for the taliban and safe haven for al-qaida and friends.

we're not there for the money. if that was the motivation we would have never bothered recommitting to afghanistan and we would have never left iraq. iraq has far more extractable resources and opportunities for contractors than afghanistan.

we're not there to protect afghan women from the taliban or for any other human rights issue.

we're there to prevent afghanistan from being used as a terrorist training camp. of course, that's not working out so well. the camps still exist and we have limited control over the country. i'm not even sure if things wouldn't be better if we just left. but it's why where there.


Last edited by crash on Thu Oct 28, 2010 9:20 am; edited 1 time in total
Post Thu Oct 28, 2010 9:10 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
jakethesnake
guy who cried about wrestling being real


Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 6290
Location: airstrip one
 Reply with quote  

Paging Dan Shay to the thread with the copper report.
Post Thu Oct 28, 2010 9:12 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
crash



Joined: 07 Aug 2003
Posts: 5456
Location: the chocolate city with a marshmallow center and a graham cracker crust of corruption
 Reply with quote  

or the pipeline - he likes that one too.

the US has economic interests all over the globe. you can always find some sort of resource or investment to pin our foreign policy to. money explains a lot of what we do, but it's rarely the only motivator. if afghanistan was about copper or gas pipelines we wouldn't have put it on the back burner for so long. we'd also have done a little bit more in the way of extracting that money in the last 9 years.
Post Thu Oct 28, 2010 9:24 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Reggie



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 5765
Location: Queens, NYC
 Reply with quote  

Jared Paul wrote:
Also:
See Arrrgh wrote:

The only hope we have is FIXING our own problems. Not withdrawing so we can hide those problems until the next time the military is deployed so we can pat ourselves on the back and pretend like 10+ years of shouting slogans and protesting has done anything. It's time to think about reality instead of thinking of ways to make people think we're wicked cool because we protest the government and the bad things they do. You protest without purpose. You protest to hear your own voice through the bullhorn. You protest with unclear messages that get muddled together with all of the other unclear messages so that none of these messages matter anymore. You realize people from the Queer Action of Rhode Island group who were there for your protests had absolutely no idea what you were protesting because you're now using slogans about "Obama's War." You're too worried about seeming like the smartest, hardest-fighting activist to realize you've marginalized yourself to be as easily dismissed as your average Tea Party-er. Congratulations. You've definitely accomplished something with 10 years of shouting the same tired slogans.


Wow. Absolutely wow.

I know you've got some personal interest in this, like you must have some conservative family members or folks in the service or something but that was some really low shit to write and I highly doubt you'd ever say it to my face.

QuARI has members who are also in the ISO/RIMC. We actually coordinated chants from both sides of the street and were in constant contact for almost the entire duration of the action, and have worked on multiple events together in the past.

This is the 3rd or 4th time you are caught blatantly contradicting yourself and talking completely out of your ass in the same thread.


Whether you know it or not, See Arrgh's description is precisely how you come across on the forum. Your stance seems to be "everything you have ever known or done has been incorrect," which is churlish, at best. Smug and corny at the worst. If you really want change, stop photographing yourself goose-stepping around Rhode Island with a poor representation of the Merry Pranksters, trade in your sleeveless SFR t-shirts for a suit, and address actual citizens in a respectful and coherent manner. I promise you that a pitiful few people could really care less whether or not you get arrested because your bullhorn was too loud.
Post Thu Oct 28, 2010 9:41 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Alan Hague



Joined: 05 Sep 2008
Posts: 621
Location: http://askthedead.bandcamp.com
 Reply with quote  

See Arrrgh wrote:
The popular opinion of the public has changed dramatically since 2002. There was strong support and strong opposition for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. As time has moved forward, there has been stronger opposition to the Iraq war, but no real determination on the views of the Afghanistan war.


http://www.pollingreport.com/afghan.htm

This features many different public opinion polls, including the Bloomberg National Poll, CBS polls, NBC polls, and Associated Press polls among many others. The clear trend, especially within recent years, is a turn toward opposition of the war and how it is being conducted.

