U.S. Bombing Raids Kill United Nations Anti-mine Workers

well, we just can't do it. We have about 10% of the population of the U$ with us. And 99% of them are only for nonviolent action. That's not enough people to riot anything except a riot stick on your skull.

So its education, education, education. Sounds boring, but thats the best we can do now. The majority of the population is pro-empire and relentlessly right wing.
But we have to do our job here to split off who we can.
Major opposition to the repression of the empire will slowly grow in the Third World. We can help them best by keeping to our educational role. To attack the empire where it is strongest with woefully inadequate forces is a recipe for failure. Educate, organize, wait.

I don't believe it's true that the population is "relentlessly rightwing". It's obvious that the government and the media have, thus far, been able to turn shock and anger into support for war. But according to polls, for what they're worth, when people are asked whether they support a military campaign that includes civilian casualties, the support drops precipitously. Any radical worth his/her salt knows there will be such casualties. What needs to be shown is how patently phony this "war on terror" is; this entails breaking down the history of US policy in the Mid East and the ulterior expansionist motives that will become more apparent, as well as how the US and other capitalist regimes have used Islamists as their own private shock-troops, and discuss the corporate interests that fuel US policy in the region and world-wide. I believe rads are strongest when we draw parallels to conditions here in the US, pointing particularly to how this "war" is and will be used as a pretext for bail-outs to big business, and intensified take-backs from working class and poor people. Support for this war is a mile wide and only a few inches deep, and the economy is going down the toilet -- this, frankly, could help our side.

I don't believe it's true that the population is "relentlessly rightwing". It's obvious that the government and the media have, thus far, been able to turn shock and anger into support for war. But according to polls, for what they're worth, when people are asked whether they support a military campaign that includes civilian casualties, the support drops precipitously. Any radical worth his/her salt knows there will be such casualties. What needs to be shown is how patently phony this "war on terror" is; this entails breaking down the history of US policy in the Mid East and the ulterior expansionist motives that will become more apparent, as well as how the US and other capitalist regimes have used Islamists as their own private shock-troops, and discuss the corporate interests that fuel US policy in the region and world-wide. I believe rads are strongest when we draw parallels to conditions here in the US, pointing particularly to how this "war" is and will be used as a pretext for bail-outs to big business, and intensified take-backs from working class and poor people. Support for this war is a mile wide and only a few inches deep, and the economy is going down the toilet -- this, frankly, could help our side.

Peace riots - hmmm... All we are saying is give peace a chance or I'll kick your fucking head in? Brilliant prose - can you come babysit my kids while I attend my "Club a Baby Harp Seal to Save the Children and end Toe Fungus" rally?

Idiot

4 UN Workers died...and you freak out like some naive child!

I got news for you, many more people will die (including Americans many of our brothers and sisters who are fighting for our freedom).

If YOU WANT PEACE, I suggest you lie down in front of the Taliban in Afghanistan and beg THEM for peace. Don't blame the US for those deaths.

This is what Pacifism is really about:

Pacifists are not serious people, although they devoutly believe they are, and their arguments are not being taken seriously at the moment. Yet, it is worth taking seriously, and in advance of need, the pacifists and their appeal.

IT IS WORTH IT, first of all, because the idea of peace is inherently attractive; and the more war there is, the more attractive the idea becomes. It is worth it, secondly, because the reactionary left-liberal crowd in America and in Europe has already staked out its ground here: What happened to America is America’s fault, the fruits of foolish arrogance and greedy imperialism, racism, colonialism, etc., etc.

From this rises an argument that the resulting war is also an exercise in arrogance and imperialism, etc., and not deserving of support. This argument will be made with greater fearlessness as the first memories of the 7,000 murdered recede. It is worth it, thirdly, because the American foreign policy establishment has all the heart for war of a titmouse, and not one of your braver titmice. The first faint, let-us-be-reasonable bleats can even now be heard: Yes, we must do something, but is an escalation of aggression really the right thing? Mightn’t it just make matters ever so much worse?

A HIGHER MORALITY?

Pacifists see themselves as obviously on the side of a higher morality, and there is a surface appeal to this notion, even for those who dismiss pacifism as hopelessly naive. The pacifists’ argument is rooted entirely in this appeal: Two wrongs don’t make a right; violence only begets more violence.

There can be truth in the pacifists’ claim to the moral high ground, notably in the case of a war that is waged for manifestly evil purposes. So, for instance, a German citizen who declined to fight for the Nazi cause could be seen (although not likely by his family and friends) as occupying the moral position. But in the situation where one’s nation has been attacked — a situation such as we are now in — pacifism is, inescapably and profoundly, immoral. Indeed, in the case of this specific situation, pacifism is on the side of the murderers, and it is on the side of letting them murder again.

