Ableton Forum

Meef Chaloin wrote:Im sorry, i havent gone through this whole thread but the 100,000 deaths are the least of the worlds worries when you realise the consequences of them using depleated uranium on both the iraqi's and troops. Watch this -
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... &q=uranium

its quite shocking in places, especially when you see what the DU has done to the babies being born in iraq now. As the video says, "Iraqi women no longer ask, 'is it a boy or a girl?', they ask 'is it normal?'"

The disturbing truth that is hard to swallow.

so when Dubbaya was talking about WMD, he was actually meaning "we have some and would like to use them on somebody"

At least in Vietnam, the US could claim (who knows whether they knew or not) that they didn't know what effect Agent Orange would have. Obviously the long-term effects were devestating.

With the DU thing - the US KNOW what it's likely to do. The whole world knows (by that I mean the small demographic who actually care) about it, and yet they are still using it. They cannot claim "no prior knowledge" this time.

ya I see your point. I still think they had a good idea that agent orange would be devastating back in the day, at the time they COULD claim ignorance - and did. Now they'll just claim whatever they can GET AWAY WITH. They'll probably just come up with some bullshit to justify it at the time, have a fall guy or two, 'shame' them out of their 'careers' and that will be that (they lose their posts in government, but they are not jailed and they will be incredibly wealthy/well looked after). Rupert Murdoch's media network will air this hocus pocus, the muling idiots will keep muling. Continue with phase 4.

forge wrote:

Meef Chaloin wrote:Im sorry, i havent gone through this whole thread but the 100,000 deaths are the least of the worlds worries when you realise the consequences of them using depleated uranium on both the iraqi's and troops. Watch this -
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... &q=uranium

its quite shocking in places, especially when you see what the DU has done to the babies being born in iraq now. As the video says, "Iraqi women no longer ask, 'is it a boy or a girl?', they ask 'is it normal?'"

The disturbing truth that is hard to swallow.

so when Dubbaya was talking about WMD, he was actually meaning "we have some and would like to use them on somebody"

yes exactly, its all very much inline with the whole reverse meanings that Bush comes out with...'we're gonna improve national security' - what happends, 9/11... 'we're striving for peace and democracy' - actually they are creating fear, war and chaos through dictatorship, - 'iraq has WMD' - no its america who does & they want to test them, 'iran has nuclear bombs' - no, america has and they want to test them. He make a lot more sense when you look at the opposite of what he is saying!

But yes very worrying that they can use DU, contaminate the place for billions of years and cause babies to be born with no heads, no brains, cyclops eyes, no eyes, no arms, no legs, a heart that explodes.... and still get away with it in the name of peace and democracy. Not to mention knowingly letting their own troops be exposed, ie Gulf War Syndrome, which can actually be passed to the soldier's families, and even found in soldiers who were never deployed but were given the experimental vaccines (anthrax being one) which had never been tested on humans before. evil fuckers.

and another one - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 8365185391

again, quite graphic

djshiva wrote: the war we engaged in against the british to gain our independence would have us marked as "terrorists" by any definition...
.

"The term 'terrorism' means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience."

Nope, doesn't really fit.

pilcrow wrote:

djshiva wrote: the war we engaged in against the british to gain our independence would have us marked as "terrorists" by any definition...
.

"The term 'terrorism' means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience."

Nope, doesn't really fit.

I don't think the word terrorism was invented in 1776, but from what I've been told you didn't really follow the 'rules of war' such as they were laid out at the time. The word 'terrorist' is, IMHO, just the modern form of 'infidel' and 'barbarian'. But then that's just cos I don't think things have fundamentally changed since (and this isn't meant to be taken literally) that woman took a bite of the apple...

pilcrow wrote:

djshiva wrote: the war we engaged in against the british to gain our independence would have us marked as "terrorists" by any definition...
.

"The term 'terrorism' means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience."

Nope, doesn't really fit.

OK my dictionary says,
"The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."

I would say that's accurate, but the modern definition would include the lack of a ruling political party in power over a sovereign nation. Terrorists being an army without a country.

The French and Yugoslavians during WWII were called partisans because they where fighting against a conquering army. In this sense, the insurgents in Iraq are partisans. Calling them terrorists is stretching it a bit, if they had come out of nowhere, and the ruling government was long standing, maybe.
With the American revolution it's actually much easier to say that at the very least, the Boston Tea party was an act of terrorism. They came up with new ideas on government, and decided to break from the old.

Though really, terrorism is war against a ruling government, without much of an army to speak of. Whether people want to admit it or not, war is about killing people, men, women, children.
The other army is one of many targets at this point.

noisetonepause wrote:

pilcrow wrote:

djshiva wrote: the war we engaged in against the british to gain our independence would have us marked as "terrorists" by any definition...
.

"The term 'terrorism' means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience."

Nope, doesn't really fit.