See Arrrgh wrote:
As for "why we're there." No one knows for a fact. You can claim corporate war profiteering (which is part of it), and I can claim the Taliban (which is also part of it), but neither one of us has the exact one-and-only answer to that question.


True, no one knows for a fact, only in so far as nobody from the State Department has written an essay titled, "Why the U.S. is REALLY in Afghanistan." However, we can do our best to keep up with news on the situation and put 2 and 2 together.

Further, who says there is only one answer to the question of why we're there? It seems that there are several. Having Afghanistan as an ally would be extremely valuable to U.S. foreign/financial/geostrategic interests (and there are several reasons why in that category alone); therefore, making it safe for these interests is a must, which makes removing the Taliban from power an equally serious reason (albeit not for humanitarian concerns, which should be obvious).


See Arrrgh wrote:
But will us leaving fix this? No. Will us staying fix it? There's no definite answer.


I'd say exactly the opposite. The U.S. presence in Afghanistan has only fueled the insurgency, due not only to resentment based merely on our presence there, but also due to our support of the corrupt Karzai regime and our government's lack of reconstruction and development spending.

Here's a Washington Post article on Karl Eikenberry, the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, who stated all this very publicly last year during the debate surrounding sending more troops to Afghanistan (Eikenberry opposed a troop increase).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/11/AR2009111118432.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2009111201583


Something else to consider is the increasing scope of Pakistan's involvement in the war, particularly concerning Predator drone strikes, which is not helping to "win the hearts and minds" of the people of either Pakistan or Afghanistan:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/04/world/asia/04drones.html?_r=1

"A poll by Gallup Pakistan in the summer of 2008 found only 9 percent of Pakistanis in favor of the U.S. drone attacks and 67 percent against, with a majority ranking the United States as a greater threat to Pakistan than its archrival, India, or the Pakistani Taliban."

"More C.I.A. drone attacks have been conducted under President Obama than under President George W. Bush."

Now, I fully acknowledge that the Taliban are a bunch of backward fuckfaces who don't deserve any kind of leadership position. That being said, it's also becoming increasingly clear that the answer to your question of "Will us staying fix things?" is a resounding no.

So, what about if we leave? A large bi-partisan group of professors and foreign policy experts (the full list is here: http://www.afghanistanstudygroup.org/signatories-and-endorsements/) has formed the Afghanistan Study Group. They recently published a years-long study of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan (you can read their full report on their website: www.afghanistanstudygroup.org).

They discuss the potential impact of U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, which I paraphrase here:

"A Taliban victory is unlikely even if the United States reduces its military commitment. The Taliban is a rural insurgency rooted primarily in Afghanistan's Pashtun population, and its seizure of power in the 1990s was due to unusual circumstances that no longer exist and are unlikely to be repeated. Non-Pashtun Afghans now have ample experience with Taliban rule, and they are bound to resist any Taliban efforts to regain control in Kabul. Moreover, the US military presence has helped the Taliban rally its forces, meaning that the group may well fragment and suffer a loss of momentum in the face of a US drawdown. Surveys suggest that popular support for the Taliban among Afghans is in the single digits.

Even with significantly reduced troop levels, we can build a credible defense against a Taliban takeover through support for local security forces, strategic use of airpower, and deployment in key cities without committing ourselves to a costly and counterproductive COIN (counterinsurgency) campaign in the south. And if power-sharing and political inclusion is negotiated, the relevance of the Taliban as an alternative to Kabul is likely to decline."


Now, notice that the report is talking about a large-scale drawdown of forces, not complete withdrawal. However, the authors also insist on conducting negotiations with the Taliban, which are presently underway, and which would reduce the Taliban's impetus to maintain their insurgency.

However, at the same time, the report contradicts itself, since it describes how all our presence there is doing is to stoke the flames of the insurgency and help them rally new recruits to their cause. From this, we can only conclude that the better option IS to withdraw from Afghanistan and let the Taliban fall by the wayside.