CHOOSE SIDES
In 1942, George Orwell wrote, in Partisan Review, this of Great Britain’s pacifists:

“Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, ‘he that is not with me is against me.’ ”

England’s pacifists howled, but Orwell’s logic was implacable. The Nazis wished the British to not fight. If the British did not fight, the Nazis would conquer Britain. The British pacifists also wished the British to not fight. The British pacifists, therefore, were on the side of a Nazi victory over Britain. They were objectively pro-Fascist.
An essentially identical logic obtains now. Organized terrorist groups have attacked America. These groups wish the Americans to not fight. The American pacifists wish the Americans to not fight. If the Americans do not fight, the terrorists will attack America again. And now we know such attacks can kill many thousands of Americans. The American pacifists, therefore, are on the side of future mass murders of Americans. They are objectively pro-terrorist.

EVIL IN INACTION

American pacifists are on the side of future mass murders of Americans. They are objectively pro-terrorist.

There is no way out of this reasoning. No honest person can pretend that the groups that attacked America will, if let alone, not attack again. Nor can any honest person say that this next attack is not at least reasonably likely to kill thousands upon thousands of innocent people. To not fight in this instance is to let the attackers live to attack and murder again; to be a pacifist in this instance is to accept and, in practice, support this outcome.

As President Bush said of nations: a war has been declared; you are either on one side or another. You are either for doing what is necessary to capture or kill those who control and fund and harbor the terrorists, or you are for not doing this. If you are for not doing this, you are for allowing the terrorists to continue their attacks on America. You are saying, in fact: I believe that it is better to allow more Americans — perhaps a great many more — to be murdered than to capture or kill the murderers.

That is the pacifists’ position, and it is evil.

:my comments:
:THIS FUCKING SHIT BETTER STOP NOW, THESE PEACE
:RALLIES :NEED TO TURN INTO PEACE RIOTS, WE SHOULD TEAR :THIS FUCKING COUNTRY APART UNTIL WE :STOP :KILLING:INNOCENT PEOPLE. THE WAR AND MADNESS IS :DRIVING ME CRAZY.
--------------------------------------------------------


You are just as bad as the terrorists you seek to protect. Tear your own country apart, because of "injustice" you perceive?

Do you people really see yourselves as being the only intelligent, the only truly "free" thinkers in this country?

I am a liberal on most all issues. I agree with most of what is said about US foreign policy needing change. I do NOT agree however, with trying to negotioate or capitulate to the terrorists, and the oppressive governments that support them. 1st and foremost, our government is bound to take any and all steps neccessary to defend its people. Our hand was forced on September 11th. These fundamentalists are incapable of reasoning with the western world anyways. They are not going to reason with us, they are not going to stop commiting these atrocities, as a matter of fact they won't stop that until they have destroyed America, which by the sounds of it, you wouldn't mind.

I've never read of large scale protests by "students" during WWII, when we leveled Dresden and Berlin (Though to be fair, there was outrage at the atomic weapons detonated in Japan, with good reason). We did what was required to defeat a great evil. The Taliban and the al-Queda are no different. As a matter of fact if you had any insight into what Nazi Germany was like and any real idea of what is going on in Afghanistan, you could draw some startling links between the Third Reich and the Taliban rule in Afghanistan. I'm not for targeting innocent people, but it must be recognized that innocent people can and will die during this conflict. Several thousand Americans already have.

Pro military types? Pro military types are the reason you're not sitting here speaking Russian or Chinese to us all. You see, there's this fucked up thing called MANKIND. And mankind, whether you like it or not, is made up of all sorts of people.

Unfortunately when certain types of men get into groups, they like to take over weaker groups of men. They like to control them. Human history has proven this over and over again. It really doesn't matter what the US does about it, it will continue to happen.

So you see, if our country was to reduce the size of it's military to that of say, Liechenstein, we would be taken over by a country that had more power than us. So, in order to protect the freedom that you obviously excercise to it's fullest extent, we have to maintain a strong military. Cause if we don't, someone else will, and I don't think we'd much care for the alternatives out there right now. I haven't agreed with our involvement in alot of conflicts in the past century, but this one I most certainly do. We have no real choice as to our immediate actions.

I really don't find this site to be "independant" at all.. It's the liberal version of "news" sites (such as newsmax) promoted by the ilk of Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage. If you people want some real "independant" news, I suggest you look elsewhere.

For someone who sides liberal on so many issues, it's disheartening to see the total lack of common sense displayed by people on the far left during this crisis.

To the person who says "we should tear this country apart" - Feel free to contact me, and I'll provide you with a one way ticket to Iran, Libya, Syria, or any other nation who would see us destroyed. You'll find more of your own there. I'm sure you'll fit right in.

Ah, this will soon be a mantra: "our hand was forced, don't give into terrorists!"

Here's a fucking clue: the current movement is not PACIFIST. Most people wouldnt take human life, but we are not against destroying this sick system of capitalism that you all are so gungho for. Everyday that we sit here and listen to your stupid rationalizations for bombing innocent people, thousands are being killed and beaten so that you can buy clothes at the Gap. GET IT?

So, this is how you would feel if your mother was killed on a humanitarian mission by "targeted bombing" carried out by the U.S.?

All of you who are so "shocked" by this violence must come to terms with ONE thing: You care about American lives more than other lives. This is the worst form of nationalism. Where is your outrage about the children dying in Iraq because of the US government? Where is your outrage about US-supported death squads? ETC.

Just go back to your self-righteous world of primetime television and forget about the DAILY VIOLENCE going on that is either supported or directly initiated by YOUR government, YOUR tax dollars.

And quit saying that you care about 6000 lives. What you care about are the AMERICAN lives taken. You could give a fuck about anything else going on in the world. Drop more bombs, you fucking brainwashed patriot nationalist pigs.

So, if Bin Laden and his extremist followers came in front of you tomorrow, and said: "your life or mine", which would you choose???

I'm dying to hear it. Would you lie down and die for him to live? Because I got a newsflash: he ain't lying down for you!

Sorry, but there is such a thing as survival and freedom. And, you actually have to shed blood to protect those things. SORRY!!!

Let me rephrase the question so it is more appropriate, and then have you answer:

Osama bin Laden and George Bush give you a handgun. They tell you to shoot one of the two people in front of you. One person is a janitor who works at the World Trade Center. The other person is a woman who was born and raised in Kabul.

Which one do you shoot?

My point is that you are positing a false dichotomy. How many innocent Iraqis have died and Saddam Hussein is still one of the richest people in that country?

"Stick your flag up your goddamn ass you skinhead creep"-Propaghandi

Again, I try and bring some sense in here, try to create dialog, and all I get in return is a few posts ASSUMING I buy clothes at the Gap and I am happy with corporate domination of our country. They ASSUME I am a bigot, and they ASSUME that I support killing innocent people. Most of the people here see the world in black and white, while they spend their time telling everyone else to "think for themselves", telling people that "They don't understand". You're the ones who seem to have the biggest problem with opposing points of view...half the time you can't properly answer it, and all you can do is ATTACK the other side ASSUMING that they are rascist warhawks.

I got not one single intelligent answer to my questions and comments. All I get is attacks from you people.

I see very little intelligence in this "movement". I see very few people who have a leg to stand on with what they are saying. I see very few people offering any sort of realistic solution to this. And those that do are completely lost in the shuffle of idiocy that the masses assembled spew forth.

If I was forced to shoot someone? I'd take the afghan women over the janitor at the WTC any day. The WTC worker is a countrymen. He's one of my own. That worker could be a Afghan American himself. It has nothing to do with race, religion or anything else you assume. We need to take care of each other. And when we are threatened we need to be concerned with ourselves, not people that are facing the consequences of their government and countrymen. One could say the reverse is true about the attacks. And they'd be right. The victims of those attacks paid the price for US Government policy. Do you think any Afghan really gives a damn about that? People die at war. It's sad. But it happens. I'm not for war as much as the next person, but in this case, it's totally neccesary.

As for capitalism. While the current state of it in this country is getting ridiculous, and I believe that corporations should be limited in their powers, and their influence in government needs to be reduced, I do believe in the system. I believe in living under a system that allows me to blaze my own path, to have the freedom to choose to be a student, to choose to be jobless, or to choose to work, and have the choice of professions. I do believe in a system that rewards people for their personal accomplishments, and not one that rewards people for simply being.

That system you hate so very much gives you a CHOICE. If you don't like the Gaps use of cheap labour GIVEN TO THEM by the COMMUNIST CHINESE GOVERNMENT, then you don't buy Gap merchandise. If you don't like starbucks total domination of the coffee market, don't buy starbucks. There are alternatives everywhere. Look for them, use them. If enough people do, then the corporations get the message and follow suit themselves.

If you really hate the capitalist system, then go somewhere else. 99 out of a 100 Americans prefer it that way, so you'd be best served to move somewhere where the people see it your way. Talk to me in 10 years and tell me which is better.

I think alot of you would be best served to start listening to Rush Limbaugh, or looking into ultra conservative media. Think about how absurd they sound (and they do), and then re-examine some of the ultra-leftist drivel that is being displayed here. See some similarities? I do.

Thanks for rephrasing my question-- but how about answering it first? The problem is, you can't.

Your analogy about Bush/Osama and the Janitor makes no sense. But thanks for trying!

Try another question just to see:

Let's say we decide to pursue 'peace talks' with the Terrorists. And then next week, 10,000 people in San Francisco die of a chemical attack, and 20,000 are left sick. Then the next week in Miami, someone sets off a bomb that topples another skyscaper killing 5,000.... at what point do you consider taking some action to stop these guys..? Does it happen at 50,000 dead? 100,000? 1 Million? I just want to know at what point your threshold breaks, and you decide that enough has happened to cause us to defend our interests by smacking them back?

Or, do you allow them to accomplish their goal of erradicating American society and insituting their Authoritarian mysogynistic rule over the world?

Hint: We've asked for 2 years for them to turn over Bin Laden-- so far, no dice.

Thanks for the laugh...