I don't think the word terrorism was invented in 1776, but from what I've been told you didn't really follow the 'rules of war' such as they were laid out at the time. The word 'terrorist' is, IMHO, just the modern form of 'infidel' and 'barbarian'. But then that's just cos I don't think things have fundamentally changed since (and this isn't meant to be taken literally) that woman took a bite of the apple...

Well, back in the day there was a good deal of the citizen-militia, guerilla kind of thing, but the targets weren't usually noncombatants. I don't think there was much in 1776 that would be equivalent to setting off a bomb at a wedding reception.

I take terrorism to refer to a particular strategy of purposely targeting civilian noncombatants in an effort to cause "terror" and, it is hoped, weaken the will of the enemy.

But yeah, things haven't changed a bit since day one.

Machinesworking wrote:

pilcrow wrote:

djshiva wrote: the war we engaged in against the british to gain our independence would have us marked as "terrorists" by any definition...
.

"The term 'terrorism' means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience."

Nope, doesn't really fit.

OK my dictionary says,
"The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."

I would say that's accurate, but the modern definition would include the lack of a ruling political party in power over a sovereign nation. Terrorists being Pan army without a country.

The French and Yugoslavians during WWII were called partisans because they where fighting against a conquering army. In this sense, the insurgents in Iraq are partisans. Calling them terrorists is stretching it a bit, if they had come out of nowhere, and the ruling government was long standing, maybe.
With the American revolution it's actually much easier to say that at the very least, the Boston Tea party was an act of terrorism. They came up with new ideas on government, and decided to break from the old.

Though really, terrorism is war against a ruling government, without much of an army to speak of. Whether people want to admit it or not, war is about killing people, men, women, children.
The other army is one of many targets at this point.

absolutely.

People actually Buying into the media/administration's new use of buzzwords like "insurgents" and "terrorists" when you are talking about the aftermath of an invasion is pretty amazing.

It really shows that you can package and sell anything to an uninformed and ignorant public

The vietnam war taught the American ruling bodies alot about spin and the importance of wording it properly. It is okay to kill insurgents and terrorists - even if that is just another name for "father/son/brother old enough to fight against an invading enemy who has no understanding of our culture or cumstoms"

I really think anyone living in "the west" who feels it is acceptable to invade a sovereign country "for their own good" in this day and age needs to have a really good think about it.

The days of empire should be long gone by now, we've maped the human genome, people are getting a bit too intelligent to let ignorant fucks start wars in our world.

pilcrow wrote:I take terrorism to refer to a particular strategy of purposely targeting civilian noncombatants in an effort to cause "terror" and, it is hoped, weaken the will of the enemy.

So the Boston Tea Party would qualify then wouldn't it?
Also, pretty much the entirety of our dealings with the native americans would qualify, though that would probably fall under other terms like genocide and war crimes nowadays.
Basically the notion that war, and acts of aggression have somehow become less humane is simply not true. There was nothing civilized about the US calvary, or British, French, and Spanish colonialism.

Machinesworking wrote:

pilcrow wrote:I take terrorism to refer to a particular strategy of purposely targeting civilian noncombatants in an effort to cause "terror" and, it is hoped, weaken the will of the enemy.

So the Boston Tea Party would qualify then wouldn't it?
Also, pretty much the entirety of our dealings with the native americans would qualify, though that would probably fall under other terms like genocide and war crimes nowadays.
Basically the notion that war, and acts of aggression have somehow become less humane is simply not true. There was nothing civilized about the US calvary, or British, French, and Spanish colonialism.

heh. I guess if we're calling ANY act of resistance "terrorism," then sure, whatever. It's a good idea, though, to actually try to use words a bit more precisely than that. The Boston Tea Party was an act of protest against unfair taxation. No one was killed; a bunch of tea was thrown into the harbor. In fact, the next day, the protestors paid to replace the one padlock that was broken during the operation. I think most people would agree that we need different words to distinguish that sort of thing from, say, two suicide bombers killing dozens of unknown and innocent strangers at a wedding reception. yah?

Machinesworking wrote: Basically the notion that war, and acts of aggression have somehow become less humane is simply not true. There was nothing civilized about the US calvary, or British, French, and Spanish colonialism.

I don't think anyone's claiming that warfare is any more or less humane than in ages past. I'm certainly not. It's a horrific business--always has been, always will be. God help you if you tangled with Julius Caesar's legions.

But it's historically short-sighted and disingenuous to lay it all at the feet of "the west." There was nothing particularly civilized about the expansion of Arabia in the 7th century. Nothing civilized about the Rape of Nanking in 1937. etc., etc., etc.... It's been going on all over for a long time, boys.

So the USS Cole bombing wasnt terrorism?

computo wrote:So the USS Cole bombing wasnt terrorism?

I'd say it was an opportunistic strike at a military target by a group that is just as happy hitting much, much, softer nonmilitary targets--which they do with far greater frequency. Call it whatever you like.