A great commentary on the ASG can be found here: http://www.thenation.com/blog/154627/afghanistan-study-group-challenges-us-strategy-flawed-useful-report
Post Thu Oct 28, 2010 12:06 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Dr Sagacious



Joined: 01 Mar 2009
Posts: 1843
Location: Redford
 Reply with quote  

Intrinsic wrote:
Sage Francis wrote:
I think it's a stupid song. Cheap even. Not worthy of further discussion as far as I'm concerned.


Acknowledged.

Maybe since you're not touring anymore you can get a gig writing for Pitchfork.


I hope I'm not the only one that would like this. Haha.

Anyway, assuming you are using Pitchfork as a term that is synonymous with pretentious, how is Sage at all being pretentious?

The song is cheap, it is stupid, and it sucks. The dude is fucking garbage. How the fuck can he lead a song in with all our government's attempts to incite foreign government instability, and then bam, the song is about Obama. The first line is something about how the American dream is only real when you're dreaming. So what the fuck? That right there ruins the song. You can make the assumption that he's implying that Obama is to blame for everything that is happening in the world just with the first few lines. Dude is an idiot. He needs to take the Immortal Technique tape out of his stereo, and broaden his perspective.

Bin Laden didn't blow up the projects, it was you. Tell the truth. Intrinsic knocked down the towahz.
Post Thu Oct 28, 2010 12:27 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Jared Paul



Joined: 15 Jul 2002
Posts: 3720
Location: www.PrayersForAtheists.org
 Reply with quote  

Thanks, Reg, I'll keep all that in mind. If I'm wearing a suit in your fantasy, then shit, I guess it's time to hang up my hipster clothes and get serious.

I believe that War is a necessary feature of Capitalism. It is used to make money for billionaires who profit off the industries required to prepare for, wage, sustain, and rebuild after war. It is also used to divert public attention from market crashes and depressions, to rally the nationalist sentiment necessary to trick Americans into fighting , and to justify the ensuing invasions for profit, resources, and the maintenance of U.S. military dominance.

These are the reasons why we've gone to war or invaded a sovereign nation every 10 years or so for most of the last two centuries.
Post Thu Oct 28, 2010 12:54 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
crash



Joined: 07 Aug 2003
Posts: 5456
Location: the chocolate city with a marshmallow center and a graham cracker crust of corruption
 Reply with quote  

@alan - the problem is, the taliban don't need to take over afghanistan. they just need to establish unchallenged rule over their little sliver of pashtunstan. left undisturbed they will certainly provide sanctuary to al-qaida and other groups that wish to attack the US.

@jared - if war is a necessary element of capitalism, why aren't other capitalist countries in a constant state of war? the ussr was in a constant state of war for most of it's existence and it was a communist economy. i think the propensity for war has more to do with being a superpower and trying to maintain that position.

of course, the military industrial complex certainly helps things along. but it's not the only factor here.


Last edited by crash on Thu Oct 28, 2010 1:46 pm; edited 1 time in total
Post Thu Oct 28, 2010 12:54 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Intrinsic



Joined: 01 May 2006
Posts: 210
 Reply with quote  

Dr Sagacious wrote:
The song is cheap, it is stupid, and it sucks. The dude is fucking garbage. How the fuck can he lead a song in with all our government's attempts to incite foreign government instability, and then bam, the song is about Obama. The first line is something about how the American dream is only real when you're dreaming. So what the fuck? That right there ruins the song. You can make the assumption that he's implying that Obama is to blame for everything that is happening in the world just with the first few lines. Dude is an idiot. He needs to take the Immortal Technique tape out of his stereo, and broaden his perspective.

Bin Laden didn't blow up the projects, it was you. Tell the truth. Intrinsic knocked down the towahz.


I guess my media journalism line confused some heads. I could give a fuck less about Lowkey and his musical abilities. Just trying to spark a conversation that I guess nobody here was interested in having in the first place.

I had the audacity to hope, and my hopes soon plummeted like a commercial jet aiming for the Pentagon.
Post Thu Oct 28, 2010 1:03 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Tue Jul 29, 2014 3:14 am
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon